another big thumbs up for saudi arabia and "islamic" culture

[No Limit]

If we had a competent government which respected the people who put them in power in the first place, nobody would feel the need to vote for the BNP.

Yeah, or maybe that's just an excuse to hide their true beliefs (shit, most don't even hide them). It be like me excusing voting for the KKK because I'm upset I got a speeding ticket, which seems to be what you are suggesting.

In your country the race to beat up happens to be the muslims at this perticular time. In my country it used to be black people now it's mexicans. White supremacists are doing here exactly what the BNP is doing in your country, they use the mexican immigration issue to gain legitimacy and power. And idiots all around this country play right in to it.

I point my finger at real problems. You're just inventing problems because some subconscious part of you is fundamentally insecure about singling out Islam for criticism, whether it's deserved or not.
........
If you're referring to the IRA, they ceased to be a threat decades ago. And they never posed the kind of ultimate, life-or-death, all-or-nothing threat that Islam does. It's a whole different ballgame.
It's not a case of me singling out any one group and blaming them for all of anything, I'm singling out the groups responsible for certain things. You're manufacturing threats where none exist, purely to make yourself feel better.

I'm inventing problems? How many times do I have to repeat this. You have been attacked by muslims once in your history. ONCE. Instead of dismissing this as an act of a few extremists you people blew it totally out of proportion and allowed groups such as the BNP to gain influance. Because of that kind of idiotic reaction all you are doing is creating more divisions, more hate, and eventually more violance.

There are many valid arguments that you could have made after what happened after 7/7. Such as should your country limit immigration from places such as Pakistan. Instead many of you lashed out at a native born muslim community that spent their entire lives living happily along side your culture.

You had the IRA, you have the BNP, you have white supremesists, you have crazy ass cults, you have crazy radical christians, you have your timothy mcveighs, you have your extremist anarchists, PETA, you have crazy radical muslims, as well as many other crazy ass groups. None of those are fake problems as you would suggest. But when 1 million people vote for the BNP you provide excuses. When its a case of domestic terrorism you don't think twice about it. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, which again has only hit your country once, you want to punish an entire population for it.

This is absurd. I don't even know how you can sit there and say with a straight face that every man and his dog poses equally as much threat to the UK as Islam does.

What's absurd? What you quoted I was simply explaining to you that fundamentalist christians are all over europe, you originally suggested otherwise.

You can bet he'd be at all the pro-Islam, anti-secularism marches waving militant signs.

So what you are saying you have no evidance of him being a militant, you made it up based on your prejudice?

If it's all about poverty, then how the hell do you explain why we don't have a problem with Christian terrorism and extremism, given that many if not most of the absolute poorest countries in the world hold evangelical Christian beliefs?
The common denominator is Islam. Nothing else.

There is a fair share of christian terrorism, today its not nearly to the level of muslim terrorism. Do you really need an explaination as to why that is? What do christians have to be pissed off about? Are we killing them by the millions?

You miss one crucial point. I never said that poverty in the UK is just as bad as in third world countries in Africa,

You did try to dismiss my claim of poverty in Africa by talking about how bad things are in your country. If you don't see how heartless that is, again, I can't help you.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

You are in here acting like I never lived in Europe. I was born in Poland. As I already told you over and over and over again I went to a public school in Poland, that public school was a catholic school. I know many relatives in Poland that take the bible quite literally while others don't really pay much attention to it. I will not comment on Christianity in London, but I recall someone from the UK proving you wrong about this claim, he pointed out how christian fundamentalists are all over your country in the non-urban areas.

I've stayed out of the discussion up until now, but I have to say that is quite proboaly bullshit. I live in a rural area, and I don't know anyone who even goes to church, let alone takes the bible litterly. Christ, my parents are baby boomers and they don't even believe in hell. And I know about two people my age who believe in God.

Fundamentalists here make up less than 1% of the population. I will try and find the source for this .

 

[No Limit]

I've stayed out of the discussion up until now, but I have to say that is quite proboaly bullshit. I live in a rural area, and I don't know anyone who even goes to church, let alone takes the bible litterly. Christ, my parents are baby boomers and they don't even believe in hell. And I know about two people my age who believe in God.

Fundamentalists here make up less than 1% of the population. I will try and find the source for this .

I was repeating what another member from the UK said, and what he said in the rural areas he lives in there are same pretty far out christians out there.

 

[jverne]

ok, so a party built on racism which also got 1% of the popular vote in your last election isn't an issue for you and is by no means an example of "white culture". This is the same party that has attacked your country on more than one occasion using terrorism. On the other hand one single isolated example of muslims blowing shit up in your country is an issue and a clear example of the evils of "islamic culture". Do you honestly not see the hypocracy in that? You're not a BNP member, are you?

The 40% figure is alarming, as I already told you 1,000 times in the other threads each time this is bought up. But where are the polls that asked this same question of christians? You say it would be less than 1%, but you have nothing to back that up. So again, why is this same poll not done on christians? Young earth creationists are not a rare breed, I have no clue why you would think they are. I ran in to 3 of them on a small web hosting message board the other day, this is a message board that has maybe 20 regular posters at most. Most christians that attend church at least weekly that I have talked to all believe the bible to be literal. I mentioned the article Stern posted about the little girl dying because her christian parents refused to get her treatment, you know what this guy's reply to me was? "Stay out of my family, there is a higher authority than government".

This has nothing to do with Islam being more violant than any other religion, this has to do with your prejudice brought on by the fear mongering media in your country. I used to think that the British were to be held to a much higher standard than americans intellectually. But as soon as 3 idiots blow a few buses up you freaked out in the same idiotic way americans did after 9/11.

Hasan represents your typical person blinded by religion. He is a perfect example of why christians are exactly the same as muslims. No amount of logic could change their ****ed up views. But just because they hold those ****ed up views doesn't mean most of them will go on a killing spree, obviously a few always will.

Edit: On the poverty issue I'll just let this go. If you honestly think poverty in your country is comparable to poverty in 3rd world countries there really is no sense in having this discussion with you.

but you're not really making any progress here. yes Christianity is also dumb, so? why do you have to apologize an evil with another evil.
seriously write down your complaints and stop using irrelevant arguments.

we can all agree that islam is currently more nuts than any other religion, especially since it became the worlds leading religion.

no limit seriously, you're fighting a pointless battle

 

[No Limit]

but you're not really making any progress here. yes Christianity is also dumb, so? why do you have to apologize an evil with another evil.
seriously write down your complaints and stop using irrelevant arguments.

we can all agree that islam is currently more nuts than any other religion, especially since it became the worlds leading religion.

no limit seriously, you're fighting a pointless battle

You are missing my point. I am not trying to say Chrisitanity is just as bad right now. I am trying to say that the "problem" with radical Islam has been blown way out of proportion and what people are doing is punishing an entire group because of a few idiots. If you did something like that with mexicans or black people you would rightfully so be called a racist, but for some reason it's ok if you are talking about Islam.

And if you don't think these people are grouping all Islam in as one go above and read what repiv said about hasan. As whacky as hasan is he never said anything militant or even remotely close to it, yet repiv called him a militant muslim above. If you can't see how ****ed up that is I really don't know what more I could say.

 

[Laivasse]

You are missing my point. I am not trying to say Chrisitanity is just as bad right now. I am trying to say that the "problem" with radical Islam has been blown way out of proportion and what people are doing is punishing an entire group because of a few idiots. If you did something like that with mexicans or black people you would rightfully so be called a racist, but for some reason it's ok if you are talking about Islam.

Because Islam isn't a race, it is a belief system, guided by a single 'holy' text. People can and should be criticised for what they choose to believe.

Yes, the word 'Islam' also denotes certain inoffensive Islamic culture and customs, and I'll grant that many people are simply xenophobic towards aspects of what they see as an alien cultural influence. I believe these racists to be largely irrelevant, however, when so many legitimate criticisms can be levelled at the belief system itself - although such xenophobes tend to undermine the rational debate with their ignorance.

 

[No Limit]

Because Islam isn't a race, it is a belief system, guided by a single 'holy' text. People can and should be criticised for what they choose to believe.

Yes, the word 'Islam' also denotes certain inoffensive Islamic culture and customs, and I'll grant that many people are simply xenophobic towards aspects of what they see as an alien cultural influence. I believe these racists to be largely irrelevant, however, when so many legitimate criticisms can be levelled at the belief system itself - although such xenophobes tend to undermine the rational debate with their ignorance.

What you are saying is criticism of the Islam faith is a valid thing. I am not going to dispute that as I agree with you, just like I won't dispute that criticism of christian or any other religion is valid.

But what happens in the case of Islam is that all muslims are grouped in as radical extremists as you've seen done in this thread. It might not technically be racist since like you said islam is not a race but it is on the exact same level as racism in my opinon. If you call someone a militant or a terrorist for the simple fact that they are muslim you are a racist in my book. I know jverne isn't a racist and I would never make that accusation about him but in my opinon these types of over blown generalizations of "islam culture" play right in to the racist mindset of groups such as the BNP.

Islam is an issue just like all other religion is an issue. You are not going to solve that problem by calling all muslims, many of whom are regular westerners just like you and I, savages, terrorists, or worse. You are only going to make it worse.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Islam. Isn't. A. ****ing. Race.

Its a religion. You can get white and black muslims, just as you can every other freaking religion. You cannot be racist against something that is not a race.

 

[No Limit]

Islam. Isn't. A. ****ing. Race.

Its a religion. You can get white and black muslims, just as you can every other freaking religion. You cannot be racist against something that is not a race.

Did you not read what I posted above? because I already explained this.

 

[repiV]

Jesus, the way you choose to only respond to the parts of my post that you have a convinient response for is really starting to irritate the crap out of me. As is the way you constantly misrepresent my views in every single post.

Yeah, or maybe that's just an excuse to hide their true beliefs (shit, most don't even hide them). It be like me excusing voting for the KKK because I'm upset I got a speeding ticket, which seems to be what you are suggesting.

And you have what basis for making this assumption? Zip, zilch, nada. For one so quick to throw the prejudice card around, you display an awful lot of it yourself.

In your country the race to beat up happens to be the muslims at this perticular time. In my country it used to be black people now it's mexicans. White supremacists are doing here exactly what the BNP is doing in your country, they use the mexican immigration issue to gain legitimacy and power. And idiots all around this country play right in to it.

Muslims aren't a race. Criticising Muslims is no more racist than your "conservatives are all..." rants. Indeed no more prejudiced than the treatment bikers are often given (which includes attempted murder on occassion), but I don't go whining about it.
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck - guess what? It's a duck. It's completely immaterial whether such criticisms apply to "all Muslims" or not, the fact of the matter is the Islamic "community", or whatever you want to call it, is riddled with endemic problems that are not prolific in other sections of society. The mere fact that 40% of UK Muslims support Sharia law is in and of itself all the evidence needed to draw this conclusion - you think the other 60% all fall solidly into the "totally integrated, Westernised" camp? Hardly.
As an ex-Islamic fundamentalist who is now a journalist wrote about recently, in the East End of London, extremism in mosques is the norm rather than the exception, and the vast majority of families have had members turning to fundamentalist Islam at one point or another.
And as for Britain "picking on" Muslims? You're taking the piss. We are far more tolerant of fundamentalist Islam than Turkey is ffs. And what you also fail to grasp is that if the longer we wash our hands of the problem, the worse the solution will have to be in the end. Laying down the law now, or civil war in 100 years? Appeasement never works.

I'm inventing problems? How many times do I have to repeat this. You have been attacked by muslims once in your history. ONCE. Instead of dismissing this as an act of a few extremists you people blew it totally out of proportion and allowed groups such as the BNP to gain influance. Because of that kind of idiotic reaction all you are doing is creating more divisions, more hate, and eventually more violance.

Again, you're ignoring my posts and making shit up that I never said. It isn't ABOUT the ****ing tube bombing, are you really so narrow-minded that you can't see beyond committed acts of violence to the deeper sociological problems which fester underneath?
Also, you have no IDEA how often we've been attacked by Muslims - the vast majority of terrorist plots are stopped and we never hear about them. You can bet your arse there are far more attempted terrorist attacks by Muslims than any other group.

There are many valid arguments that you could have made after what happened after 7/7. Such as should your country limit immigration from places such as Pakistan. Instead many of you lashed out at a native born muslim community that spent their entire lives living happily along side your culture.

That's not even true. The entire point is that the "Muslim community" does not sit happily here, and in any case if you move to a country and exist "alongside" its culture, rather than as a part of it, you're not an immigrant - you're a colonist.
Muslim values are in direct conflict with Western values. You'd have to be a fool to think sticking the two in the same place and expecting things to work out is anything but naive idealism, and to not stick up for your own rights and way of life is just another example of the limp-wristedness which infects our society at every level.
I've always found it quite amazing how rational atheists who talk about the "science of evolution" are completely oblivious to social evolution. Culture exists for a reason - you can't just destroy that delicate balance, and you can't have a functioning society based on rabidly opposed cultures living together.

You had the IRA, you have the BNP, you have white supremesists, you have crazy ass cults, you have crazy radical christians, you have your timothy mcveighs, you have your extremist anarchists, PETA, you have crazy radical muslims, as well as many other crazy ass groups. None of those are fake problems as you would suggest.

They're completely irrelevant when compared to the threat that Islam faces. You can't just drag up every example of a nut you can think of and say "look, this is just as bad!!!"
You do this out of a desperate need to draw equivalence between Islam and some other group lest Islam be made to look bad, yet you'll quite happily sit there and bash Christians all night long. Ridiculous.

But when 1 million people vote for the BNP you provide excuses. When its a case of domestic terrorism you don't think twice about it. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, which again has only hit your country once, you want to punish an entire population for it.

1 million people did not vote for the BNP. Not even close. And I did not provide "excuses", I provided you with a rational and entirely valid explanation for why they received the votes they did, to counter your total ignorance on the subject.
AGAIN, it isn't about the terrorism. FFS. If you actually had a point, you wouldn't need to resort to such intellectual dishonesty.

What's absurd? What you quoted I was simply explaining to you that fundamentalist christians are all over europe, you originally suggested otherwise.

And you're wrong.

So what you are saying you have no evidance of him being a militant, you made it up based on your prejudice?

No, I made a judgement based on his character. You know, as people do every day.

There is a fair share of christian terrorism, today its not nearly to the level of muslim terrorism. Do you really need an explaination as to why that is? What do christians have to be pissed off about? Are we killing them by the millions?

Oh, yeah, the old "it's all our fault" bullshit. The joke is, if that's your reasoning, what the hell are they doing living over here? Harbouring such feelings towards your country of residence is legal grounds for deportation - by your own admission, Muslims are a security risk that we cannot allow. Either that, or you're a complete lunatic who sees nothing wrong with welcoming people in only to have them blow shit up.

You did try to dismiss my claim of poverty in Africa by talking about how bad things are in your country. If you don't see how heartless that is, again, I can't help you.

No, I didn't.

 

[repiV]

What you are saying is criticism of the Islam faith is a valid thing. I am not going to dispute that as I agree with you, just like I won't dispute that criticism of christian or any other religion is valid.

This thread is and has always been about Islam and nothing but. There is no reason to be discussing any other religion here - the very fact that you saw the need to bring it up proves beyond all reasonable doubt that you don't think criticism of Islam is valid. If you thought it was you'd add your thoughts on the subject of Islam, not Christianity.

Oh, also...on the subject of "all religions being an issue", that's just hand-wringing nonsense too.
What the hell problem does Buddhism pose to anyone? I'm certainly not dogmatic enough to follow any organised belief system, but Buddhism is fantastic. I can most definitely respect it. For that matter I can't see, realistically, that Hinduism, Sikhism or Judaism have a negative influence on society either.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

J




Again, you're ignoring my posts and making shit up that I never said. It isn't ABOUT the ****ing tube bombing, are you really so narrow-minded that you can't see beyond committed acts of violence to the deeper sociological problems which fester underneath?
Also, you have no IDEA how often we've been attacked by Muslims - the vast majority of terrorist plots are stopped and we never hear about them. You can bet your arse there are far more attempted terrorist attacks by Muslims than any other group.

Actually, we do know about some of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

 

[repiV]

Actually, we do know about some of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

Indeed true, but you can be sure that for every one we do hear about, there are several dozen we don't, and many more prevented by proactive intervention.

 

[No Limit]

Actually, we do know about some of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

Lol yeah, a plot that scientists say would have been impossible to execute. More fear mongering, nothing substantial.

 

[No Limit]

Jesus, the way you choose to only respond to the parts of my post that you have a convinient response for is really starting to irritate the crap out of me. As is the way you constantly misrepresent my views in every single post.

What would you like me to respond to that I miseed? While you give me that list I'll be happy to get you a list of everything you didn't respond to.

And you have what basis for making this assumption

I am not making any assumptions, I am going based off facts. You are the one making assumptions as to why 1% voted for a bunch of racists because they are afraid of brown people. I am simply stating the fact that 1% voting for racists is a huge problem, a problem you don't seem very concerned about, in fact it is a problem you are making excuses for.

Muslims aren't a race.

Might as well be, I already talked about how they are thrown in to one extemist pile.

How many times are you going to throw that 40% number in without providing me an example of when christians were asked a similar question? There have been various unscientific polls done of far right christians that I already posted before:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_st5.htm

ChristianWebSite.com conducted a poll of their visitors. This is a conservative Protestant web site and probably most of their visitors are Fundamentalist or other Evangelical Protestants. They asked the question: "Do you believe the US Constitution calls for separation of Church and State?" Response was:

No 88.7%
Yes: 11.2?

88% of evangelicals in this country believe that church and state are the exact same thing. Therefore your suggestion that christians would poll under 1% for a similar question is absolutely insane. So I will ask you again, why has a similar poll not done on christians or any other religious groups? If you do not have a base line to judge that 40% by stop posting it, it's totally meaningless.

Again, you're ignoring my posts and making shit up that I never said. It isn't ABOUT the ****ing tube bombing, are you really so narrow-minded that you can't see beyond committed acts of violence to the deeper sociological problems which fester underneath?
Also, you have no IDEA how often we've been attacked by Muslims - the vast majority of terrorist plots are stopped and we never hear about them. You can bet your arse there are far more attempted terrorist attacks by Muslims than any other group.

There are lots of islam attacks stopped that you never hear about? have you been hanging out with karl Rove? Because Bush uses the exact same argument for staying in iraq and spying on americans. I didn't think rational people would make a similar claim. So again, you do not have anything to back this up, you are pulling this out of your ass based on your own prejudice.

I never said this is only about the tube bombings. I said you are freaking out over a religion that has attacked you once in your entire history. BNP has had more attacks against your country than muslims. And it seems the BNP is gaining group just like Islam is because of people like you that continue to excuse why people are supporting them.

Appeasement never works.

And declaring war on people that never would have hurt you other wise works perfectly. We found that out in iraq, right? Oh but I forget, in your book if you are a muslim you are going to attack, you already made that clear. Just like if you are black you don't know how to dress for court, right?

That's not even true. The entire point is that the "Muslim community" does not sit happily here

Really? Since when? Muslims have been immigrating to your country for over 50 years now, why did it become a talking point just a few years back?

They're completely irrelevant when compared to the threat that Islam faces. You can't just drag up every example of a nut you can think of and say "look, this is just as bad!!!"
You do this out of a desperate need to draw equivalence between Islam and some other group lest Islam be made to look bad, yet you'll quite happily sit there and bash Christians all night long. Ridiculous.

I bash christianity? Sure. Just like I bash all other forms of organized religion. But I don't label every christian a terrorist.

Again, this isn't about bashing Islam. It's about people like you failing to recognize that radical islam makes up a very tiny percentage of the actual islamic population, especially in the western world.

1 million people did not vote for the BNP. Not even close

You're right, my apologies. I had 1% on my mind. But I just did another search and found out something worse, in Barking London they took 16% of the vote. You keep talking about muslims in london, I never heard you mention a peep about this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4519347.stm

And you're wrong.

No, I'm not. *sticks tounge out*. we can play this stupid game all day.

No, I made a judgement based on his character. You know, as people do every day.

No, you decided to label him a terrorist because you read that he is a muslim from iraq. You have no clue about his character, your opinion of his character is based on your prejudice nothing else.

Oh, yeah, the old "it's all our fault" bullshit. The joke is, if that's your reasoning, what the hell are they doing living over here? Harbouring such feelings towards your country of residence is legal grounds for deportation - by your own admission, Muslims are a security risk that we cannot allow. Either that, or you're a complete lunatic who sees nothing wrong with welcoming people in only to have them blow shit up.

So we are in no way responsible for muslims blowing shit up? we can kill innocent people and they should just take it, right? Except when your government is giving speeding tickets, then we can't be taking that, we need to vote a bunch of racists in to power.

Oh and you are right, I'm such an anti-american asshole that needs to be deported for bringing the simple fact up that we shouldn't be killing so many innocent people. Grow up, your resort to right wing talking points is getting sad.

 

[repiV]

What would you like me to respond to that I miseed? While you give me that list I'll be happy to get you a list of everything you didn't respond to.

My list would be considerably longer than yours - as far as I'm aware, I've responded to everything you've said. You typically ignore half of my entire post each time.

I am not making any assumptions, I am going based off facts. You are the one making assumptions as to why 1% voted for a bunch of racists because they are afraid of brown people. I am simply stating the fact that 1% voting for racists is a huge problem, a problem you don't seem very concerned about, in fact it is a problem you are making excuses for.

No, you're not going based off any facts at all. The facts are that 1% of people voted for the BNP. That's all the facts are. "Because they are afraid of brown people" is not a fact in any way, shape or form, it's your assumption - and indeed, even if those votes were motivated by issues with immigration, even then it's a gross exaggeration and childish simplifcation of the issues.
As I've already pointed out, the BNP's stated policy is entirely sensible and actually rather centrist. Indeed, they state socialist positions on numerous issues. How exactly is it a fact that people would vote for the BNP because "they hate brown people" rather than because of their stated policies?
Hell, I have even known "brown people" who support the BNP.

Your arrogance is so utterly overwhelming you simply can't tell the difference between a fact and your own assumptions.

Might as well be, I already talked about how they are thrown in to one extemist pile.

I don't care what you "talked about", Muslims are not a race. All bikers regularly get thrown into one extremist pile too, does that make us a race too?
Only a couple of decades ago you were automatically a social outcast if you rode a bike, and you could expect to be barred from pubs, discriminated against in employment and generally treated like a second-class citizen.
I'm sure you'll try and ridicule me for the comparison, but bikers are every bit as much of a "race" as Muslims are. And nor am I going to deny that the negative press bikers get is often justified, as is that which is directed at Muslims.

How many times are you going to throw that 40% number in without providing me an example of when christians were asked a similar question? There have been various unscientific polls done of far right christians that I already posted before:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_st5.htm

How many more times do we have to talk about the massive differences between US Christianity and British Christianity?
And it's funny, just the other day you admitted you found the figure "alarming". Backpedalling or what...

88% of evangelicals in this country believe that church and state are the exact same thing. Therefore your suggestion that christians would poll under 1% for a similar question is absolutely insane. So I will ask you again, why has a similar poll not done on christians or any other religious groups? If you do not have a base line to judge that 40% by stop posting it, it's totally meaningless.

WTF? What would your response be if I said that "88% of Islamic extremists believe that the Houses of Parliament should be blown up?"

"No shit, they're extremists", I imagine. What the hell are you attempting to prove by posting a poll targeted specifically at extremists?

There are lots of islam attacks stopped that you never hear about? have you been hanging out with karl Rove? Because Bush uses the exact same argument for staying in iraq and spying on americans. I didn't think rational people would make a similar claim. So again, you do not have anything to back this up, you are pulling this out of your ass based on your own prejudice.

Er, no. What the hell do you think the intelligence services spend their time doing? They operate in absolute secrecy and it's their job to investigate and prevent terrorist activity which we will never, ever hear about 99% of the time. Frankly, I find it quite unbelievable that you really think we hear about it all on the news. Rational people would not be so utterly naive.

I never said this is only about the tube bombings. I said you are freaking out over a religion that has attacked you once in your entire history. BNP has had more attacks against your country than muslims. And it seems the BNP is gaining group just like Islam is because of people like you that continue to excuse why people are supporting them.

Either your vocabulary is lacking, or you can't understand the difference between "excuse" and "explain". You argued that 1% of UK voters "are violent racists who hate brown people", your evidence for this being the number of votes the BNP received.
Your argument is false, because your assumptions are false.

And declaring war on people that never would have hurt you other wise works perfectly. We found that out in iraq, right? Oh but I forget, in your book if you are a muslim you are going to attack, you already made that clear.

I never said ANYTHING of the ****ing sort. Now you're just being a vindictive asshole, stop resorting to slandering me please.

Just like if you are black you don't know how to dress for court, right?

And nor did I make that claim.

Really? Since when? Muslims have been immigrating to your country for over 50 years now, why did it become a talking point just a few years back?

Probably because they've only presented a problem for a few years, and it's only relatively recently that they have been here in such massive numbers?

I bash christianity? Sure. Just like I bash all other forms of organized religion. But I don't label every christian a terrorist.

I don't label every Muslim a terrorist, either - and I find that suggestion both insulting and an embarrassment to yourself. You're the prejudiced one here.

Again, this isn't about bashing Islam. It's about people like you failing to recognize that radical islam makes up a very tiny percentage of the actual islamic population, especially in the western world.

That depends entirely on your definition of "radical". Moreover, the "non-radical" Muslims often turn a blind eye to what goes on within their own communities because whether or not they approve of it, their loyalty is to their own first, and their country second. Tacit approval of extremism.

You're right, my apologies. I had 1% on my mind. But I just did another search and found out something worse, in Barking London they took 16% of the vote. You keep talking about muslims in london, I never heard you mention a peep about this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4519347.stm

Why would I? Read the ****ing thread title.

No, I'm not. *sticks tounge out*. we can play this stupid game all day.

Yes, you are. You do not live here, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have absolutely NO clue as to the nature of Christianity in this country and when every Brit participating in the discussion calls you on it, you refuse to accept the truth and refer to some guy whose name you can't remember who told you some hearsay crap. Classy debating tactic.

No, you decided to label him a terrorist because you read that he is a muslim from iraq.

I didn't say he was a terrorist. I said he was militant - which is very different from being a militant.

You have no clue about his character, your opinion of his character is based on your prejudice nothing else.

Funny that, seeing as how often you make prejudical judgements about my character.

So we are in no way responsible for muslims blowing shit up? we can kill innocent people and they should just take it, right? Except when your government is giving speeding tickets, then we can't be taking that, we need to vote a bunch of racists in to power.

No, we are not responsible. The very suggestion is outrageous, and the fact that you made it is evidence that subconsciously you admit that Islam is a singular culture.
Why should Muslims in the UK or anyone else be motivated to blow shit up because of a war in Iraq which has NOTHING to do with Islam?
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
Innocent people die in war. There's absolutely nothing unique about the Iraq war in that respect, in fact the death toll is extremely low for a conflict of such magnitude. That doesn't mean that terrorist attacks half way across the world are to be accepted, nor that the people involved in the war are in any way responsible for them. That's just absurd.

Oh and you are right, I'm such an anti-american asshole that needs to be deported for bringing the simple fact up that we shouldn't be killing so many innocent people.

Um, what? I don't even understand WTF you're going on about.

Grow up, your resort to right wing talking points is getting sad.

Really? What talking points are they?

You're the one who needs to grow up, I've been entirely reasonable and you simply resort to cheap shots and character assassinations whilst claiming the moral high ground. It's pathetic.

 

[jverne]

You are missing my point. I am not trying to say Chrisitanity is just as bad right now. I am trying to say that the "problem" with radical Islam has been blown way out of proportion and what people are doing is punishing an entire group because of a few idiots. If you did something like that with mexicans or black people you would rightfully so be called a racist, but for some reason it's ok if you are talking about Islam.

And if you don't think these people are grouping all Islam in as one go above and read what repiv said about hasan. As whacky as hasan is he never said anything militant or even remotely close to it, yet repiv called him a militant muslim above. If you can't see how ****ed up that is I really don't know what more I could say.

ok, islam might be getting more attention right now.

but that doesn't change the fact that in islamic countries, islamic law is strongly practiced.

explain...why does iran, saudi arabia commit public murders of gay people, wheres in Christian countries this is not so prominent?
the koran orders to kill homosexuals, the bible is not so clear about it.

the problem with islam is that it permeates ones whole life.


now, if you'd look at my previous thread "i'd choose china....", the video interviews all the spectrum of muslims and they all agreed how islamic law should be practiced.
yes, Christians also want something simmilar but read the previous paragraph on why islam is worse.

 

[Nomad]

Oh God no. Not this type of thread again. And the OP is jverne. What a freakin surprise. Dude, next time you want to be racist and rant about muslims, keep it all inside. Get a beer. Maybe a Poptart. I don't think we need hate threads in this forum. I know there always will be, but still, it really pisses me off when this happens. I'm going to say this again. I'm Muslim, and Somali too. The people who go around offing their kids because of something they made up and said is in the Qu'ran are total retards. Next time you go around being racist, check your facts. 90% of your posts are racist to muslims. Get a life.

 

[repiV]

Oh God no. Not this type of thread again. And the OP is jverne. What a freakin surprise. Dude, next time you want to be racist and rant about muslims, keep it all inside. Get a beer. Maybe a Poptart. I don't think we need hate threads in this forum. I know there always will be, but still, it really pisses me off when this happens. I'm going to say this again. I'm Muslim, and Somali too. The people who go around offing their kids because of something they made up and said is in the Qu'ran are total retards. Next time you go around being racist, check your facts. 90% of your posts are racist to muslims. Get a life.

This isn't a hate thread, nor is it a racist thread. I think you'll also find that 90% of my posts have nothing to do with Islam.
It's not my problem if you take criticism of your religion personally. You're obviously a reasonable sort, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult for you to actually examine the issues at hand instead of pretending there are none.

Oh, and I have a life. Thanks.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Look. For ****s sake.

Why can we have discussions about christianity and nobody says "oh but other religions have extremists as well", whereas whenever we want to talk about Islam some tard has to come in and say "STOP BEING RACIST YOU IMPERIALIST HITLERS, OTHER RELIGIONS HAVE EXTREMISTS TOO".

Yes. We know. Because you tell us in every single freaking thread about islam.

Next time a thread about christianity is made I'll be sure to mention that hinduism has extremists as well. Because nobody knows this of course.

 

[jverne]

Oh God no. Not this type of thread again. And the OP is jverne. What a freakin surprise. Dude, next time you want to be racist and rant about muslims, keep it all inside. Get a beer. Maybe a Poptart. I don't think we need hate threads in this forum. I know there always will be, but still, it really pisses me off when this happens. I'm going to say this again. I'm Muslim, and Somali too. The people who go around offing their kids because of something they made up and said is in the Qu'ran are total retards. Next time you go around being racist, check your facts. 90% of your posts are racist to muslims. Get a life.

first, how am i racist? if you'd watch the pat condell video, you'd see what you just did here. muslims now get the "racist" card for free, in other words you hijacked that word. islam is not a race.


maybe you are not an extremist, but you still hate homosexuals because of a fairy tale book.
if you don't then sorry, you're not a muslim, since it is clearly written in the koran gays should be murdered.





edit: lol, look at the tags

 

[No Limit]

No, you're not going based off any facts at all. The facts are that 1% of people voted for the BNP. That's all the facts are. "Because they are afraid of brown people" is not a fact in any way, shape or form, it's your assumption - and indeed, even if those votes were motivated by issues with immigration, even then it's a gross exaggeration and childish simplifcation of the issues.
As I've already pointed out, the BNP's stated policy is entirely sensible and actually rather centrist. Indeed, they state socialist positions on numerous issues. How exactly is it a fact that people would vote for the BNP because "they hate brown people" rather than because of their stated policies?
Hell, I have even known "brown people" who support the BNP.

Your arrogance is so utterly overwhelming you simply can't tell the difference between a fact and your own assumptions.

The KKKs public stated policy seems very reasonable to certain people too, what the hell does that have to do with anything? You keep saying you are not excusing the fact that 1% of people voted for these racists, yet that's exactly what you are doing. "no, you don't understand, they voted for them because the government didn't listen to our speed camera petition". It is absurd.

I don't care what you "talked about", Muslims are not a race. All bikers regularly get thrown into one extremist pile too, does that make us a race too?
Only a couple of decades ago you were automatically a social outcast if you rode a bike, and you could expect to be barred from pubs, discriminated against in employment and generally treated like a second-class citizen.
I'm sure you'll try and ridicule me for the comparison, but bikers are every bit as much of a "race" as Muslims are. And nor am I going to deny that the negative press bikers get is often justified, as is that which is directed at Muslims.

Why would I ridicule you. That's a great comparison that I never throught of. Yet in the case of bikers you know that problems come from a very small group of the biker population, right? So why do you not accept the same when it comes to muslims?

Again TECHNICALLY they are not a race. But what you are doing is equivelent of racism, sexism, etc, etc, etc. Call it whatever you want to call, it doesn't make it any less offensive.

Either your vocabulary is lacking, or you can't understand the difference between "excuse" and "explain". You argued that 1% of UK voters "are violent racists who hate brown people", your evidence for this being the number of votes the BNP received.
Your argument is false, because your assumptions are false.

My assumption is based on the fact that 1% of voters in your country voted for a bunch of racists. When I saw that I made the common sense assumption that these people are racists pricks. Your assumption that they voted for these racist pricks is that they didn't like government because of speeding tickets, that's not a valid explaination, it's an excuse.

Er, no. What the hell do you think the intelligence services spend their time doing? They operate in absolute secrecy and it's their job to investigate and prevent terrorist activity which we will never, ever hear about 99% of the time. Frankly, I find it quite unbelievable that you really think we hear about it all on the news. Rational people would not be so utterly naive.

You have no evidance to suggest other terrorist attacks have been stopped. Take the airline liquid plot. It's an absolutely unfeasible plot that the government went out of its way to give to the media. If they dealt with serious threats they would be more than happy to let everyone know. That's not to say that what you are suggesting isn't possible, but again you have asbolutely no proof. What you do know is that you were attacked ONCE.

WTF? What would your response be if I said that "88% of Islamic extremists believe that the Houses of Parliament should be blown up?"

"No shit, they're extremists", I imagine. What the hell are you attempting to prove by posting a poll targeted specifically at extremists?

Ok, great, you admit evangelical christians are extremists, we are getting some where. 14% of the voting population in 2000 identified itself as evangelical christians. In a gallup poll 25-45% of the american population consider themselves evangelical christians:

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v17n2/evangelical-demographics.html

So there you go, you have your baseline to judge that 40% figure by. I doubt it will change anything in your mind.

How many more times do we have to talk about the massive differences between US Christianity and British Christianity?
And it's funny, just the other day you admitted you found the figure "alarming". Backpedalling or what...

Did I ever claim it wasn't alarming? Lots of things are alarming, its a matter of context. And you have all the context you need, 88% of evengelical christians, 25-45% of this population, want government to be controlled by the church. In the case of muslims only 40% of your 3% population want sharia law. And you know what else is interesting, I just found this at world net daily. This 40% figure you keep bitching about only applies to young muslims between ages 16-24, from your friends at worldnetdaily:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54018

So every time you and nemesis have mentioned this figure you were misleading, it's my fault for not actually looking at the original source before buying what you were saying.

Forty percent of Muslims between aged 16 to 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in the UK, compared to only 17 percent of those over 55.

But keep alienating that young muslim population some more, I'm sure that will make things much better. :upstare:

I never said ANYTHING of the ****ing sort. Now you're just being a vindictive asshole, stop resorting to slandering me please

Then you need to do a better job explaining why you called a fellow member of this forum a terrorist (or I guess you now call it militant) simply because he happened to be muslim.

And nor did I make that claim.

Then you can explain what you did say here:
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=139506&page=5

I wont side track this thread.

Probably because they've only presented a problem for a few years, and it's only relatively recently that they have been here in such massive numbers?

you've had a "massive" (if 3% is considered massive) population of muslims since 1991 when you laxed your immigration policies. So again, why did it only become an issue a couple years ago? Because of 3 idiots that killed 52 people? That's your excuse for alienating 2 million people?

I don't label every Muslim a terrorist, either - and I find that suggestion both insulting and an embarrassment to yourself. You're the prejudiced one here.

See above. I guess I now have to quote you every time even if I address the same point above or you will cry I'm ignoring you.

That depends entirely on your definition of "radical". Moreover, the "non-radical" Muslims often turn a blind eye to what goes on within their own communities because whether or not they approve of it, their loyalty is to their own first, and their country second. Tacit approval of extremism.

My definition of radical is someone that is willing to kill for their religion. What's yours? In addition what is your definition of "turning a bling-eye"? Does every single muslim in the world have to come out and distance themselves every time some random stupid muslim does something idiotic? As a biker do you have to make a post here distancing yourself everytime a biker kills someone in this world?

Why would I? Read the ****ing thread title.

Why should you mention that 16% of a huge neighborhood in your country is filled with racists when you constantly mention the fact that you have large neighborhoods filled with extremist muslims? I don't know. Maybe something to do with context?

Yes, you are. You do not live here, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have absolutely NO clue as to the nature of Christianity in this country and when every Brit participating in the discussion calls you on it, you refuse to accept the truth and refer to some guy whose name you can't remember who told you some hearsay crap. Classy debating tactic.

I don't remember it? Did I ever say I don't remember it? Look, my memory isn't great because of my teen years but I have no problem remembering that conversation, do you really want me to dig it back up?

I didn't say he was a terrorist. I said he was militant - which is very different from being a militant.

Lol, I actually agree with you. But please, I would love for you to explain the difference to me. This is the defentition of militant that wikipedia has:

The word militant has come to refer to any individual or party displaying serious comment or engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat, usually for a cause. Journalists often use militant as a neutral term for soldiers who do not belong to an established government military organization. Typically, a militant engages in violence as part of a claimed struggle against oppression, but the word is sometimes used to describe anyone with strongly held views (e.g. militant Christian, militant atheist).

How is that different from a terrorist?

And that still doesn't change the fact that you called a member of this board a islamic militant (lets be honest here, you see no difference between islamic militant and islamic terrorist) simply for the fact that he was a muslim.

Funny that, seeing as how often you make prejudical judgements about my character.

What prejudice? Since you love to split hairs when it comes to the meanings of words dicitonary.com defines prejudice as irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. What group, race, or religion do you belong to that I am prejudice against?

Um, what? I don't even understand WTF you're going on about.

Really? What talking points are they?

You're the one who needs to grow up, I've been entirely reasonable and you simply resort to cheap shots and character assassinations whilst claiming the moral high ground. It's pathetic.

Your talking point that I should leave this country because of my views.:

Harbouring such feelings towards your country of residence is legal grounds for deportation - by your own admission,

I don't know where I admitted that but the right wing would certainly agree with you that I should be deported.

 

[Eejit]

No Limit, being militant is very different from being a militant

 

[repiV]

The KKKs public stated policy seems very reasonable to certain people too, what the hell does that have to do with anything? You keep saying you are not excusing the fact that 1% of people voted for these racists, yet that's exactly what you are doing. "no, you don't understand, they voted for them because the government didn't listen to our speed camera petition". It is absurd.

You're absurd. And I don't mean you're acting in an absurd manner either, you are absurd.
What the **** is the point in even bothering to respond to you when you don't even accept the points I put forward and when you do acknowledge what I say, simplify it to the level of argument a five year old would use?
I expected better of you, I really did.

Why would I ridicule you. That's a great comparison that I never throught of. Yet in the case of bikers you know that problems come from a very small group of the biker population, right? So why do you not accept the same when it comes to muslims?

Depends on what you define as problematic, I suppose. Almost without exception, bikers use the performance of their bikes on the public road. If you see a guy on a 1000cc sportsbike, and he isn't a poser who can't ride, you can be sure he bought it because it does 190mph. The only real division on this point is respect for urban speed limits - some people obey them and do whatever speed they want on rural roads/motorways, others use them as a guideline. The truly dangerous riders are indeed a small minority, but we're all speed freaks. That's the main attraction of bikes for most - Bugatti Veyron performance for the price of a 1.2 litre piece of shit car. I don't see a problem with that, but I'm fully aware that constitutes a cardinal sin in our speedlimit-obsessed society.
Some people just find bikes obnoxious and anti-social for the noise and the way they come out of nowhere if you aren't paying attention (like most drivers), or even threatening in groups. People definitely treat me differently when I'm in biker gear, like I might be some kind of threat to them.
This probably doesn't really apply so much to the USA, since the demographics are completely different. It's all about sportsbikes and full leathers, helmet, back protector, gloves, and boots over here, whereas in your neck of the woods people tend to jump on a Harley and pootle around (or pose on it).
In any case, when you see these OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! "bikers clocked doing speeds of up to 123mph" alarmist news pieces, the general reaction is "lol, is that all?". On a modern sportsbike you can creep up to that kind of speed without even noticing it, they're basically racing bikes with indicators, mirrors and a numberplate.
But as with anything, it's all about perception. You can't expect to be controversial without attracting controversy.

Again TECHNICALLY they are not a race. But what you are doing is equivelent of racism, sexism, etc, etc, etc. Call it whatever you want to call, it doesn't make it any less offensive.

Nobody has the right not to be offended. Racism is a taboo because you don't have any control over your race and it doesn't actually make any difference to who you are inside. It's irrational and ridiculous.
You have every choice over whether or not to follow Islam, and those beliefs partly DEFINE who you are inside. It's not akin to racism in any way, shape or form.

My assumption is based on the fact that 1% of voters in your country voted for a bunch of racists. When I saw that I made the common sense assumption that these people are racists pricks. Your assumption that they voted for these racist pricks is that they didn't like government because of speeding tickets, that's not a valid explaination, it's an excuse.

That's not a common sense assumption at all. That's like saying people vote for Hillary because she's a lying, deceitful bitch. And how can you sit there with a straight face and simplify all the points I made into "they didn't like the government because of speeding tickets"? That's just not even trying.

You have no evidance to suggest other terrorist attacks have been stopped. Take the airline liquid plot. It's an absolutely unfeasible plot that the government went out of its way to give to the media. If they dealt with serious threats they would be more than happy to let everyone know. That's not to say that what you are suggesting isn't possible, but again you have asbolutely no proof. What you do know is that you were attacked ONCE.

Your argument is akin to someone saying that you don't have any evidence that evolution occured, or that you don't know there is life on other planets because we haven't seen it.
It's not only possible, it's absolutely inevitable.

Ok, great, you admit evangelical christians are extremists, we are getting some where. 14% of the voting population in 2000 identified itself as evangelical christians. In a gallup poll 25-45% of the american population consider themselves evangelical christians:

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v17n2/evangelical-demographics.html

So there you go, you have your baseline to judge that 40% figure by. I doubt it will change anything in your mind.

Between 14% and 45%...not very accurate really, is it?

Did I ever claim it wasn't alarming? Lots of things are alarming, its a matter of context. And you have all the context you need, 88% of evengelical christians, 25-45% of this population, want government to be controlled by the church. In the case of muslims only 40% of your 3% population want sharia law. And you know what else is interesting, I just found this at world net daily. This 40% figure you keep bitching about only applies to young muslims between ages 16-24, from your friends at worldnetdaily:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54018

So every time you and nemesis have mentioned this figure you were misleading, it's my fault for not actually looking at the original source before buying what you were saying.

Hell, that's even worse then, isn't it? It proves that the situation is getting progressively more dire.

But keep alienating that young muslim population some more, I'm sure that will make things much better. :upstare:

They alienate themselves. It's not my job to accomodate them, it's their job to adapt to us.

Then you need to do a better job explaining why you called a fellow member of this forum a terrorist (or I guess you now call it militant) simply because he happened to be muslim.

I believe we've already covered this.

Then you can explain what you did say here:
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=139506&page=5

I don't need to explain it - what I said is not the same as what you claimed I said.

I wont side track this thread.

You already have, by bringing up Christianity where not relevant.

you've had a "massive" (if 3% is considered massive) population of muslims since 1991 when you laxed your immigration policies. So again, why did it only become an issue a couple years ago? Because of 3 idiots that killed 52 people? That's your excuse for alienating 2 million people?

Noone is alienating Muslims - in fact we bend over backwards to accomodate them. Many ordinary rules of social conduct do not apply to them. They alienate themselves.
And if you really want my opinion on why things are going downhill, it's because we have a culture of spinelessness and the country is run by pussies, we allow it to happen. Extremism would never have been tolerated 30 years ago - it surely existed, but not so openly as it does now.

My definition of radical is someone that is willing to kill for their religion. What's yours?

Believing in Sharia law is pretty damn radical as far as I'm concerned, that's certainly not "moderate" by any stretch of the imagination. If Muslims want to come over here to escape the oppressive, backwards culture of their home country - great. Glad to have them aboard. But that's not actually the case - generally speaking, they're coming here in order to recreate the same piece of shit society they came from in the first place.
How does that benefit us in the slightest?

In addition what is your definition of "turning a bling-eye"? Does every single muslim in the world have to come out and distance themselves every time some random stupid muslim does something idiotic?

No, but it's not a case of "some random stupid Muslim". Every time something "offends the Muslim community", there is worldwide outbreak of complaining, protests, riots and murders. Yet when Islam does something that offends the rest of the world, we hear only silence.

As a biker do you have to make a post here distancing yourself everytime a biker kills someone in this world?

We generally kill ourselves, not other people.

Why should you mention that 16% of a huge neighborhood in your country is filled with racists when you constantly mention the fact that you have large neighborhoods filled with extremist muslims? I don't know. Maybe something to do with context?

Context? No, I really don't see the relevance.

I don't remember it? Did I ever say I don't remember it? Look, my memory isn't great because of my teen years but I have no problem remembering that conversation, do you really want me to dig it back up?

The point is, you refuse to accept what we are saying for no good reason.

Lol, I actually agree with you. But please, I would love for you to explain the difference to me. This is the defentition of militant that wikipedia has:

How is that different from a terrorist?

"Militant" is generally accepted - at least over here - to mean someone that is aggressive, perhaps slightly fanatical about their course which they have an unswaying belief in. We have lots of militant eco-fascists too, but they don't go round blowing shit up.

And that still doesn't change the fact that you called a member of this board a islamic militant (lets be honest here, you see no difference between islamic militant and islamic terrorist) simply for the fact that he was a muslim.

I believe this has already been explained.

What prejudice? Since you love to split hairs when it comes to the meanings of words dicitonary.com defines prejudice as irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. What group, race, or religion do you belong to that I am prejudice against?

You're prejudiced against Christians, people with right-wing political beliefs (well, unless they're Muslim anyway - ironically there isn't much that's more right-wing than Islam) and you're prejudiced against me. You repeatedly make unfounded assumptions about me that have no basis in reality, purely because I disagree with you about certain issues.

Your talking point that I should leave this country because of my views.:

No, I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to resident non-citizens who harbour ill feeling towards the UK - which would include wanting to replace our current system of democratic government with an Islamic regime. That is grounds for deportation or refusal of a visa in the first place, and certainly you could never expect to be granted citizenship either.

I don't know where I admitted that but the right wing would certainly agree with you that I should be deported.

I wasn't referring to you anyway, as I explained. You misunderstood.

 

[Nomad]

Since this is turning into a complete and total flame war, just close the thread, mods.
Oh, and also, I wasn't directing that post at you, RepiV. I was directing it at jverne.

 

[Nemesis6]

Since this is turning into a complete and total flame war, just close the thread, mods.
Oh, and also, I wasn't directing that post at you, RepiV. I was directing it at jverne.

Let's not close a thread because some people have a vested interest in derailing it, huh? Besides, no namecalling yet, just heated debate.

 

[Kula Meenur]

No Limit, being militant is very different from being a militant

Concur


also, thread needs stern.

 

[Que-Ever]

quote wars are like the special olympics.

 

[kirovman]

quote wars are like the special olympics.

Perhaps, but breaking down large posts into managable parts is the easiest way to address all the points in a post.

 

[Nomad]

Forget it. I'm not taking sides anymore. Thread needs stern! Captain Stern! Let's try and get his attention.

 

[<RJMC>]

Forget it. I'm not taking sides anymore. Thread needs stern! Captain Stern! Let's try and get his attention.

*loud voice* hey look! a bunch of heavy christians conservatives dressed as jesus making pro iraq war propaganda!-*sterns appears in a blink of a eye*

 

[CptStern]

where's my rocket launcher/attitude adjuster!?!

Perhaps, but breaking down large posts into managable parts is the easiest way to address all the points in a post.

also allows those with short term memory of a housefly keep on track


what were we talking about? ok you can use it, just bring it back when you're done

 

[DEATH eVADER]

I guess every time some crazy christian bombs an abortion clinic I'll start a new thread with:

another big thumbs up for US and "Christian" culture.

I'll do one better and say

"another big thumbs up for Humans and the Splintered Culture"

 

[[Matt]]

Islam is the only religion where if someone does something idiotic in its name people apply it across the board to all muslims. When was the last time you saw something like this happen in the western world because of Islam?

jverne, when have you seen muslim men in the UK kill women because of something like that? If you can't name anything then lets remove UK from that list. If we remove the UK you figure out what all those countries have in common, outside of the fact that they are mostly muslim

The one thing that many Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia have in common is that religious literalism has a firm hold their governance and law making.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

another big thumbs up for US and "Christian" culture.

This is pretty bad, but it has nothing to do with Islamic cluture, it has to do with "saudi" culture.

Saudi culture is Sharia law. The same thing happens in Iran, although in comparison, they're ... limitedly ... progressive.

 

[kirovman]

I thought Saudi culture was Wasabi law.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I thought Saudi culture was Corrected: Wahhabi law.

Shariah (Arabic: شريعة transliteration: Šarīʿah) is the body of Islamic religious law. The term means "way" or "path to the water source"; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain. Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

Wahhabi law is based off of the princples of Islamic Conservatism, or the strict adherance to the Sharia, the laws which God intended man to be ruled by. Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab had envisioned a middle east with renewed interest prior to medieval influence on Islamic culture and dictated a stance that was against scientific progressionism. This is because the tennants that where conveyed by the Quran or, as Tawhid establishes, the uniqueness of God, where it derives it's ruling tennents from Sharia, aims to avoid men ruling unto themselves.

Where Sharia law is the law of the land derived from the path of the Sunnah, or Mohammeds Path, where endured a number of hardships from God as trials to prove his worth. And Wahhabi is not a law system but a an extreme form of conservatism. Remember, the House of Saud rules with Sharia Law as it's the countries governing laws that where drawn from the Sunnah, where Wahhibism is a renewed belief in Islamic Conservative that adhere's to the practise of Sharia. You thought wrong.

And Wasabi's overrated. I prefer soysauce.

 

[Andrew LB]

You can't outright prove Islam had any direct correlation with his action, only conject.

Perhaps you should study up on fundamentalist Islamic law, which clearly shows that these "honor killings" are directly related to that sect of Islam.


And some earlier posters trying to liken this to abortion clinic bombers is just insane.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Perhaps you should study up on fundamentalist Islamic law, which clearly shows that these "honor killings" are directly related to that sect of Islam.

Out of everything being discussed in this OLD thread you bring me up?

"Islamic law" or not, you still can't prove that was the motive.

 

[Andrew LB]

Out of everything being discussed in this OLD thread you bring me up?

Sorry about that. I'll refrain from things that might make me out to be the "Republican Stern".

"Islamic law" or not, you still can't prove that was the motive.

Yes, I can prove it. The killings are sanctioned under strict Islamic law. Here is a whole website dedicated to the topic.

Read: http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&catid=39