Dutch Anti-Islam Campaigner Banned From Britain

[Betty Boop]

A good decision in my opinion, keep these vile people form peddling their religious hatred. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/4582982/Controversial-anti-Muslim-MP-banned-from-the-UK-because-of-public-order-fears.html

[Woody1985]

He's gonna get fked up!

[Sylar]

His video (which I won't post here as it's extremely graphic - I couldn't get beyond 5 minutes) depicts the role of Islamic fundamentalists in the major global issues which have circulated the media in recent years.

It quotes passages from the Qur'an which insite hatred against "non-believers" and shows footage from attacks, rallies, speeches and media interviews which denounce "infidels" and insite action to neutralise Jews and Western civilisations. It also shows grizzly footage of the bombings in Madrid and London, clips of the 9/11 attacks, including a recorded phone conversation between a young woman trapped on the top floor and a 911 operative, beheadings, corpses being dragged through the streets of some Middle Eastern city being kicked and smashed.

I had to stop watching it for 2 reasons - 1, it was extremely graphic and unwatchable in places and 2, it was doing its job - I found myself getting slightly uncomfortable watching it in an angry manner.

Sadly, there will be a lot of people in the Western World who will be more than welcoming of his message.

[Betty Boop]

He is on the plane heading for Heathrow Airport, along with his media circus. :bitchy:

[hibsbollah]

Theres freedom of speech issues to take into account. As much as I find his views abhorrent, I think you're better arguing with fascists than trying to gag them.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Theres freedom of speech issues to take into account. As much as I find his views abhorrent, I think you're better arguing with fascists than trying to gag them.

Not that he or his supporters can use them...

[hibsbollah]

Not that he or his supporters can use them...

Very true. Two wrongs don't make a right though...

[Woody1985]

His video (which I won't post here as it's extremely graphic - I couldn't get beyond 5 minutes) depicts the role of Islamic fundamentalists in the major global issues which have circulated the media in recent years.

It quotes passages from the Qur'an which insite hatred against "non-believers" and shows footage from attacks, rallies, speeches and media interviews which denounce "infidels" and insite action to neutralise Jews and Western civilisations. It also shows grizzly footage of the bombings in Madrid and London, clips of the 9/11 attacks, including a recorded phone conversation between a young woman trapped on the top floor and a 911 operative, beheadings, corpses being dragged through the streets of some Middle Eastern city being kicked and smashed.

I had to stop watching it for 2 reasons - 1, it was extremely graphic and unwatchable in places and 2, it was doing its job - I found myself getting slightly uncomfortable watching it in an angry manner.

Sadly, there will be a lot of people in the Western World who will be more than welcoming of his message.

Neanderthals. No offence to any Neanderthals.

I'm guessing the next destination for attack is......

[Killiehibbie]

Does freedom of speech and movement only apply to those that the government approve of?

[hibsdaft]

i don't know about yous but i am getting seriously bored of these sort of stories, this guy is so clearly trying to make a career out of stirring **** up it would have been better to just ignore him.

instead we're going to have half a weeks media frenzy all while the world economy continues to melt.

[Woody1985]

i don't know about yous but i am getting seriously bored of these sort of stories, this guy is so clearly trying to make a career out of stirring **** up it would have been better to just ignore him.

instead we're going to have half a weeks media frenzy all while the world economy continues to melt.

Maybe the guy has a point:dunno:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Maybe the guy has a point:dunno:

You think?

I think a major question should be why Lord Pearson invited him over in the first place.

[CropleyWasGod]

You think?

I think a major question should be why Lord Pearson invited him over in the first place.

Let's not forget that he is a democratically elected member of an EU state.

All that happens in these cases is that people like him become martyrs for their cause. Denying him entry to the UK is probably exactly what he wanted...

Oh, and I won't comment on the rights and wrongs of his argument until I have seen the film. :greengrin

[Woody1985]

You think?

I think a major question should be why Lord Pearson invited him over in the first place.

Ha Ha. Succerred. :faf:

I knew you'd be here in a flash. :LOL:

[Calvin]

I won't comment on what he says until I've actually seen the film, but the notion of banning someone from this country because of their views is something I find unacceptable. Free speech is something I hold in very high regard. If they break our laws on incitement etc while they're in the country, then fair enough, they can be punished, but banning someone before they're even here is a disgrace.

[Gatecrasher]

I won't comment on what he says until I've actually seen the film, but the notion of banning someone from this country because of their views is something I find unacceptable. Free speech is something I hold in very high regard. If they break our laws on incitement etc while they're in the country, then fair enough, they can be punished, but banning someone before they're even here is a disgrace.


:agree:

while i dont agree with his views ill defend his right to have them

[LiverpoolHibs]

Ha Ha. Succerred. :faf:

I knew you'd be here in a flash. :LOL:

Yeah, I feel quite the fool now...

[LiverpoolHibs]

Let's not forget that he is a democratically elected member of an EU state.

All that happens in these cases is that people like him become martyrs for their cause. Denying him entry to the UK is probably exactly what he wanted...

Oh, and I won't comment on the rights and wrongs of his argument until I have seen the film. :greengrin

No doubt. So is Jean-Marie Le Pen, though, and I wouldn't want members of the House of Lords (particularly due to them essentially being unaccountable) inviting him to speak.

I agree entirely with your second paragraph, however.

[Ed De Gramo]

Total joke tbh....

We send him back...yet we do **** all about all the clerics who preach their hatred about Britain...whilst living in the country :bitchy::bitchy::bitchy:

How many times is Abu Hamza gonna be allowed to tell us that Britain will perish?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Total joke tbh....

We send him back...yet we do **** all about all the clerics who preach their hatred about Britain...whilst living in the country :bitchy::bitchy::bitchy:

How many times is Abu Hamza gonna be allowed to tell us that Britain will perish?

You do know he's in prison, yeah?

[Ed De Gramo]

You do know he's in prison, yeah?

I used him as an example :agree:

There's quite a few of them that are warning us of the consequences if our troops keep interfering....get them all to **** :agree:

Boot them out the country....either respect the place you live or GTF!....IMO :agree:

[GC]

You do know he's in prison, yeah?

:faf:

Beat me to it.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I used him as an example :agree:

There's quite a few of them that are warning us of the consequences if our troops keep interfering....get them all to **** :agree:

Boot them out the country....either respect the place you live or GTF!....IMO :agree:

Such as?

[Ed De Gramo]

Such as?


At UKIM's Sparkbrook Islamic Centre, in Birmingham - which PM Tony Blair has lauded for its multi-cultural activities - a preacher praised the Taliban.

He gloated over the fate of British Muslim Jabron Hashmi, who joined the British Army and was killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. "The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders," he says.



I don't know the names of preachers but it's apparent that it's going on...


Green Lane mosque says it is a centre for "interfaith communication and dialogue", welcoming people of all religions and cultures. But in front of a Muslim-only audience, Abu Usamah says that Jews and Christians were "enemies" to Muslims. He goes on to condemn the kuffaar - infidels or non-believers.

"No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person here loves the kuffaar," he rants. "We hate the kuffaar!"


But in your wee world...everything's brilliant I guess

[Ed De Gramo]

Some more bedtime reading...


He urges worshippers to discriminate against homosexuals but in a way that ensures they don't get caught. "If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?" he says. "But they'll say no, I'm not tolerant."

Women, too, are inferior in Abu Usamah's eyes. He tells his audience: "Allah has created the woman - even if she gets a PhD - deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."



Abu Usamah predicts that an army of Muslims will soon arise to wage jihad - or war - against non-believers.


Preachers spouting p!sh as far as I can see...

Oh and this all featured on Dispatches: Undercover mosques....:agree:

[hibsdaft]

Maybe the guy has a point:dunno:

maybe he does, i am not going to wait 17 minutes of my life finding out though :cool2:


I used him as an example :agree:

There's quite a few of them that are warning us of the consequences if our troops keep interfering....get them all to **** :agree:

Boot them out the country....either respect the place you live or GTF!....IMO :agree:

to be fair they banned one of these clerics youre speaking about from coming in last year, and they banned Louis Farrakhan before that.

anyway boot them where nobody will want them and if they're british citizens then their british citizens. this guy and the two ive just mentioned aren't so different rules apply (for right or wrong)

[LiverpoolHibs]

I don't know the names of preachers but it's apparent that it's going on...



But in your wee world...everything's brilliant I guess

Citations?

The Abu Usamah case is a very interesting (and complicated) one.

[Ed De Gramo]

and there's more....

British Muslim convert Omar Brooks (who was an electrician, born into a Christian family) saying stuff like...


On that occasion he told an audience of teenagers and young families that he did not want to go to Allah while sleeping in his bed “like an old woman”. Instead, he said: “I want to be blown into pieces with my hands in one place and my feet in another.”


His latest speech was at an event entitled “How can we prevent another 7/7?” and organised by a little known umbrella group called the Islamic Research Forum. It includes members of Al-Ghurabaa and the Saviour Sect, both formed from the break-up of Al-Muhajiroun, the Islamic organisation that described the September 11 terrorists as the “Magnificent 19”.



Brooks — who has previously described the London bombers as “completely praiseworthy” — identifies with the views of Mohammad Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the London attacks.

He contrasts the supposed bravery of Khan’s suicide to the “kuffar” (non-Muslims) who are characterised as debauched binge-drinkers who vomit and urinate in the street.


I see where your coming from mate....but this things like that are wrong :agree:

It's starting to look like the Dutch campaigner was banned from the country in case he offended the Muslims living here :agree:

[kollontai]

Its better to gag a fascist than to give them freedom of speach.15 million people lost their freedom of speach as they were led to the gas chambers.Why should I let a nazi say what he wants.I don't even have freedom of speach on this message board.

[BroxburnHibee]

Its better to gag a fascist than to give them freedom of speach.15 million people lost their freedom of speach as they were led to the gas chambers.Why should I let a nazi say what he wants.I don't even have freedom of speach on this message board.

And how do you work that out?

[Jonnyboy]

Its better to gag a fascist than to give them freedom of speach.15 million people lost their freedom of speach as they were led to the gas chambers.Why should I let a nazi say what he wants.I don't even have freedom of speach on this message board.

You enjoy the same freedom of speech as every other .netter. What you don't get away with is personal, abusive and foul language. Your choice

[kollontai]

I am not being allowed to say what I want on a post without being pulled up by admin.

[BroxburnHibee]

I am not being allowed to say what I want on a post without being pulled up by admin.

I'm not pulling you up for anything. I merely asked you if you could explain the above remark. Up to you whether you respond or not.

You know you posted something out of order yesterday which has been dealt with. Move on and forget about it.

The rules are there for a reason. This is a family orientated board.

[Sir David Gray]

It is indeed, a very sad day for freedom of speech, in this country.

Unlike other people on here, I watched his film today, I won't post any links to it as it is extremely graphic and pretty upsetting.

But the fact that the film is graphic and upsetting is not a reason to ban Geert Wilders from the UK. It covers terrorist atrocities that have been carried out by Islamic extremists and provides texts from the Qur'an that seemingly justify such actions.

Whilst certainly controversial, Wilders is not calling for anyone to be murdered, which is surely where the line should be drawn, regarding free speech. Are we now saying that any foreign national with a bit of controversy about them, should be denied access to the UK?

He was banned because the Government didn't want to give him a platform to air his views. If anything, by banning him, they have given Geert Wilders far more publicity than he would ever have got if he had just been allowed to visit the House of Lords, show his film, and then return to the Netherlands.

Why is it not OK to allow someone like Wilders into the country, but we welcome the likes of Ibrahim Moussawi, a man with close links to the Lebanese terrorist organisation Hezbollah (whose military wing is banned in this country), who is on record as saying that "the Jews are a lesion on the forehead of history"?

Is that not spreading "extremism, hatred and violent messages", which was the reason Jacqui Smith has given for denying access to Geert Wilders?

We also had, last month, people in this country showing support to Hamas (another banned terrorist organisation, within the UK). I may be wrong but I am not aware of anyone being arrested for displaying such support.

The reason that this man has been banned, is because the Government was terrified in case his presence caused Jihadists in this country to take to the streets with their "Behead those who insult Islam" placards. The same ones they had out a couple of years ago, when they were protesting against the cartoons of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.

Islam has become a topic that cannot be debated in public, unless the discussion paints it in a positive light. Any negative slant will only offend the violent Islamic extremists amongst us, who will call for anyone who criticises Allah, Mohammed, the Qur'an, or Islam in general, to be executed.

I was under the impression that UK Blasphemy laws either no longer existed (England & Wales) or were very unlikely to be implemented (Scotland). You can now say whatever you like about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism.

However it would seem that, in the case of Islam, laws against blasphemy are still very much in force.

[Betty Boop]

It is indeed, a very sad day for freedom of speech, in this country.

Unlike other people on here, I watched his film today, I won't post any links to it as it is extremely graphic and pretty upsetting.

But the fact that the film is graphic and upsetting is not a reason to ban Geert Wilders from the UK. It covers terrorist atrocities that have been carried out by Islamic extremists and provides texts from the Qur'an that seemingly justify such actions.

Whilst certainly controversial, Wilders is not calling for anyone to be murdered, which is surely where the line should be drawn, regarding free speech. Are we now saying that any foreign national with a bit of controversy about them, should be denied access to the UK?

He was banned because the Government didn't want to give him a platform to air his views. If anything, by banning him, they have given Geert Wilders far more publicity than he would ever have got if he had just been allowed to visit the House of Lords, show his film, and then return to the Netherlands.

Why is it not OK to allow someone like Wilders into the country, but we welcome the likes of Ibrahim Moussawi, a man with close links to the Lebanese terrorist organisation Hezbollah (whose military wing is banned in this country), who is on record as saying that "the Jews are a lesion on the forehead of history"?

Is that not spreading "extremism, hatred and violent messages", which was the reason Jacqui Smith has given for denying access to Geert Wilders?

We also had, last month, people in this country showing support to Hamas (another banned terrorist organisation, within the UK). I may be wrong but I am not aware of anyone being arrested for displaying such support.

The reason that this man has been banned, is because the Government was terrified in case his presence caused Jihadists in this country to take to the streets with their "Behead those who insult Islam" placards. The same ones they had out a couple of years ago, when they were protesting against the cartoons of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.

Islam has become a topic that cannot be debated in public, unless the discussion paints it in a positive light. Any negative slant will only offend the violent Islamic extremists amongst us, who will call for anyone who criticises Allah, Mohammed, the Qur'an, or Islam in general, to be executed.

I was under the impression that UK Blasphemy laws either no longer existed (England & Wales) or were very unlikely to be implemented (Scotland). You can now say whatever you like about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism.

However it would seem that, in the case of Islam, laws against blasphemy are still very much in force. I think you will find most people were protesting against the slaughter of innocent civilians in Gaza, rather than showing support for Hamas.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Freedom of speech is OK for these guys seemingly:confused:

[hibsbollah]

Freedom of speech is OK for these guys seemingly:confused:

Wrong, they got jailed for the slogans used at that demo. I remember thinking it was shocking judgement at the time, same as I think the Dutch MP should have been given entry as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6904622.stm

[Woody1985]

Yeah, I feel quite the fool now...

I was only winding you up.

To be honest I can't be bothered getting into a debate about this with you because you will most likely defend everything these people do and justify it by what the British / Americans have done blah blah blah.

If these guys blew themselves up on your front doorstep you'd still be saying 'poor souls, someone drove them to this' etc etc.

[Woody1985]

It is indeed, a very sad day for freedom of speech, in this country.

Unlike other people on here, I watched his film today, I won't post any links to it as it is extremely graphic and pretty upsetting.

But the fact that the film is graphic and upsetting is not a reason to ban Geert Wilders from the UK. It covers terrorist atrocities that have been carried out by Islamic extremists and provides texts from the Qur'an that seemingly justify such actions.

Whilst certainly controversial, Wilders is not calling for anyone to be murdered, which is surely where the line should be drawn, regarding free speech. Are we now saying that any foreign national with a bit of controversy about them, should be denied access to the UK?

He was banned because the Government didn't want to give him a platform to air his views. If anything, by banning him, they have given Geert Wilders far more publicity than he would ever have got if he had just been allowed to visit the House of Lords, show his film, and then return to the Netherlands.

Why is it not OK to allow someone like Wilders into the country, but we welcome the likes of Ibrahim Moussawi, a man with close links to the Lebanese terrorist organisation Hezbollah (whose military wing is banned in this country), who is on record as saying that "the Jews are a lesion on the forehead of history"?

Is that not spreading "extremism, hatred and violent messages", which was the reason Jacqui Smith has given for denying access to Geert Wilders?

We also had, last month, people in this country showing support to Hamas (another banned terrorist organisation, within the UK). I may be wrong but I am not aware of anyone being arrested for displaying such support.

The reason that this man has been banned, is because the Government was terrified in case his presence caused Jihadists in this country to take to the streets with their "Behead those who insult Islam" placards. The same ones they had out a couple of years ago, when they were protesting against the cartoons of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.

Islam has become a topic that cannot be debated in public, unless the discussion paints it in a positive light. Any negative slant will only offend the violent Islamic extremists amongst us, who will call for anyone who criticises Allah, Mohammed, the Qur'an, or Islam in general, to be executed.

I was under the impression that UK Blasphemy laws either no longer existed (England & Wales) or were very unlikely to be implemented (Scotland). You can now say whatever you like about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism.

However it would seem that, in the case of Islam, laws against blasphemy are still very much in force.


:top marks

[Lucius Apuleius]

Wrong, they got jailed for the slogans used at that demo. I remember thinking it was shocking judgement at the time, same as I think the Dutch MP should have been given entry as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6904622.stm

How long were they jailed for?

[hibsbollah]

How long were they jailed for?

6 years each. I don't support their point of view, but as someone else said I support their right to hold that view. Some rapists and murderers get shorter sentences than that.

[Mon Dieu4]

I thought he was great in Blazing Saddles :agree:

[Betty Boop]

Jeez Kollontai didnae last long!:rolleyes:

[gringojoe]

Jeez Kollontai didnae last long!:rolleyes:


Whats the odds all the girls say that about him?

[Billie Jo]

Whats the odds all the girls say that about him?

Haha, I think its that Moat guy fi the bounce.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Jeez Kollontai didnae last long!:rolleyes:

I hereby put forth a motion for the reinstatement of Comrade Kollontai with the threat of Strike action. Flying Pickets, Sit-Ins, Occupations, Slow Downs, the whole shebang

ONE OUT, ALL OUT!






*Only Joking Mods. :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

I hereby put forth a motion for the reinstatement of Comrade Kollontai with the threat of Strike action. Flying Pickets, Sit-Ins, Occupations, Slow Downs, the whole shebang

ONE OUT, ALL OUT!






*Only Joking Mods. :greengrin :agree: :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

She's in the salt mines. A period of revolutionary reeducation will do her the world of good:agree:

[Betty Boop]

She's in the salt mines. A period of revolutionary reeducation will do her the world of good:agree:How do you know Kollantai is/was a she? :confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

How do you know Kollantai is/was a she? :confused:

Alexandra Kollontai was, it aint an unreasonable assumption. :wink:

[Betty Boop]

Alexandra Kollontai was, it aint an unreasonable assumption. :wink:
Maybe he/she agreed with her views on free love. :greengrin

[--------]

She's in the salt mines. A period of revolutionary reeducation will do her the world of good:agree:


This the lady?

http://www.marxists.org/chinese/AlexandraKollontai_01.jpg

You know, this is worrying.

Stalin himself didn't purge her in the 30's, but our admins send her to the salt-mines?

Who's next? :paranoid:

[Chez]

Haha, I think its that Moat guy fi the bounce.

:agree: He is Moaty - disnae half post a lot of crap :yawn:

[humins]

It is indeed, a very sad day for freedom of speech, in this country.

Unlike other people on here, I watched his film today, I won't post any links to it as it is extremely graphic and pretty upsetting.

But the fact that the film is graphic and upsetting is not a reason to ban Geert Wilders from the UK. It covers terrorist atrocities that have been carried out by Islamic extremists and provides texts from the Qur'an that seemingly justify such actions.

Whilst certainly controversial, Wilders is not calling for anyone to be murdered, which is surely where the line should be drawn, regarding free speech. Are we now saying that any foreign national with a bit of controversy about them, should be denied access to the UK?

He was banned because the Government didn't want to give him a platform to air his views. If anything, by banning him, they have given Geert Wilders far more publicity than he would ever have got if he had just been allowed to visit the House of Lords, show his film, and then return to the Netherlands.

Why is it not OK to allow someone like Wilders into the country, but we welcome the likes of Ibrahim Moussawi, a man with close links to the Lebanese terrorist organisation Hezbollah (whose military wing is banned in this country), who is on record as saying that "the Jews are a lesion on the forehead of history"?

Is that not spreading "extremism, hatred and violent messages", which was the reason Jacqui Smith has given for denying access to Geert Wilders?

We also had, last month, people in this country showing support to Hamas (another banned terrorist organisation, within the UK). I may be wrong but I am not aware of anyone being arrested for displaying such support.

The reason that this man has been banned, is because the Government was terrified in case his presence caused Jihadists in this country to take to the streets with their "Behead those who insult Islam" placards. The same ones they had out a couple of years ago, when they were protesting against the cartoons of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.

Islam has become a topic that cannot be debated in public, unless the discussion paints it in a positive light. Any negative slant will only offend the violent Islamic extremists amongst us, who will call for anyone who criticises Allah, Mohammed, the Qur'an, or Islam in general, to be executed.

I was under the impression that UK Blasphemy laws either no longer existed (England & Wales) or were very unlikely to be implemented (Scotland). You can now say whatever you like about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism.

However it would seem that, in the case of Islam, laws against blasphemy are still very much in force.

:top marksa sensible balanced statement, bound to annoy the fundamentalists on all sides, imagine questioning mob/religious rule & the hate the other side because they hate you mentality, where do think you are.. in a democracy?

[Hibrandenburg]

It is indeed, a very sad day for freedom of speech, in this country.

Unlike other people on here, I watched his film today, I won't post any links to it as it is extremely graphic and pretty upsetting.

But the fact that the film is graphic and upsetting is not a reason to ban Geert Wilders from the UK. It covers terrorist atrocities that have been carried out by Islamic extremists and provides texts from the Qur'an that seemingly justify such actions.

Whilst certainly controversial, Wilders is not calling for anyone to be murdered, which is surely where the line should be drawn, regarding free speech. Are we now saying that any foreign national with a bit of controversy about them, should be denied access to the UK?

He was banned because the Government didn't want to give him a platform to air his views. If anything, by banning him, they have given Geert Wilders far more publicity than he would ever have got if he had just been allowed to visit the House of Lords, show his film, and then return to the Netherlands.

Why is it not OK to allow someone like Wilders into the country, but we welcome the likes of Ibrahim Moussawi, a man with close links to the Lebanese terrorist organisation Hezbollah (whose military wing is banned in this country), who is on record as saying that "the Jews are a lesion on the forehead of history"?

Is that not spreading "extremism, hatred and violent messages", which was the reason Jacqui Smith has given for denying access to Geert Wilders?

We also had, last month, people in this country showing support to Hamas (another banned terrorist organisation, within the UK). I may be wrong but I am not aware of anyone being arrested for displaying such support.

The reason that this man has been banned, is because the Government was terrified in case his presence caused Jihadists in this country to take to the streets with their "Behead those who insult Islam" placards. The same ones they had out a couple of years ago, when they were protesting against the cartoons of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.

Islam has become a topic that cannot be debated in public, unless the discussion paints it in a positive light. Any negative slant will only offend the violent Islamic extremists amongst us, who will call for anyone who criticises Allah, Mohammed, the Qur'an, or Islam in general, to be executed.

I was under the impression that UK Blasphemy laws either no longer existed (England & Wales) or were very unlikely to be implemented (Scotland). You can now say whatever you like about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism.

However it would seem that, in the case of Islam, laws against blasphemy are still very much in force.

:top marks

Sometimes the truth hurts. Michael Moore has edited films using facts to put his take on them on several anti government subjects. What Wilders has done is not really that different IMO.

Extreme Islamists are the new Nazis.

[Betty Boop]

:agree: He is Moaty - disnae half post a lot of crap :yawn:
Knew it! :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

I think you will find most people were protesting against the slaughter of innocent civilians in Gaza, rather than showing support for Hamas.

Most people were simply protesting at the war in Gaza, I totally agree.

However, take a look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OgBq_qi1M&feature=related) speech, from a major rally in London and listen to the huge roar of approval the guy gets when he mentions Hamas. Fast forward to around 1:20. :bitchy:

It's one thing to stand together with the Palestinian people and something very different to show support to a proscribed terrorist organisation. I stand by my original claim that it's now apparently more acceptable, in Britain, to show solidarity with terrorists than it is to publicly criticise Islam.

I don't want this to turn into a discussion on the Middle East as there's already been a huge debate on that very recently, but I think it was worth pointing out.


top marks

Sometimes the truth hurts. Michael Moore has edited films using facts to put his take on them on several anti government subjects. What Wilders has done is not really that different IMO.

Extreme Islamists are the new Nazis.

:agree: Yep, I think that's a fair comparison. It's spreading and growing, especially amongst young Muslims. They are becoming more and more radical and their sole aim is to conquer the world and make it completely Islamic and those that don't want to follow their way of life, had better watch out. Some people laugh when you tell them that, but it's true.

I would say it's only a matter of time before we see another terrorist attack on UK soil. Only this time, it may be a whole lot more than 52 lives that are lost.

[hibsbollah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups
What is a 'proscribed' terrorist organisation anyway? and proscribed by whom? Most of the world (and all UN members if you take away the USA and UK) would 'proscribe' Israel as state terrorists. Hamas are a democratically elected body who would probably describe themselves as 'freedom fighters'. William Wallace was probably 'proscribed' a terrorist or similar by Edward I, does that mean anything? Are Tony Blair and George Bush terrorists? or democrats? 'Democrats' if you take the Greek translation demos (people) kratos (power) actually refers to a form of anarchism, or the masses rising up against their masters (if you take women and slaves out of the equation). Very different from having to choose between voting for two or three virtual identical political parties, which is how we use the word today.

Some people describe 'terrorists' as those who target civilians, as opposed to armies, who supposedly don't. But this is totally bogus; targeting civilians to bring down an enemy Govt is a widespread military tactic used since WW2 and arguably well before (Bomber Harris in Dresden, Hiroshima, 9/11, William Wallace massacring the people of York etc etc the list goes on).

The problem with modern politics is that words have really stopped meaning anything.

[Betty Boop]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription)
What is a 'proscribed' terrorist organisation anyway? and proscribed by whom? Most of the world (and all UN members if you take away the USA and UK) would 'proscribe' Israel as state terrorists. Hamas are a democratically elected body who would probably describe themselves as 'freedom fighters'. William Wallace was probably 'proscribed' a terrorist or similar by Edward I, does that mean anything? Are Tony Blair and George Bush terrorists? or democrats? 'Democrats' if you take the Greek translation demos (people) kratos (power) actually refers to a form of anarchism, or the masses rising up against their masters (if you take women and slaves out of the equation). Very different from having to choose between voting for two or three virtual identical political parties, which is how we use the word today.

Some people describe 'terrorists' as those who target civilians, as opposed to armies, who supposedly don't. But this is totally bogus; targeting civilians to bring down an enemy Govt is a widespread military tactic used since WW2 and arguably well before (Bomber Harris in Dresden, Hiroshima, 9/11, William Wallace massacring the people of York etc etc the list goes on).

The problem with modern politics is that words have really stopped meaning anything. Indeed Nelson Mandela was only taken off the USA's terrorist list in July last year.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The problem with modern politics is that words have really stopped meaning anything.

Absolutely. It's a continuation (or general slide) of everything Orwell was arguing in Politics and the English Language.

"Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely...

The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house...

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them[...]But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation."

[hibsbollah]

Absolutely. It's a continuation (or general slide) of everything Orwell was arguing in Politics and the English Language.

"Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely...

The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house...

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them[...]But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation."

I've never seen that before. Brilliant, I wish we had Orwell around today:agree:

[superbam]

He should have been let in - he has been given a bigger platform for his bigoted pish due to the brouhaha surrounding him not being let in to the UK, now everyone is watching his *****y film.

Ironic that someone who wants to have the Qu'ran banned in Holland is now so concerned about freedom of speech :hmmm:

[Woody1985]

He should have been let in - he has been given a bigger platform for his bigoted pish due to the brouhaha surrounding him not being let in to the UK, now everyone is watching his *****y film.

Ironic that someone who wants to have the Qu'ran banned in Holland is now so concerned about freedom of speech :hmmm:

Is he telling people that because they don't believe in what he does then they are worthless and deserve to die?

[camthebam]

My 1st response is : Daily Mail scare mongering p'sh.

My 2nd response is : Nu Labour have gone totallitarian in a way I doubt even Orwell would have predicted. Och.

My heartfelt response after a bit : GW might just be right. I'm of the opinion that Islam is a murderous religion. Their book is bloodthirsty. Aye, the Old Testament might be too. Let's denounce chritianity while we're at it. But credit where credit's due, they've kinda stopped the indiscriminate murders.

How long before a caliphate takes shape in Britain? Does that sentence make me an intollerant racist? Or someone who doesn't want my son being beheaded for drinking alcohol or my niece being slaughtered for listening to music? I know plenty decent Muslims but Islamism is startying to scare me.

I'm off the opinion that it needs to be discussed intellectually, which means non pc, before it's too late. I'm not alone.

[Woody1985]

My 1st response is : Daily Mail scare mongering p'sh.

My 2nd response is : Nu Labour have gone totallitarian in a way I doubt even Orwell would have predicted. Och.

My heartfelt response after a bit : GW might just be right. I'm of the opinion that Islam is a murderous religion. Their book is bloodthirsty. Aye, the Old Testament might be too. Let's denounce chritianity while we're at it. But credit where credit's due, they've kinda stopped the indiscriminate murders.

How long before a caliphate takes shape in Britain? Does that sentence make me an intollerant racist? Or someone who doesn't want my son being beheaded for drinking alcohol or my niece being slaughtered for listening to music? I know plenty decent Muslims but Islamism is startying to scare me.

I'm off the opinion that it needs to be discussed intellectually, which means non pc, before it's too late. I'm not alone.

I think it's already too late.

Not one politician has the balls to take the issues head on for a couple of reasons:

1. They'll be branded racist / intollerent.
2. They're too scared to oppose Islamists for fear of injury or death. Which to me sums up these Islamist (apologies if this is not the plural of Islamism).

This country is now too scared to oppose any Islamic views for fear of retaliation.

That is in line with the Nazi's and the KKK as far as I'm concerned. I wish they would all blow themselves up together and go and get their 100 virgins or whatever it is they want.

[camthebam]

I think it's already too late.

Not one politician has the balls to take the issues head on for a couple of reasons:

1. They'll be branded racist / intollerent.
2. They're too scared to oppose Islamists for fear of injury or death. Which to me sums up these Islamist (apologies if this is not the plural of Islamism).

This country is now too scared to oppose any Islamic views for fear of retaliation.

That is in line with the Nazi's and the KKK as far as I'm concerned. I wish they would all blow themselves up together and go and get their 100 virgins or whatever it is they want.

Interesting.

I'm no racist. Tires me to say I'm not. But I think you're probably right.

Badmouth those new racist f#cks? Then you're a racist Woody!!
Badmouth a Muslim? Then, why hell, you're an infidel!!

Actually, I am an infidel. Probably an agnostic, actually. Stone me. My life system only stretches far enough to love and support children and to love women.

I should, really, be be-headed. I'm a bad-un, huh? I mean, loving women? And music? Gone with my head. Pah.

[Storar]

You do know he's in prison, yeah?

:hilarious

[Woody1985]

Interesting.

I'm no racist. Tires me to say I'm not. But I think you're probably right.

Badmouth those new racist f#cks? Then you're a racist Woody!!
Badmouth a Muslim? Then, why hell, you're an infidel!!

Actually, I am an infidel. Probably an agnostic, actually. Stone me. My life system only stretches far enough to love and support children and to love women.

I should, really, be be-headed. I'm a bad-un, huh? I mean, loving women? And music? Gone with my head. Pah.

I'm not racist but I oppose the views that some of the people who believe in Islam have.

My aunt was married to a guy from Pakistan and I have two cousins who are of Pakistani decent (he actually taught me the rules of Cricket :boo hoo: and I actually started to appreciate it a bit more than just a game of rounders!).

My uncle, as I used to call him before they split up, is Muslim but he never lived permanently in Pakistan because of the kind of sht that goes on there and doesn't follow the religion strictly ie he still ate Halal but doesn't prescribe to all of the other sht that goes with it.

His mother and father who are millionaires wrote him out of their will because he was with a white woman....

Their first child was a daugther and the family never took any interest in her as they're not seen as valuable as boys. They had a second child, a boy. Guess who came crawling out the woodwork.... My aunt told them to GTF and they weren't getting to see either of them because of the way the treated Abbey (the girl). They even said that they'd put them in the will :faf: , my aunt still said GTF cos she wasn't interested in their money and only wanted them to know their grandparents. They're now old enough to make their own decisions and occassionally see their grandparents.

The moral of the story is that these people are extremely prejudice and racist. The stuff we hear about Islamist wanting to merge with our society is BS. They simply want everyone to follow their way of life. Before anyone jumps on me I know that anyone can be racist/prejudice but this is even more prominent in their society than it is ours.

My aunts ex has said the above to me and I value his opinion and thoughts on this more than some of the people on here and in society who are so far to the left that it will be them who eventually allow this country to get to the stage of civil war. Maybe not now, but in 30/50 years when the population becomes more evenly matched in terms of beliefs. God help us if there was a Muslim prime minister and law makers. Goodbye all the freedom etc that LiverpoolHibs and the like continually try to uphold.

[camthebam]

I'm not racist but I oppose the views that some of the people who believe in Islam have.

My aunt was married to a guy from Pakistan and I have two cousins who are of Pakistani decent (he actually taught me the rules of Cricket :boo hoo: and I actually started to appreciate it a bit more than just a game of rounders!).

My uncle, as I used to call him before they split up, is Muslim but he never lived permanently in Pakistan because of the kind of sht that goes on there and doesn't follow the religion strictly ie he still ate Halal but doesn't prescribe to all of the other sht that goes with it.

His mother and father who are millionaires wrote him out of their will because he was with a white woman....

Their first child was a daugther and the family never took any interest in her as they're not seen as valuable as boys. They had a second child, a boy. Guess who came crawling out the woodwork.... My aunt told them to GTF and they weren't getting to see either of them because of the way the treated Abbey (the girl). They even said that they'd put them in the will :faf: , my aunt still said GTF cos she wasn't interested in their money and only wanted them to know their grandparents. They're now old enough to make their own decisions and occassionally see their grandparents.

The moral of the story is that these people are extremely prejudice and racist. The stuff we hear about Islamist wanting to merge with our society is BS. They simply want everyone to follow their way of life. Before anyone jumps on me I know that anyone can be racist/prejudice but this is even more prominent in their society than it is ours.

My aunts ex has said the above to me and I value his opinion and thoughts on this more than some of the people on here and in society who are so far to the left that it will be them who eventually allow this country to get to the stage of civil war. Maybe not now, but in 30/50 years when the population becomes more evenly matched in terms of beliefs. God help us if there was a Muslim prime minister and law makers. Goodbye all the freedom etc that LiverpoolHibs and the like continually try to uphold.

You racist f#ck! :wink:

Hard to argue mate. I hate the BNP. But I'm starting to want to kill Islam. And me a pacifist. It's going to be an intersting 100 years. I think I'll just buy my son a gun.

Your reply is the best I've read within many years by the way dude. Thanks for that.

[Betty Boop]

You racist f#ck! :wink:

Hard to argue mate. I hate the BNP. But I'm starting to want to kill Islam. And me a pacifist. It's going to be an intersting 100 years. I think I'll just buy my son a gun.
Your reply is the best I've read within many years by the way dude. Thanks for that. You sound like a really tolerant person. :bitchy:

[Hibrandenburg]

You sound like a really tolerant person. :bitchy:

Whilst I agree the remark in question was OTT I have to agree with a lot that's being said. Why should we tolerate the most intolerant people there are. I compared Islam and the Nazis in another post and the similarities are there.

[Sir David Gray]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/securit...scribed-groups
What is a 'proscribed' terrorist organisation anyway? and proscribed by whom? Most of the world (and all UN members if you take away the USA and UK) would 'proscribe' Israel as state terrorists. Hamas are a democratically elected body who would probably describe themselves as 'freedom fighters'.

The British Government 'proscribes' Hamas as a terrorist organisation. For that reason alone, showing support to Hamas is illegal in the UK and the fact that they are an elected government is irrelevant. Even their fellow Palestinians (Fatah) don't have any time for them, so why should it be acceptable for them to get support in the UK?

As soon as the guy in that video made that comment, he should have been arrested and charged under the Terrorism Act 2000. The fact that he wasn't, speaks volumes.


Whilst I agree the remark in question was OTT I have to agree with a lot that's being said. Why should we tolerate the most intolerant people there are. I compared Islam and the Nazis in another post and the similarities are there.

:agree: Perhaps camthebam's wording of "killing" Islam was out of place, but I know what he meant. It is not Muslims that I have a problem with, but I do have a problem with certain aspects of the Islamic faith and I don't believe that those aspects, have a place in Britain.

[The Green Goblin]

My heartfelt response after a bit : GW might just be right. I'm of the opinion that Islam is a murderous religion. Their book is bloodthirsty. Aye, the Old Testament might be too. Let's denounce chritianity while we're at it. But credit where credit's due, they've kinda stopped the indiscriminate murders.

`They` haven`t really though Cam, if you consider the countless civilian dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. Taking your words `indiscriminate murders`, I would point out that on the first night of the 2003 Gulf War attack on Baghdad, the U.S fired just under 5700 cruise missiles directly into Baghdad city in a single night.

If you then recall that G W Bush is on record as saying that God told him to invade Iraq, whilst Tony Blair is on record as saying `only God can judge me on Iraq`, then there`s a pretty strong argument that the Christian element in power in the world haven`t stopped their indiscriminate murders.

It`s just that because someone pushed a button to launch the missile which killed all these countless numbers of people, somehow that makes them `accidents`, `collateral`, and so on.

But never murders.

Oh Goodness me no. That`s something only suicidal religious lunatics do when they strap themselves with explosives. When we kill people, and `we` have killed them by the tens of thousands over the last 6 years, it`s unintentional, so that`s okay, or at least justifiable.

They all have blood on their hands, these people who kill civilians, in any circumstances, and for whatever religion, Islam, Christianity, Judeism - it doesn`t matter. They re all indiscriminate murderers, clinging to their own beliefs as a justification for committing atrocities and crimes against their own faiths and humanity.

GG

[LiverpoolHibs]

The British Government 'proscribes' Hamas as a terrorist organisation. For that reason alone, showing support to Hamas is illegal in the UK and the fact that they are an elected government is irrelevant. Even their fellow Palestinians (Fatah) don't have any time for them, so why should it be acceptable for them to get support in the UK?

Their fellow Palestinians elected them as their governing body.

Also, it's pretty lazy to categorise Palestinians as either Hamas or Fatah.

As much as I'd like to see a united, secular, left-wing force in Palestine to resist future Israeli aggression, the PLO (and Fatah in particular) have shown themselves to be little other than self-serving and corrupt. More than happy kowtowing to the Israeli's and the US and more interested in lining their own pockets than providing a voice to ordinary Palestinians.

[hibsbollah]

The British Government 'proscribes' Hamas as a terrorist organisation. For that reason alone, showing support to Hamas is illegal in the UK and the fact that they are an elected government is irrelevant. Even their fellow Palestinians (Fatah) don't have any time for them, so why should it be acceptable for them to get support in the UK?


I know it is the British Govt who proscribes them terrorists (which is why I posted the link to the Home Office website). My earlier question was a rhetorical one; think about why the proscribing is happening, and how universal this proscribing should be considered. I am content to debate with you the rights and wrongs of particular organisations, I just think that because one particular elected Govt proscribs an organisation as 'terrorist' should be irrelevant to an objective judgement of that organisation. There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism, therefore it is all just semantics to me.

Judge people and Governments on their actions.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Neanderthals. No offence to any Neanderthals.

I'm guessing the next destination for attack is......

I thought it was spelled N-e-t-h-e-r-l-a-n-d-s.

[Woody1985]

I thought it was spelled N-e-t-h-e-r-l-a-n-d-s.

No, I was clear about who I was referring to as per my quote on that comment.

Making a video about what these **** have done is not comparable with what they have done.

You could say it causes devide, right wing politics, whatever you want really but the guy isn't going around blowing people up and telling them the have no right to live because they don't believe in their god.

[LiverpoolHibs]

No, I was clear about who I was referring to as per my quote on that comment.

Making a video about what these **** have done is not comparable with what they have done.

You could say it causes devide, right wing politics, whatever you want really but the guy isn't going around blowing people up and telling them the have no right to live because they don't believe in their god.

Out of interest, would you (or FalkirkHibee) feel the same about a film with the more 'fire and brimstone' passages of the Old Testament interspersed with images of carnage death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan caused by Christians such as Bush, Blair, Obama, Cheney and Reid? Or violent imagery from the Torah interspersed with images of indiscriminate Israeli attacks on Palestinians?

Or are they just easier to ignore?

[Woody1985]

Out of interest, would you (or FalkirkHibee) feel the same about a film with the more 'fire and brimstone' passages of the Old Testament interspersed with images of carnage death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan caused by Christians such as Bush, Blair, Obama, Cheney and Reid? Or violent imagery from the Torah interspersed with images of indiscriminate Israeli attacks on Palestinians?

Or are they just easier to ignore?

Where have I ignored those issues? The thread title is as follows; Dutch Anti-Islam Campaigner Banned From Britain (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=142859). I have been discussing those issues. I appreciate that people deviate from time to time.

However, you'll see that only over the last few posts that these issues have been brought up. My last post before the one you quoted was before the points you've raised, and TBH I hadn't read. I only responded to the one Filled Rolls replied to me.

On the above issues however, I do agree that the atrocities we have caused are ridiculous to say the least and have no doubt caused more hatred towards our country/countries.

At the same time though, who else is going to try and snuff out this extreme form of Islam? It certainly won't be an Islamic countries leaders for fear of being killed.

I don't think there will ever be a way to snuff out these extremist but I do think that we need to find a way of containing it and educating these people when they are young that the west and non Islamists are not the enemy. I suspect this will never happen and don't pretend to know the answer.

I do believe that these Islamist will one day get their wish to be the dominant religion within society and IMO that will be a sad day for the world (providing there hasn't been a nuclear war beforehand).

[LiverpoolHibs]

Where have I ignored those issues? The thread title is as follows; Dutch Anti-Islam Campaigner Banned From Britain (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=142859). I have been discussing those issues. I appreciate that people deviate from time to time.

I didn't say you ignored them, I just asked if they were easier to ignore. Which I have no doubt that they are. Hierarchies of people have, arguably, never been so apparent.


However, you'll see that only over the last few posts that these issues have been brought up. My last post before the one you quoted was before the points you've raised, and TBH I hadn't read. I only responded to the one Filled Rolls replied to me.

On the above issues however, I do agree that the atrocities we have caused are ridiculous to say the least and have no doubt caused more hatred towards our country/countries.

Ridiculous is a very interesting choice of word. Utterly lacking in any sort of moral repugnance or repudiation. Funny that.


At the same time though, who else is going to try and snuff out this extreme form of Islam? It certainly won't be an Islamic countries leaders for fear of being killed.

What do you mean by an Islamic country? A country with an Islamic majority or a country with an Islamist (which you seem to be using interchangeably with Islamic despite the massive difference) agenda? Islamic countries have been at the forefront of misguided attempts to eradicate Islamism. Increasing support for it through their efforts.


I don't think there will ever be a way to snuff out these extremist but I do think that we need to find a way of containing it and educating these people when they are young that the west and non Islamists are not the enemy. I suspect this will never happen and don't pretend to know the answer.

'We' need to educate 'them', eh? The white man's burden is never over...

It's difficult to prove your not the enemy when you're dropping thousand of tonnes of bombs on people's towns and villages and torturing their brothers and sisters. Or arming one of the most vicious and aggressive nations in the history of the world.


I do believe that these Islamist will one day get their wish to be the dominant religion within society and IMO that will be a sad day for the world (providing there hasn't been a nuclear war beforehand).

I'm utterly confident that they won't. I wouldn't worry if I were you.

[Woody1985]

I didn't say you ignored them, I just asked if they were easier to ignore. Which I have no doubt that they are. Hierarchies of people have, arguably, never been so apparent.
.

Well why are you asking? :confused:

People find it easier to ignore things that aren't right in front of them, human nature.



Ridiculous is a very interesting choice of word. Utterly lacking in any sort of moral repugnance or repudiation. Funny that.


I said ridiculous to say the least....

Anyway, I think you're looking far too far into that specific word :confused:. Do you have some kind of agenda or something you want to say?

I'm not an :asshole: and know what you are getting at. Too busy pussy footing around as usual.



What do you mean by an Islamic country? A country with an Islamic majority or a country with an Islamist (which you seem to be using interchangeably with Islamic despite the massive difference) agenda? Islamic countries have been at the forefront of misguided attempts to eradicate Islamism. Increasing support for it through their efforts.


It's because I didn't know the plural for Islamism (as per one of my posts above). Thankfully I have you here to educate me.

They're obviously doing a good job at erradicating it. You seem to be the font of all knowledge, I'm sure you could assist them with your wisdom.



'We' need to educate 'them', eh? The white man's burden is never over...


Again, reading too far into things. The point I was trying to make and wasn't clear on (apologies) was that it would appear that people in Islamist countries are teaching children that the west / non believers are the enemy from ever younger ages.



It's difficult to prove your not the enemy when you're dropping thousand of tonnes of bombs on people's towns and villages and torturing their brothers and sisters. Or arming one of the most vicious and aggressive nations in the history of the world.


I agree.



I'm utterly confident that they won't. I wouldn't worry if I were you.

You can be as confident as you like. Doesn't change anything. There were people confident that the world was flat and the banking system was perfect..... I'm not worried.

[hibsdaft]

At the same time though, who else is going to try and snuff out this extreme form of Islam? It certainly won't be an Islamic countries leaders for fear of being killed.

you need to do some history and reading because you've come out with a statement that really lacks respect for the tens of thousands who've died fighting that very fight.

for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War
since 1991: 150,000 + dead

most recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan_War
since 2006: around 10,000 killed

theres people fighting militant fundamentalist islamists all over the muslim world and this has been the case in many places for a couple of decades now.

unfortunately ever since 9/11 and the reaction to it the nutty ones are getting more support. this isn't surprising - 9/11 was carried out in order to provoke a reaction, a reaction AQ knew would play into their hands.

and we've been had. hook, line and sinker.

Geert Wilders and AQ feed off each other.

[Woody1985]

you need to do some history and reading because you've come out with a statement that really lacks respect for the tens of thousands who've died fighting that very fight.

for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War
since 1991: 150,000 + dead

most recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan_War
since 2006: around 10,000 killed

theres people fighting militant fundamentalist islamists all over the muslim world and this has been the case in many places for a couple of decades now.

unfortunately ever since 9/11 and the reaction to it the nutty ones are getting more support. this isn't surprising - 9/11 was carried out in order to provoke a reaction, a reaction AQ knew would play into their hands.

and we've been had, hook, line and sinker.

Fair play. I wasn't aware of the above.

The impression I am under is that there is apathy in the Muslim world regarding Islamism. I will do some more reading on these fights and gain a more informed opinion.

Edit: I was aware of some of the second link. Again, I've been under the impression that Pakistan weren't that bothered but had to be seen to be making an effort to create stonger political allies in the west.

[hibsbollah]

you need to do some history and reading because you've come out with a statement that really lacks respect for the tens of thousands who've died fighting that very fight.

for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War
since 1991: 150,000 + dead

most recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan_War
since 2006: around 10,000 killed

theres people fighting militant fundamentalist islamists all over the muslim world and this has been the case in many places for a couple of decades now.

unfortunately ever since 9/11 and the reaction to it the nutty ones are getting more support. this isn't surprising - 9/11 was carried out in order to provoke a reaction, a reaction AQ knew would play into their hands.

and we've been had. hook, line and sinker.

:agree: Absolutely.

Getting back to the OP, A couple of years ago I read a fair bit of the Koran online edition (with someone else on a messageboard) to actually see for myself what it was all about. It is aboslutely massive and reads pretty much like the Bible, lots of references to momentous events and visions, although it was more prescriptive than the Bible in terms of how you should live your life (kind of like a desert Good Housekeeping magazine:greengrin at one point they started going on about how you shouldnt eat 'rock badgers'...WTF?)

Anyway, to cut a long story short there was nothing in there that could be construed as incitement to violence or anything else that the Dutch MP was suggesting. I'm sure there are quotes that could be taken out of context and used for political reasons, same as you probably could with the Bible or any equally long book.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Well why are you asking? :confused:

People find it easier to ignore things that aren't right in front of them, human nature.

Because I think it's fairly central to the discussion.

No doubt people find it easy to ignore things that aren't in front of them, I wouldn't say it's human nature though. It's alot more troubling than that.


I said ridiculous to say the least....

Anyway, I think you're looking far too far into that specific word :confused:. Do you have some kind of agenda or something you want to say?

I'm not an :asshole: and know what you are getting at. Too busy pussy footing around as usual.

I'm not pussy-footing around anything. As I've said, I juust find your choice of word very telling. No more, no less.


It's because I didn't know the plural for Islamism (as per one of my posts above). Thankfully I have you here to educate me.

They're obviously doing a good job at erradicating it. You seem to be the font of all knowledge, I'm sure you could assist them with your wisdom.

Islam doesn't equal Islamism. Islamism is a political ideology based on a fundamental reading of Islamic texts. To equate the two is lazy and dangerous.

No they haven't done a very good job, as I said in my post.

N.B. This faux self-depreciation (that is far too often used on here) gets incredibly tiresome, by the way.


Again, reading too far into things. The point I was trying to make and wasn't clear on (apologies) was that it would appear that people in Islamist countries are teaching children that the west / non believers are the enemy from ever younger ages.

I'm not reading too far into things. I find language and people's use of it interesting. Language tropes that are used in certain situations (politics, media, goverment etc. etc.) become more generally institutionalised and systemic. Language isn't confined to the individual


You can be as confident as you like. Doesn't change anything. There were people confident that the world was flat and the banking system was perfect..... I'm not worried.

Historical belief in the 'flatness' of the Earth is overplayed, but that's for another thread. :greengrin

And anyone with half a brain could see the banking system wasn't perfect.

Pedantry aside, I take your point.

[hibsdaft]

Pedantry aside, I take your point.

:greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

:greengrin

What?! I thought that was a nice conciliatory conclusion! :greengrin

[Woody1985]

Because I think it's fairly central to the discussion.

No doubt people find it easy to ignore things that aren't in front of them, I wouldn't say it's human nature though. It's alot more troubling than that.


Erm, I'm unsure of how that could be... You mentioned a list of things that I hadn't discussed and wrote "Or are they just easier to ignore?"

I explained I hadn't read the posts you were referring to and struggled to understand a) why you asked me specifically (you then went onto answer your own question and then said you weren't asking me) :confused: b) They weren't central to the discussion I was having with others and/or you until you mentioned them.

Anyway, this point is getting a bit trivial.



I'm not pussy-footing around anything. As I've said, I just find your choice of word very telling. No more, no less.


Do you care to explain why the wording was "very telling"? I said that atrocities we've cause were ridiculous to say the least.

That wasn't morally repungent enough for you and you took issue with it. :confused:. Do you have any better pre-prepared sentences I could used to show my disgust (please ignore when you get down a couple of quotes :greengrin)?



Islam doesn't equal Islamism. Islamism is a political ideology based on a fundamental reading of Islamic texts. To equate the two is lazy and dangerous.

No they haven't done a very good job, as I said in my post.


I know that, the point I was making is that I didn't know what to call a bunch of Islamismers (joke btw).



N.B. This faux self-depreciation (that is far too often used on here) gets incredibly tiresome, by the way.

Agree.



I'm not reading too far into things. I find language and people's use of it interesting. Language tropes that are used in certain situations (politics, media, goverment etc. etc.) become more generally institutionalised and systemic. Language isn't confined to the individual


Yes you were. You were implying that I must be some kind of white supremacist because I said we need to teach them that the west / non believers aren't the enemy. As I've said, I was referring to young children who it would seem are being converted the the ideologies of Islamism on an increasing basis.



Historical belief in the 'flatness' of the Earth is overplayed, but that's for another thread. :greengrin

And anyone with half a brain could see the banking system wasn't perfect.

Pedantry aside, I take your point.

:greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Erm, I'm unsure of how that could be... You mentioned a list of things that I hadn't discussed and wrote "Or are they just easier to ignore?"

I explained I hadn't read the posts you were referring to and struggled to understand a) why you asked me specifically (you then went onto answer your own question and then said you weren't asking me) :confused: b) They weren't central to the discussion I was having with others and/or you until you mentioned them.

Anyway, this point is getting a bit trivial.

You're right.

But I think it's central to the assault people are intent on making on Islam and the Koran without reference to other similar examples.


Do you care to explain why the wording was "very telling"? I said that atrocities we've cause were ridiculous to say the least.

That wasn't morally repungent enough for you and you took issue with it. :confused:. Do you have any better pre-prepared sentences I could used to show my disgust (please ignore when you get down a couple of quotes :greengrin)?

'Ridiculous' lacks any moral judgement whatsoever, just that they are a bit silly or misguided. In contrast to the language people use for Islamic terrorist attacks.


Agree.

Glad to hear it, but I'm not sure I'll ever live down the shame of using self-depreciation as opposed to the correct self-deprecation. :greengrin


Yes you were. You were implying that I must be some kind of white supremacist because I said we need to teach them that the west / non believers aren't the enemy. As I've said, I was referring to young children who it would seem are being converted the the ideologies of Islamism on an increasing basis.

I wasn't implying that. But it was a slightly flippant point, I'll give you that.

That's more than slightly dubious language though.

[Sir David Gray]

Their fellow Palestinians elected them as their governing body.

Also, it's pretty lazy to categorise Palestinians as either Hamas or Fatah.

As much as I'd like to see a united, secular, left-wing force in Palestine to resist future Israeli aggression, the PLO (and Fatah in particular) have shown themselves to be little other than self-serving and corrupt. More than happy kowtowing to the Israeli's and the US and more interested in lining their own pockets than providing a voice to ordinary Palestinians.

It wasn't lazy, I was merely attempting to point out that Hamas' fellow Palestinians (Fatah) have no time for them, so why should they receive support in a country that views them as terrorists when other Palestinians can't even stand them. I'm perfectly aware that not all Palestinians are either in the Hamas camp or the Fatah camp.


Out of interest, would you (or FalkirkHibee) feel the same about a film with the more 'fire and brimstone' passages of the Old Testament interspersed with images of carnage death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan caused by Christians such as Bush, Blair, Obama, Cheney and Reid? Or violent imagery from the Torah interspersed with images of indiscriminate Israeli attacks on Palestinians?

Or are they just easier to ignore?

If there were images of ministers and rabbis spouting hatred about how the heads of Muslims should be cut off...

If there were images of toddlers, who had obviously been brainwashed, stating that Muslims were nothing more than apes and pigs...

If there were images of Christians protesting in the streets with placards saying "Behead the enemies of Jesus"...

If there were images of Christian or Jewish groups kidnapping Muslims and beheading them, whilst filming it all and posting it on the internet...

If there were images of a Christian or Jewish government shooting its own women because they've committed adultery or hanging its own men because they're homosexual...

Then I would feel just as much anger towards that form of Christianity or Judaism, as I do towards this form of Islam. In fact I would probably go as far as to say that I would seriously consider my Christian faith.

I don't believe there is any comparison, in terms of the sheer scale in numbers, between extremist Islam and extreme elements of Christianity and Judaism. Of course you get some Christians and Jews that take the Old Testament literally, in that homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death. Fortunately, those types of people do not form any significant number. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about the amount of Muslims that take every single thing that's written in the Qur'an literally.

Whilst you may disagree with what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and the policies of Israel, I don't believe you can pin them down to religious terrorism, in the same way that you can with 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid train bombings and numerous other acts of Islamist terrorism.

Events in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East have not occurred with the sole intention of wiping out Muslims and the Islamic way of life. Whereas all Islamist terrorist attacks have been intended to cause mass murder in the Western world and the ones that have been carried out in Muslim countries were done so either because that country was perceived to support the West, or the target was a place frequented by Westerners.

Every religion has a dangerous element within it. However, with Islam it is more than just an element. It is a very serious and very evil side that is intent on world domination by whatever means necessary. It will not stop until that aim has been achieved.

America and Britain could withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow and Israel could immediately pull out from Gaza and the West Bank, to allow a formal Palestinian state to be formed, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference as to how Islamists view the West and in particular, Israel.

They use those things as an excuse to carry out their attacks.

They won't be content until the state of Israel is wiped off the map completely, until the Jews and Christians have been driven into the sea and until America is brought to its knees, with Sharia Law implemented in every single nation on Earth. Then and only then might their campaign of terror stop.

[Hibrandenburg]

It wasn't lazy, I was merely attempting to point out that Hamas' fellow Palestinians (Fatah) have no time for them, so why should they receive support in a country that views them as terrorists when other Palestinians can't even stand them. I'm perfectly aware that not all Palestinians are either in the Hamas camp or the Fatah camp.



If there were images of ministers and rabbis spouting hatred about how the heads of Muslims should be cut off...

If there were images of toddlers, who had obviously been brainwashed, stating that Muslims were nothing more than apes and pigs...

If there were images of Christians protesting in the streets with placards saying "Behead the enemies of Jesus"...

If there were images of Christian or Jewish groups kidnapping Muslims and beheading them, whilst filming it all and posting it on the internet...

If there were images of a Christian or Jewish government shooting its own women because they've committed adultery or hanging its own men because they're homosexual...

Then I would feel just as much anger towards that form of Christianity or Judaism, as I do towards this form of Islam. In fact I would probably go as far as to say that I would seriously consider my Christian faith.

I don't believe there is any comparison, in terms of the sheer scale in numbers, between extremist Islam and extreme elements of Christianity and Judaism. Of course you get some Christians and Jews that take the Old Testament literally, in that homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death. Fortunately, those types of people do not form any significant number. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about the amount of Muslims that take every single thing that's written in the Qur'an literally.

Whilst you may disagree with what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and the policies of Israel, I don't believe you can pin them down to religious terrorism, in the same way that you can with 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid train bombings and numerous other acts of Islamist terrorism.

Events in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East have not occurred with the sole intention of wiping out Muslims and the Islamic way of life. Whereas all Islamist terrorist attacks have been intended to cause mass murder in the Western world and the ones that have been carried out in Muslim countries were done so either because that country was perceived to support the West, or the target was a place frequented by Westerners.

Every religion has a dangerous element within it. However, with Islam it is more than just an element. It is a very serious and very evil side that is intent on world domination by whatever means necessary. It will not stop until that aim has been achieved.

America and Britain could withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow and Israel could immediately pull out from Gaza and the West Bank, to allow a formal Palestinian state to be formed, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference as to how Islamists view the West and in particular, Israel.

They use those things as an excuse to carry out their attacks.

They won't be content until the state of Israel is wiped off the map completely, until the Jews and Christians have been driven into the sea and until America is brought to its knees, with Sharia Law implemented in every single nation on Earth. Then and only then might their campaign of terror stop.

:top marks

And like the Nazis before them, they make no secret about their intentions.

[Betty Boop]

It wasn't lazy, I was merely attempting to point out that Hamas' fellow Palestinians (Fatah) have no time for them, so why should they receive support in a country that views them as terrorists when other Palestinians can't even stand them. I'm perfectly aware that not all Palestinians are either in the Hamas camp or the Fatah camp.



If there were images of ministers and rabbis spouting hatred about how the heads of Muslims should be cut off...

If there were images of toddlers, who had obviously been brainwashed, stating that Muslims were nothing more than apes and pigs...

If there were images of Christians protesting in the streets with placards saying "Behead the enemies of Jesus"...

If there were images of Christian or Jewish groups kidnapping Muslims and beheading them, whilst filming it all and posting it on the internet...

If there were images of a Christian or Jewish government shooting its own women because they've committed adultery or hanging its own men because they're homosexual...

Then I would feel just as much anger towards that form of Christianity or Judaism, as I do towards this form of Islam. In fact I would probably go as far as to say that I would seriously consider my Christian faith.

I don't believe there is any comparison, in terms of the sheer scale in numbers, between extremist Islam and extreme elements of Christianity and Judaism. Of course you get some Christians and Jews that take the Old Testament literally, in that homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death. Fortunately, those types of people do not form any significant number. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about the amount of Muslims that take every single thing that's written in the Qur'an literally.

Whilst you may disagree with what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and the policies of Israel, I don't believe you can pin them down to religious terrorism, in the same way that you can with 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid train bombings and numerous other acts of Islamist terrorism.

Events in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East have not occurred with the sole intention of wiping out Muslims and the Islamic way of life. Whereas all Islamist terrorist attacks have been intended to cause mass murder in the Western world and the ones that have been carried out in Muslim countries were done so either because that country was perceived to support the West, or the target was a place frequented by Westerners.

Every religion has a dangerous element within it. However, with Islam it is more than just an element. It is a very serious and very evil side that is intent on world domination by whatever means necessary. It will not stop until that aim has been achieved.

America and Britain could withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow and Israel could immediately pull out from Gaza and the West Bank, to allow a formal Palestinian state to be formed, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference as to how Islamists view the West and in particular, Israel.

They use those things as an excuse to carry out their attacks.

They won't be content until the state of Israel is wiped off the map completely, until the Jews and Christians have been driven into the sea and until America is brought to its knees, with Sharia Law implemented in every single nation on Earth. Then and only then might their campaign of terror stop.
That is nonsense---there are 38 countries in the world with Muslims making up the majority of the population, the following are all secular states.
Turkey-99.8%,Uzbekistan 88%, Kazekistan 57%, Mali 90%, Senegal 94%, Guinea 85%, Azberjaijan 93.4%, Tajikstan 97%, Jordan 95%, Kyrgyztan 75%, Turkmenistan 89%, Chad 54%, Kosovo 90%, The Gambia 90%, Djibouti 94%. Only Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia (the darlings of the West funnily enough), Yemen and Mauritania, are Islamic States where Sharia law is implemented. The remaining countries have declared Islam as a state religion or none. Are you really saying that Muslims are really going to overthrow Governments around the rest of the World? :confused:

[Hibrandenburg]

That is nonsense---there are 38 countries in the world with Muslims making up the majority of the population, the following are all secular states.
Turkey-99.8%,Uzbekistan 88%, Kazekistan 57%, Mali 90%, Senegal 94%, Guinea 85%, Azberjaijan 93.4%, Tajikstan 97%, Jordan 95%, Kyrgyztan 75%, Turkmenistan 89%, Chad 54%, Kosovo 90%, The Gambia 90%, Djibouti 94%. Only Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia (the darlings of the West funnily enough), Yemen and Mauritania, are Islamic States where Sharia law is implemented. The remaining countries have declared Islam as a state religion or none. Are you really saying that Muslims are really going to overthrow Governments around the rest of the World? :confused:

Can't speak for FH but to answer your question, yes. Many Islamists have openly said so and called on their followers to do so. They make no secret of the fact that their ultimate aim is to expand into non muslim countries and by whatever means it takes, turn those countries into islamic states.

Read the Koran and then Mein Kampf or the other way round, you'll be surprised at the similarities in some of the ravings.

[Betty Boop]

Can't speak for FH but to answer your question, yes. Many Islamists have openly said so and called on their followers to do so. They make no secret of the fact that their ultimate aim is to expand into non muslim countries and by whatever means it takes, turn those countries into islamic states.

Read the Koran and then Mein Kampf or the other way round, you'll be surprised at the similarities in some of the ravings. Do you believe that extremists have the power to overthrow governments in Western countries? Why are all these countries with Muslims as the majority of the population, not Islamic States?

[Killiehibbie]

Do you believe that extremists have the power to overthrow governments in Western countries? Why are all these countries with Muslims as the majority of the population, not Islamic States?

Left to their own devices yes they will. Did the Bolsheviks have the power to overthrow the Tsar in 1910? No but look what happened 7 years later. These
nutters need to be stopped.

[Betty Boop]

Left to their own devices yes they will. Did the Bolsheviks have the power to overthrow the Tsar in 1910? No but look what happened 7 years later. These
nutters need to be stopped.Hardly think the Bolshevik Revolution is a fair comparison. In the UK Muslims make up 3% of the population in England and Wales, and 0.84% in Scotland, I don't think Sharia law is coming our way any time soon! :rolleyes:

[Hibrandenburg]

Do you believe that extremists have the power to overthrow governments in Western countries? Why are all these countries with Muslims as the majority of the population, not Islamic States?

Not at the moment. But it doesn't stop them believing that their day will come. Again I'll draw similarities to the Nazis and Islamists. Given the right political conditions in our ever changing world I'm sure that one day the soil will be ripe and the muslim masses will turn to a charismatic Islamic leader to guide them. There are already Islamic States who have done so.

Common beliefs and prejudices that the Nazis and Islamists share include:

-A rage against historical humiliation.

-An inspiration from what is believed to be an earlier golden age (one or more of the first few Caliphates in the case of Islamism)

-A desire to restore the perceived glory of this age or "a fanatical determination to get on top of history after being underfoot for so many generations" with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system.

-A belief that malicious, predatory alien forces (Jews in the case of Nazi Fascists or Islamists) are conspiring against and within the nation/community, and that violence is necessary to defeat and expel these forces.

-An exaltation of death and destruction along with a contempt for "art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence", and strong commitment to sexual repression and subordination of women.

-An offensive military, (or at least armed) campaign to reestablish the power and allegedly rightful international domination of the nation/community.


I find the similarities quite disturbing and to ignore them would be like appeasing Hitler all over again. They won't just go away!

[Killiehibbie]

Hardly think the Bolshevik Revolution is a fair comparison. In the UK Muslims make up 3% of the population in England and Wales, and 0.84% in Scotland, I don't think Sharia law is coming our way any time soon! :rolleyes:

Why is it not a fair comparison? They were hardly organised at that time but a few years later look what they done. Stalin campaigned against Western oil interests in Baku with the help of his muslim 'friends' in the area who hated the west.
Sharia law not coming any time soon. They have said 10,50 or 1000 years they will triumph over the evil west.

[Betty Boop]

Not at the moment. But it doesn't stop them believing that their day will come. Again I'll draw similarities to the Nazis and Islamists. Given the right political conditions in our ever changing world I'm sure that one day the soil will be ripe and the muslim masses will turn to a charismatic Islamic leader to guide them. There are already Islamic States who have done so.

Common beliefs and prejudices that the Nazis and Islamists share include:

-A rage against historical humiliation.-An inspiration from what is believed to be an earlier golden age (one or more of the first few Caliphates in the case of Islamism)

-A desire to restore the perceived glory of this age or "a fanatical determination to get on top of history after being underfoot for so many generations" with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system.
-A belief that malicious, predatory alien forces (Jews in the case of Nazi Fascists or Islamists) are conspiring against and within the nation/community, and that violence is necessary to defeat and expel these forces.

-An exaltation of death and destruction along with a contempt for "art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence", and strong commitment to sexual repression and subordination of women.

-An offensive military, (or at least armed) campaign to reestablish the power and allegedly rightful international domination of the nation/community.
I find the similarities quite disturbing and to ignore them would be like appeasing Hitler all over again. They won't just go away!
I find similarities in your examples being more in line with Zionism (are you allowed to say that without being accused of Anti- Semetism?) I have a copy of the Koran, and I see no similarities with Nazism. As for Mein Kampf, the ravings of a lunatic, no? :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

I find similarities in your examples being more in line with Zionism (are you allowed to say that without being accused of Anti- Semetism?) I have a copy of the Koran, and I see no similarities with Nazism. As for Mein Kampf, the ravings of a lunatic, no? :greengrin

I'd be quite happy to add Zionists to my list if you add Marxist Socialism to yours. :duck:




:greengrin

[Betty Boop]

I'd be quite happy to add Zionists to my list if you add Marxist Socialism to yours. :duck:




:greengrin I've not got a list, but if it floats your boat! :greengrin Not a fan of Marx then? :cool2:

[LiverpoolHibs]

It wasn't lazy, I was merely attempting to point out that Hamas' fellow Palestinians (Fatah) have no time for them, so why should they receive support in a country that views them as terrorists when other Palestinians can't even stand them. I'm perfectly aware that not all Palestinians are either in the Hamas camp or the Fatah camp.

I'm not sure what this means. Would you expect the deposed and humiliated group to have much time for their usurpers? They were, however, very willing to fight along side Hamas during the recent ground offensive.


If there were images of ministers and rabbis spouting hatred about how the heads of Muslims should be cut off...

If there were images of toddlers, who had obviously been brainwashed, stating that Muslims were nothing more than apes and pigs...

If there were images of Christians protesting in the streets with placards saying "Behead the enemies of Jesus"...

If there were images of Christian or Jewish groups kidnapping Muslims and beheading them, whilst filming it all and posting it on the internet...

If there were images of a Christian or Jewish government shooting its own women because they've committed adultery or hanging its own men because they're homosexual...

Then I would feel just as much anger towards that form of Christianity or Judaism, as I do towards this form of Islam. In fact I would probably go as far as to say that I would seriously consider my Christian faith.

I'm unsure as to why you and others who would broadly support your position find the need to homogenise 'Islam' in a way that would never be done to Christianity or other religions. What about the Lebanese Christian Phalangists actions at Sabra and Shabila (in collusion with Jewish State of Israel) - in which more people were killed than the September 11th attacks, 7/7 attacks and the Madrid bombings combined? Again, people tend not to know or be particularly bothered about that.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak.


I don't believe there is any comparison, in terms of the sheer scale in numbers, between extremist Islam and extreme elements of Christianity and Judaism. Of course you get some Christians and Jews that take the Old Testament literally, in that homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death. Fortunately, those types of people do not form any significant number. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about the amount of Muslims that take every single thing that's written in the Qur'an literally.

I'd probably be just about in agreement with you here


Whilst you may disagree with what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and the policies of Israel, I don't believe you can pin them down to religious terrorism, in the same way that you can with 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid train bombings and numerous other acts of Islamist terrorism.

Maybe so. I think it would be churlish to ignore the explicitly Christian language used in the pro-war arguments and conduct of the war, however. It was Manifest Destiny all over again.


Events in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East have not occurred with the sole intention of wiping out Muslims and the Islamic way of life. Whereas all Islamist terrorist attacks have been intended to cause mass murder in the Western world and the ones that have been carried out in Muslim countries were done so either because that country was perceived to support the West, or the target was a place frequented by Westerners.

Every religion has a dangerous element within it. However, with Islam it is more than just an element. It is a very serious and very evil side that is intent on world domination by whatever means necessary. It will not stop until that aim has been achieved.

This is just scaremongering at it's very worst. I agree with you that there is an undeniable greater militancy in Islam than pretty much any other religion but I think it's equally undeniable that this is consistently and systematically overplayed. You're buying wholesale into the culture of fear that has been used by ruling classes the world over for centuries.


America and Britain could withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow and Israel could immediately pull out from Gaza and the West Bank, to allow a formal Palestinian state to be formed, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference as to how Islamists view the West and in particular, Israel.

You seem to think that Islamism has appeared in a vacuum. That it isn't the result of numerous complex historical events and clashing ideologies.

Very seriously, I would love you to watch this BBC/Adam Curtis documentary, The Power Of Nightmares...

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22&hl=en#


They won't be content until the state of Israel is wiped off the map completely, until the Jews and Christians have been driven into the sea and until America is brought to its knees, with Sharia Law implemented in every single nation on Earth. Then and only then might their campaign of terror stop.

No, this is scaremongering at its very worst! Deary me....

[LiverpoolHibs]

Not at the moment. But it doesn't stop them believing that their day will come. Again I'll draw similarities to the Nazis and Islamists. Given the right political conditions in our ever changing world I'm sure that one day the soil will be ripe and the muslim masses will turn to a charismatic Islamic leader to guide them. There are already Islamic States who have done so.

Common beliefs and prejudices that the Nazis and Islamists share include:

-A rage against historical humiliation.

-An inspiration from what is believed to be an earlier golden age (one or more of the first few Caliphates in the case of Islamism)

-A desire to restore the perceived glory of this age or "a fanatical determination to get on top of history after being underfoot for so many generations" with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system.

-A belief that malicious, predatory alien forces (Jews in the case of Nazi Fascists or Islamists) are conspiring against and within the nation/community, and that violence is necessary to defeat and expel these forces.

-An exaltation of death and destruction along with a contempt for "art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence", and strong commitment to sexual repression and subordination of women.

-An offensive military, (or at least armed) campaign to reestablish the power and allegedly rightful international domination of the nation/community.


I find the similarities quite disturbing and to ignore them would be like appeasing Hitler all over again. They won't just go away!

This is a fairly pointless exercise. You could probably do it for just about any political party or group in the world and make it seem as if there are genuine parallels.

[Betty Boop]

It wasn't lazy, I was merely attempting to point out that Hamas' fellow Palestinians (Fatah) have no time for them, so why should they receive support in a country that views them as terrorists when other Palestinians can't even stand them. I'm perfectly aware that not all Palestinians are either in the Hamas camp or the Fatah camp.



If there were images of ministers and rabbis spouting hatred about how the heads of Muslims should be cut off...

If there were images of toddlers, who had obviously been brainwashed, stating that Muslims were nothing more than apes and pigs...

If there were images of Christians protesting in the streets with placards saying "Behead the enemies of Jesus"...

If there were images of Christian or Jewish groups kidnapping Muslims and beheading them, whilst filming it all and posting it on the internet...

If there were images of a Christian or Jewish government shooting its own women because they've committed adultery or hanging its own men because they're homosexual...

Then I would feel just as much anger towards that form of Christianity or Judaism, as I do towards this form of Islam. In fact I would probably go as far as to say that I would seriously consider my Christian faith.

I don't believe there is any comparison, in terms of the sheer scale in numbers, between extremist Islam and extreme elements of Christianity and Judaism. Of course you get some Christians and Jews that take the Old Testament literally, in that homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death. Fortunately, those types of people do not form any significant number. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about the amount of Muslims that take every single thing that's written in the Qur'an literally.

Whilst you may disagree with what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and the policies of Israel, I don't believe you can pin them down to religious terrorism, in the same way that you can with 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid train bombings and numerous other acts of Islamist terrorism.

Events in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East have not occurred with the sole intention of wiping out Muslims and the Islamic way of life. Whereas all Islamist terrorist attacks have been intended to cause mass murder in the Western world and the ones that have been carried out in Muslim countries were done so either because that country was perceived to support the West, or the target was a place frequented by Westerners.

Every religion has a dangerous element within it. However, with Islam it is more than just an element. It is a very serious and very evil side that is intent on world domination by whatever means necessary. It will not stop until that aim has been achieved.

America and Britain could withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow and Israel could immediately pull out from Gaza and the West Bank, to allow a formal Palestinian state to be formed, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference as to how Islamists view the West and in particular, Israel.

They use those things as an excuse to carry out their attacks.

They won't be content until the state of Israel is wiped off the map completely, until the Jews and Christians have been driven into the sea and until America is brought to its knees, with Sharia Law implemented in every single nation on Earth. Then and only then might their campaign of terror stop. Here are some images of those nice friendly settlers abusing Palestinian women and children. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE-gAbP_z38&feature=related Rabbi Yosef incites followers to commit genocide against Arabs http://www.wrmea.com/archives/may-june01/0105018.html :rolleyes:

[joe_hfc]

:agree:

while i dont agree with his views ill defend his right to have them

Hell of a cliche there. People, of course, are entitles to say what they want. But should they be allowed to broadcast such vile, only to enduce bitterness, hatred and unrest in the country? :confused:

[hibsbollah]

Hell of a cliche there. People, of course, are entitles to say what they want. But should they be allowed to broadcast such vile, only to enduce bitterness, hatred and unrest in the country? :confused:

The problem, of course, is who decides what is unacceptable and what is not? If you legislate against one person's free expression, you legislate against everyone's.

[joe_hfc]

The problem, of course, is who decides what is unacceptable and what is not? If you legislate against one person's free expression, you legislate against everyone's.

yea 100% agree :agree:

[hibsdaft]

Every religion has a dangerous element within it. However, with Islam it is more than just an element. It is a very serious and very evil side that is intent on world domination by whatever means necessary. It will not stop until that aim has been achieved.

America and Britain could withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow and Israel could immediately pull out from Gaza and the West Bank, to allow a formal Palestinian state to be formed, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference as to how Islamists view the West and in particular, Israel.

They use those things as an excuse to carry out their attacks.

They won't be content until the state of Israel is wiped off the map completely, until the Jews and Christians have been driven into the sea and until America is brought to its knees, with Sharia Law implemented in every single nation on Earth. Then and only then might their campaign of terror stop.

you've taken a hell of a lot of words to say not a lot there.

there are ideologically committed fundamentalist islamists who are dangerous and they won't be changing their beliefs ? who's disagreeing with you? you're stating the obvious.

its their relationship with the rest of the populations they are based amongst and their ability to garner support which is significant, - this is basic politics.

[Hibrandenburg]

This is a fairly pointless exercise. You could probably do it for just about any political party or group in the world and make it seem as if there are genuine parallels.

In your opinion maybe but certainly not mine. If we don't draw parallels from history and learn from them, then we'll be deemed to relive it.

[joe_hfc]

It wasn't lazy, I was merely attempting to point out that Hamas' fellow Palestinians (Fatah) have no time for them, so why should they receive support in a country that views them as terrorists when other Palestinians can't even stand them. I'm perfectly aware that not all Palestinians are either in the Hamas camp or the Fatah camp.



If there were images of ministers and rabbis spouting hatred about how the heads of Muslims should be cut off...

If there were images of toddlers, who had obviously been brainwashed, stating that Muslims were nothing more than apes and pigs...

If there were images of Christians protesting in the streets with placards saying "Behead the enemies of Jesus"...
If there were images of Christian or Jewish groups kidnapping Muslims and beheading them, whilst filming it all and posting it on the internet...

If there were images of a Christian or Jewish government shooting its own women because they've committed adultery or hanging its own men because they're homosexual...

Then I would feel just as much anger towards that form of Christianity or Judaism, as I do towards this form of Islam. In fact I would probably go as far as to say that I would seriously consider my Christian faith.

I don't believe there is any comparison, in terms of the sheer scale in numbers, between extremist Islam and extreme elements of Christianity and Judaism. Of course you get some Christians and Jews that take the Old Testament literally, in that homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death. Fortunately, those types of people do not form any significant number. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about the amount of Muslims that take every single thing that's written in the Qur'an literally.

Whilst you may disagree with what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and the policies of Israel, I don't believe you can pin them down to religious terrorism, in the same way that you can with 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid train bombings and numerous other acts of Islamist terrorism.

Events in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East have not occurred with the sole intention of wiping out Muslims and the Islamic way of life. Whereas all Islamist terrorist attacks have been intended to cause mass murder in the Western world and the ones that have been carried out in Muslim countries were done so either because that country was perceived to support the West, or the target was a place frequented by Westerners.

Every religion has a dangerous element within it. However, with Islam it is more than just an element. It is a very serious and very evil side that is intent on world domination by whatever means necessary. It will not stop until that aim has been achieved.

America and Britain could withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow and Israel could immediately pull out from Gaza and the West Bank, to allow a formal Palestinian state to be formed, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference as to how Islamists view the West and in particular, Israel.

They use those things as an excuse to carry out their attacks.

They won't be content until the state of Israel is wiped off the map completely, until the Jews and Christians have been driven into the sea and until America is brought to its knees, with Sharia Law implemented in every single nation on Earth. Then and only then might their campaign of terror stop.


Because the Koran was revealed at a time when war was rife in Arabia, it does have several passages dealing with struggles of its time, and it reflect the minset of its time also. The book is as much about peace as it is about war. I would hardly say such stories attempt to reach world domination by any means necessary. If people read the bible, then Gay people would still be getting stoned to death? If you ever take the time to read the Koran, you will see that that and the bible are very similar in many ways. All/most religions, depending on how you read in to them, can be seen as a cancer, or even "evil".

Not so long ago, but before my time, FEARED communists. Communism was going to take over the world and be dead scary. The IRA was also going to blow up the shop down the road. not so long ago nobody would have feared Islam, so why are you talking as though 'they' are going to try and drive us in to the sea? 'they' aren't.


With reference to your "driven in to the sea remark", it was Christian Britain who literally drove thousands of Jews in to the sea.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I don't agree with this post. The bold point is especially true. I hope you mean 'they' as in extremists, not Muslims, as if you mean people who follow the religion in general, then you'd be very narrow minded. I have met dozens of people who have a strong Islamic faith, and to the best of my knowlege, not one of them has been intent on "world domination by any means necessary". Islam is the dominent religion in the world (over 1 billion), and the number of 'extremists' is clearly in the minority.

Because the Koran was revealed at a time when war was rife in Arabia, it does have several passages dealing with struggles of its time, and it reflect the minset of its time also. The book is as much about peace as it is about war. I would hardly say such stories attempt to reach world domination by any means necessary. If people read the bible literally, then Gay people would still be getting stoned to death? If you ever take the time to read the Koran, you will see that that and the bible are very similar in many ways.

All religions, depending on how you read in to them, can be seen as a cancer, or even "evil".

Not so long ago, but before my time, FEARED communists. Communism was going to take over the world and be dead scary. The IRA was also going to blow up the shop down the road. not so long ago nobody would have feared Islam, so why are you talking as though 'they' are going to try and drive us in to the sea? 'they' aren't.


With reference to your "driven in to the sea remark", it was Christian Britain who literally drove thousands of Jews in to the sea.

It's not even close to being the dominant religion in the world.

[joe_hfc]

It's not even close to being the dominant religion in the world.

your right, my mistake. Just quickly checked Google and theres about 2billion Christians. Islam is rising whilts Christianity is declining, supposidly.

Edit again, having read the thread after posting, i realised paragraph one was completely inappropriate

[hibsdaft]

Communism was going to take over the world and be dead scary.

funny you mention that, because the communists had a big part to play in sidelining the religious nutters in the islamic world for most of the 20th century.

once read that the burqa used to be something that the upper classes wore in the middle east, and in iran the working class kids used to throw stones at those wearing it.

this wee link tells a useful story on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran

1. uk and co. overthrow democratically elected governement and install monarchy because of growing influence of communists

2. cia help monarchy suppresss communists and all other political opposition (ie kill them)

3. people get pissed off with greedy monarchy

4. religious nutters carry out the overthrow of the monarchy with popular support because they are the only organised opposition - "it was a big gap in CIA coverage."

[alex plode]

Very seriously, I would love you to watch this BBC/Adam Curtis documentary, The Power Of Nightmares...
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22&hl=en#

Thanks for posting - excellent documentary.
Not wishing to trivialise Adam Curtis' story but if Sayyid Qutb had kept better health and maybe got a **** at that dance, radical Islam and Al-Quaeda may never have come about !

[Mon Dieu4]

:agree: Absolutely.

Getting back to the OP, A couple of years ago I read a fair bit of the Koran online edition (with someone else on a messageboard) to actually see for myself what it was all about. It is aboslutely massive and reads pretty much like the Bible, lots of references to momentous events and visions, although it was more prescriptive than the Bible in terms of how you should live your life (kind of like a desert Good Housekeeping magazine:greengrin at one point they started going on about how you shouldnt eat 'rock badgers'...WTF?)

Anyway, to cut a long story short there was nothing in there that could be construed as incitement to violence or anything else that the Dutch MP was suggesting. I'm sure there are quotes that could be taken out of context and used for political reasons, same as you probably could with the Bible or any equally long book.

Which is my main gripe with it, I enjoy Rock Badgers :grr:

[hibsbollah]

Which is my main gripe with it, I enjoy Rock Badgers :grr:

Me too, i like 'em in a George Foreman toastie:thumbsup:Thats why I could never be a muslim. sunny or sheidt:bitchy:

[Mon Dieu4]

Me too, i like 'em in a George Foreman toastie:thumbsup:Thats why I could never be a muslim. sunny or sheidt:bitchy:

Honey Badgers are still better though :agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Very seriously, I would love you to watch this BBC/Adam Curtis documentary, The Power Of Nightmares...
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22&hl=en#

Thanks for posting - excellent documentary.
Not wishing to trivialise Adam Curtis' story but if Sayyid Qutb had kept better health and maybe got a **** at that dance, radical Islam and Al-Quaeda may never have come about !

No worries, glad you liked it - he's a superb documentary maker.

History can turn on the smallest of details, so who knows. :wink:

[Sylar]

The UK Border Agency have today denied access to another 2 people, citing "opposition to extremism" as their reason.

Pastor Fred Phelps and his daughter (Westboro Baptist Church) have been denied entry to the UK after planning to picket a play due to start in Hampshire, about a man who is killed for being gay.

For those who don't know, Westboro baptist church are the extremely anti-gay "Church" in the United States, who oppose pretty much everything and are notorious for picketing at the funeral of dead soldiers, as a result of their belief that the United States Army is rotten to the core because it permits homosexuals to be a part of it (I don't quite know the full particulars, but that's an Idiots guide summary).

Another extreme form of censorship or just a "good idea" to prevent an utterly hate-filled cult from entering our shores?

I can't stand the group, based on what I do know of them, but I would have LOVED to have seen how the British public would have reacted to their presence here. I doubt it would be long before some vigilante actions would be taken against them.

[Mon Dieu4]

The UK Border Agency have today denied access to another 2 people, citing "opposition to extremism" as their reason.

Pastor Fred Phelps and his daughter (Westboro Baptist Church) have been denied entry to the UK after planning to picket a play due to start in Hampshire, about a man who is killed for being gay.

For those who don't know, Westboro baptist church are the extremely anti-gay "Church" in the United States, who oppose pretty much everything and are notorious for picketing at the funeral of dead soldiers, as a result of their belief that the United States Army is rotten to the core because it permits homosexuals to be a part of it (I don't quite know the full particulars, but that's an Idiots guide summary).

Another extreme form of censorship or just a "good idea" to prevent an utterly hate-filled cult from entering our shores?

I can't stand the group, based on what I do know of them, but I would have LOVED to have seen how the British public would have reacted to their presence here. I doubt it would be long before some vigilante actions would be taken against them.

Are those the ones Louis Theroux did a Documentary on?:crazy:

[Sylar]

Are those the ones Louis Theroux did a Documentary on?:crazy:

Aye - that would be them! :bitchy:

[Mon Dieu4]

Aye - that would be them! :bitchy:

Might just be me but I would actually like a chat with people who are that mental :faf:

[hibsbollah]

Might just be me but I would actually like a chat with people who are that mental :faf:

:agree: Whats to be gained by banning them from entering the country? Let 'em all in; fundamentalists of all shapes and sizes:stirrer: Otherwise, they'll ban everyone, and then they'll come for the Hibbys...and by that time there will be no one left to speak up.

(apologies to Pastor Niemoller)

[Sir David Gray]

That is nonsense---there are 38 countries in the world with Muslims making up the majority of the population, the following are all secular states.
Turkey-99.8%,Uzbekistan 88%, Kazekistan 57%, Mali 90%, Senegal 94%, Guinea 85%, Azberjaijan 93.4%, Tajikstan 97%, Jordan 95%, Kyrgyztan 75%, Turkmenistan 89%, Chad 54%, Kosovo 90%, The Gambia 90%, Djibouti 94%. Only Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia (the darlings of the West funnily enough), Yemen and Mauritania, are Islamic States where Sharia law is implemented. The remaining countries have declared Islam as a state religion or none. Are you really saying that Muslims are really going to overthrow Governments around the rest of the World? :confused:

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that is their aim.


Can't speak for FH but to answer your question, yes. Many Islamists have openly said so and called on their followers to do so. They make no secret of the fact that their ultimate aim is to expand into non muslim countries and by whatever means it takes, turn those countries into islamic states.

Read the Koran and then Mein Kampf or the other way round, you'll be surprised at the similarities in some of the ravings.

Correct. :agree:


Hardly think the Bolshevik Revolution is a fair comparison. In the UK Muslims make up 3% of the population in England and Wales, and 0.84% in Scotland, I don't think Sharia law is coming our way any time soon! :rolleyes:

Again, I think you're missing the point that Hiberlin and I are making. We are not saying Sharia Law will be implemented in the UK any time soon. We are saying that is the aim of these people. Whether or not they are successful in meeting those objectives, is another story.

Until they are successful, we will remain very high (probably 3rd) on Al Qaeda's list of targets.


I'm not sure what this means. Would you expect the deposed and humiliated group to have much time for their usurpers? They were, however, very willing to fight along side Hamas during the recent ground offensive.



I'm unsure as to why you and others who would broadly support your position find the need to homogenise 'Islam' in a way that would never be done to Christianity or other religions. What about the Lebanese Christian Phalangists actions at Sabra and Shabila (in collusion with Jewish State of Israel) - in which more people were killed than the September 11th attacks, 7/7 attacks and the Madrid bombings combined? Again, people tend not to know or be particularly bothered about that.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak.



I'd probably be just about in agreement with you here



Maybe so. I think it would be churlish to ignore the explicitly Christian language used in the pro-war arguments and conduct of the war, however. It was Manifest Destiny all over again.



This is just scaremongering at it's very worst. I agree with you that there is an undeniable greater militancy in Islam than pretty much any other religion but I think it's equally undeniable that this is consistently and systematically overplayed. You're buying wholesale into the culture of fear that has been used by ruling classes the world over for centuries.



You seem to think that Islamism has appeared in a vacuum. That it isn't the result of numerous complex historical events and clashing ideologies.

Very seriously, I would love you to watch this BBC/Adam Curtis documentary, The Power Of Nightmares...

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22&hl=en#



No, this is scaremongering at its very worst! Deary me....

You may think it's scaremongering, I happen to think that there is every reason to be scared. Radical Islam, in my opinion, is a massive threat to our way of life and our security, both at home and abroad. I do not think you can overstate just how dangerous these people really are.

It is very difficult (almost impossible) to deal rationally with people who have no regard for, and put absolutely no value on, human life. They don't think twice about strapping themselves with explosives, as long as they are going to become martyrs and get to Paradise with Allah.

I have watched the first couple of minutes of that video and it looks quite interesting. I will watch the rest of it tomorrow and will post my thoughts later.


The UK Border Agency have today denied access to another 2 people, citing "opposition to extremism" as their reason.

Pastor Fred Phelps and his daughter (Westboro Baptist Church) have been denied entry to the UK after planning to picket a play due to start in Hampshire, about a man who is killed for being gay.

For those who don't know, Westboro baptist church are the extremely anti-gay "Church" in the United States, who oppose pretty much everything and are notorious for picketing at the funeral of dead soldiers, as a result of their belief that the United States Army is rotten to the core because it permits homosexuals to be a part of it (I don't quite know the full particulars, but that's an Idiots guide summary).

Another extreme form of censorship or just a "good idea" to prevent an utterly hate-filled cult from entering our shores?

I can't stand the group, based on what I do know of them, but I would have LOVED to have seen how the British public would have reacted to their presence here. I doubt it would be long before some vigilante actions would be taken against them.

I have heard a lot about this group and whilst I absolutely detest them, the same applies to them as applies to everyone else. As long as they are not calling for individuals or groups to be killed or targetted in any way, then I don't see why they should be banned.

Although in saying that, I have less sympathy for them than I do for Geert Wilders. He wasn't coming here to make some kind of public speech or protest that was openly hateful, he was also invited here by a member of the House of Lords.

This Westboro bunch are just full of raw hatred, they hate almost everyone and everything. I don't think their presence would have been particularly helpful. I also find their picketing of funerals of soldiers absolutely disgraceful.


It's not even close to being the dominant religion in the world.

Really? There's estimated to be between 1.6 billion and 1.9 billion Christians in the world. In comparison, there's estimated to be between 1.4 billion and 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide.

Of those listed as Christians, I would hazard a guess that a large number of those are not practicing Christians (particularly in Europe), but simply describe themselves as such, in a census. There may be more Christians than Muslims at this precise moment but I don't agree that Islam is "not even close to being the dominant religion".

PS Joe-I know you have edited your post but I want to reply to your original comments. I was referring to Islamists, I think i've been quite clear about that throughout this thread. Muslims who lead a peaceful life are not my enemy, however, I think Islam in general does have a problem. Although the majority of Muslims may be moderate and opposed to terrorism, when push comes to shove, there is a mentality within Islam where Muslims stick together with their 'brothers and sisters'. I think that if they were asked to join the Jihad against the Western infidels, many of them would be happy to oblige.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You may think it's scaremongering, I happen to think that there is every reason to be scared. Radical Islam, in my opinion, is a massive threat to our way of life and our security, both at home and abroad. I do not think you can overstate just how dangerous these people really are.

It is very difficult (almost impossible) to deal rationally with people who have no regard for, and put absolutely no value on, human life. They don't think twice about strapping themselves with explosives, as long as they are going to become martyrs and get to Paradise with Allah.

I have watched the first couple of minutes of that video and it looks quite interesting. I will watch the rest of it tomorrow and will post my thoughts later.

A partially answered post? You're getting soft. :wink:

I'll be interested to hear what you think.

[Woody1985]

A partially answered post? You're getting soft. :wink:

I'll be interested to hear what you think.

Can I just ask what exactly you are arguing for/against?

Are you simply trying to avoid all people who believe in Islam being tarred with the same brush?

You even seem to support Islamism by stating things like 'you could use those statements against any religion' and fail to recognise that these Islamismers (:tee hee:) pose any threat to us at all.

[ChooseLife]

Why would they come to Britain if they hate it so much?:confused:

[Woody1985]

Why would they come to Britain if they hate it so much?:confused:

Refer to earlier posts from FH (I think) that they want the world to be completely Islamic.

I read an article by one of the respected Islamic figures in Britain (don't recall his name) but it was about a year or so ago and he said that Muslims will never rest in this country until there is a Muslim Prime Minister.

There is a very real chance of that happening given enough time.

I think someone said that there was a million Muslims in Britain (although I read figures of 2.5m (I don't know the accurate figure)). The country has around 30m voters from a 60m population IIRC split between a number of different parties.

If there were to be a Muslim candidate for PM (regardless of policy) I would be willing to bet that all Muslims would vote for them (much like the people who had never voted before in America until Obama came along).

As the Muslim population grows there is a real chance of them being in charge of the country. IMO all of the things that LiverpoolHibs and the like continually fight for will be lost. Now that's irony.

[ChooseLife]

Refer to earlier posts from FH (I think) that they want the world to be completely Islamic.

I read an article by one of the respected Islamic figures in Britain (don't recall his name) but it was about a year or so ago and he said that Muslims will never rest in this country until there is a Muslim Prime Minister.

There is a very real chance of that happening given enough time.

I think someone said that there was a million Muslims in Britain (although I read figures of 2.5m (I don't know the accurate figure)). The country has around 30m voters from a 60m population IIRC split between a number of different parties.

If there were to be a Muslim candidate for PM (regardless of policy) I would be willing to bet that all Muslims would vote for them (much like the people who had never voted before in America until Obama came along).

As the Muslim population grows there is a real chance of them being in charge of the country. IMO all of the things that LiverpoolHibs and the like continually fight for will be lost. Now that's irony.
That's a disgrace, their religion is false, a god would not want his followers acting the way these guys do.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Can I just ask what exactly you are arguing for/against?

Are you simply trying to avoid all people who believe in Islam being tarred with the same brush?

You even seem to support Islamism by stating things like 'you could use those statements against any religion' and fail to recognise that these Islamismers (:tee hee:) pose any threat to us at all.

I haven't 'seemed to support Islamism' at all. I said the paradigm that Hiberlin used comparing Islamists to the Nazis was a pointless exercise as it could be applied to any group whatsoever and make it seem like there's something significant there whereas in fact it's just comparing one evil with another. I don't see the point.

I'm arguing a few things I suppose but mainly that the Islamist threat is constantly overplayed, hyperbolised (for numerous complex reasons) thereby creating a self-perpetuating culture of fear. There's a question whether 'al-Qaida' can actually be seen to exist in any meaningful sense at all - as is discussed in the documentary I posted a link to above.

There's also an uncomfortabsle blurring of 'Islam' and 'Islamism' in a number of posts. And, as I've said, a homogenisation of Islam that completely glosses over any political, historical or ideological complexity - which would never happen (at least I don't think it would) with pretty much any other religion.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Refer to earlier posts from FH (I think) that they want the world to be completely Islamic.

I read an article by one of the respected Islamic figures in Britain (don't recall his name) but it was about a year or so ago and he said that Muslims will never rest in this country until there is a Muslim Prime Minister.

There is a very real chance of that happening given enough time.

I think someone said that there was a million Muslims in Britain (although I read figures of 2.5m (I don't know the accurate figure)). The country has around 30m voters from a 60m population IIRC split between a number of different parties.

If there were to be a Muslim candidate for PM (regardless of policy) I would be willing to bet that all Muslims would vote for them (much like the people who had never voted before in America until Obama came along).

As the Muslim population grows there is a real chance of them being in charge of the country. IMO all of the things that LiverpoolHibs and the like continually fight for will be lost. Now that's irony.

This is getting ridiculous...

[Woody1985]

I haven't 'seemed to support Islamism' at all. I said the paradigm that Hiberlin used comparing Islamists to the Nazis was a pointless exercise as it could be applied to any group whatsoever and make it seem like there's something significant there whereas in fact it's just comparing one evil with another. I don't see the point.

Okay, maybe not supported as such but I think the comparisons are a lot more evident at this present time. You could compare them to other religions but the fact remains is that other religions wouldn't appear to pose as much of a threat to us than Islamism current do.



I'm arguing a few things I suppose but mainly that the Islamist threat is constantly overplayed, hyperbolised (for numerous complex reasons) thereby creating a self-perpetuating culture of fear. There's a question whether 'al-Qaida' can actually be seen to exist in any meaningful sense at all - as is discussed in the documentary I posted a link to above.

Whether al-Quaida exists is irrelevant IMO. The simple fact remains that there are pockets of Islamic extremests trying to put an end to our way of life.

Based on the above number of people who believe in each religion, if even 1% of 1.5billion people who believe in Islam become extremest I think that 15,000,000 people of the same mentality have the ability to hurt us. I think we should hope that there is no real organisation or we'd be ****ed.

Edit; I forgot to mention, if it is so overplayed and these people aren't any real threat why have there been two terrorist attacks in recent years on our own soil? Would you think it was over played if you or people you knew were victims? I don't think you'd be churning out 'it's overplayed' etc etc then.



There's also an uncomfortabsle blurring of 'Islam' and 'Islamism' in a number of posts. And, as I've said, a homogenisation of Islam that completely glosses over any political, historical or ideological complexity - which would never happen (at least I don't think it would) with pretty much any other religion.

I agree that there is blurring of the above uses which makes it difficult for people to get their true point across. Could you detail the plurals of the above to help people differentiate and include any other variations ( I don't mean that in a smart way )? I just think it would benefit the discussion if everyone is using the correct terminology.

[Woody1985]

This is getting ridiculous...

Why?

[Betty Boop]

That's a disgrace, their religion is false, a god would not want his followers acting the way these guys do.
What makes their religion "false"? :confused:

[joe_hfc]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that is their aim.

PS Joe-I know you have edited your post but I want to reply to your original comments. I was referring to Islamists, I think i've been quite clear about that throughout this thread. Muslims who lead a peaceful life are not my enemy, however, I think Islam in general does have a problem. Although the majority of Muslims may be moderate and opposed to terrorism, when push comes to shove, there is a mentality within Islam where Muslims stick together with their 'brothers and sisters'. I think that if they were asked to join the Jihad against the Western infidels, many of them would be happy to oblige.

I never really read much of the thread before posting, and at first glance your post seemed racist, but at second, it doesn't. You seem to be prophesising Islamism taking over the world. It won't happen. (going back to my previous post) people used to think Communism would take over the world. That never happened.

There have been Muslims trying to get to get Muslims to unite, and "join the Jihad against the Western infidels" for a while now, and t the best of my knowlege, the vast vast majority of Muslims do not want to join Jihad against the West.

[Killiehibbie]

I never really read much of the thread before posting, and at first glance your post seemed racist, but at second, it doesn't. You seem to be prophesising Islamism taking over the world. It won't happen. (going back to my previous post) people used to think Communism would take over the world. That never happened.

There have been Muslims trying to get to get Muslims to unite, and "join the Jihad against the Western infidels" for a while now, and t the best of my knowlege, the vast vast majority of Muslims do not want to join Jihad against the West.

Communism didn't take over the world but they had a good go at it killing millions of people in the process. Look how many one man, Stalin, the bank robbing, kidnapping, murdering dictator killed. Let these religious nutters have their way and The Terror will look like a playground squabble.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Okay, maybe not supported as such but I think the comparisons are a lot more evident at this present time. You could compare them to other religions but the fact remains is that other religions wouldn't appear to pose as much of a threat to us than Islamism current do.

I didn't specify religion, I said 'group'. Since Islamism is a political ideology and not a religion it follows that I meant political group.


Whether al-Quaida exists is irrelevant IMO. The simple fact remains that there are pockets of Islamic extremests trying to put an end to our way of life.

I don't think it's irrelevant at all to the question of the hyperbolising the threat.

As for the second point. Why weren't they trying to 'put an end to our way of life' in the previous sixty odd years that Islamism has existed as an ideology?


Based on the above number of people who believe in each religion, if even 1% of 1.5billion people who believe in Islam become extremest I think that 15,000,000 people of the same mentality have the ability to hurt us. I think we should hope that there is no real organisation or we'd be ****ed.

This, again, is exactly the homogenisation that I was talking about. It's a monstrous over-simplification. 'Become extremist' is about as vague a term as you could possibly use.


Edit; I forgot to mention, if it is so overplayed and these people aren't any real threat why have there been two terrorist attacks in recent years on our own soil? Would you think it was over played if you or people you knew were victims? I don't think you'd be churning out 'it's overplayed' etc etc then.

I'd hope that I wouldn't allow it to cloud my judgement, although it would be perfectly natural if it did.


I agree that there is blurring of the above uses which makes it difficult for people to get their true point across. Could you detail the plurals of the above to help people differentiate and include any other variations ( I don't mean that in a smart way )? I just think it would benefit the discussion if everyone is using the correct terminology.

A Muslim is a Muslim, Islam is the religion and an Islamist is an adherent to the political ideology Islamism. It aint that tricky. :wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Communism didn't take over the world but they had a good go at it killing millions of people in the process. Look how many one man, Stalin, the bank robbing, kidnapping, murdering dictator killed. Let these religious nutters have their way and The Terror will look like a playground squabble.

Whereas Western liberal democracies have been a paragon of virtue in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries...

[Big Ed]

Refer to earlier posts from FH (I think) that they want the world to be completely Islamic.

I read an article by one of the respected Islamic figures in Britain (don't recall his name) but it was about a year or so ago and he said that Muslims will never rest in this country until there is a Muslim Prime Minister.

There is a very real chance of that happening given enough time.

I think someone said that there was a million Muslims in Britain (although I read figures of 2.5m (I don't know the accurate figure)). The country has around 30m voters from a 60m population IIRC split between a number of different parties.

If there were to be a Muslim candidate for PM (regardless of policy) I would be willing to bet that all Muslims would vote for them (much like the people who had never voted before in America until Obama came along).

As the Muslim population grows there is a real chance of them being in charge of the country. IMO all of the things that LiverpoolHibs and the like continually fight for will be lost. Now that's irony.


This quote is symptomatic of the narrow minded, tabloid filled, hysteria that is rife in our society right now.
You seem obsessed with the fact that there are so many Muslims in this country and that they appear to be breeding. Vuck me! - I thought Alf Garnett died out in the seventies.
You would think that by simply being a Muslim, everyone of them would be inclined to follow the lead of a single individual. Have you never heard of Sunnis, Shi'ites or Wahibis. Fundementally opposed in religious theory, the prospect of British Muslims all getting together like that is ridiculous.
If a Muslim were to stand as leader of one of the two "electable" British Parties, as Obama did, then anyone worrying about Muslim Domination can sleep easy.
When Obama took the Presidential Oath on a raised platform for dignatories, the only other black face there was Mrs. Obama. :wink:

[joe_hfc]

Communism didn't take over the world but they had a good go at it killing millions of people in the process. Look how many one man, Stalin, the bank robbing, kidnapping, murdering dictator killed. Let these religious nutters have their way and The Terror will look like a playground squabble.

Yes but there was still a fear of Communism in the west, which to little harm to us. What 'on the brink of anarchy' nation could a group of supported Islamists could overthrow, with a significant amount of military power, money and technology to pose a serious threat to the western-world?

What do you mean 'let the religious nutters have their way' to cause a real mess? Let them overthrow the government? let them fully occupy Israel? Let them convert the work to Islam?

[hibsbollah]

The fact that there are some posts on this thread (assuming theres no :fishin: going on)that seem to support the ludicrous theory that the all-powerful Western military and capitalist machine is somehow under threat from the worlds most displaced, impoverished, disunified and fragmented religious group just shows how ridiculous this debate is getting.:bye:

Eat more rack badgers:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

The fact that there are some posts on this thread (assuming theres no :fishin: going on)that seem to support the ludicrous theory that the all-powerful Western military and capitalist machine is somehow under threat from the worlds most displaced, impoverished, disunified and fragmented religious group just shows how ridiculous this debate is getting.:bye:

Eat more rack badgers:greengrin

World domination won't happen anytime soon, but the fact that they're being promised 72 virgins in never never land just for trying is one hell of an incentive. That combined with the fact that they see themselves as superior and us as not worthy of life makes them a real and present threat. To say that lives aren't at risk to Islamist terror is naive at best and ridiculous would be to not do anything to prevent it happening.

[Pete]

I've not read the thread but why not let him in?

Monitor him and if what he says breaks any laws then get him on the first plane out.

How can anyone argue with that?

Freedom of speech is what we're all about.

[hibsbollah]

I've not read the thread

Think yourself lucky:wink:

[Killiehibbie]

Yes but there was still a fear of Communism in the west, which to little harm to us. What 'on the brink of anarchy' nation could a group of supported Islamists could overthrow, with a significant amount of military power, money and technology to pose a serious threat to the western-world?

What do you mean 'let the religious nutters have their way' to cause a real mess? Let them overthrow the government? let them fully occupy Israel? Let them convert the work to Islam?

These nutters want to change YOUR way of life to fit in with their vision of how it should be.

[Betty Boop]

Yes but there was still a fear of Communism in the west, which to little harm to us. What 'on the brink of anarchy' nation could a group of supported Islamists could overthrow, with a significant amount of military power, money and technology to pose a serious threat to the western-world?
What do you mean 'let the religious nutters have their way' to cause a real mess? Let them overthrow the government? let them fully occupy Israel? Let them convert the work to Islam? You are wasting your time Joe, some on here believe the UK will in the future , be under the rule of Shariah Law. :rolleyes:

[Killiehibbie]

You are wasting your time Joe, some on here believe the UK will in the future , be under the rule of Shariah Law. :rolleyes:

If they are not kept in check who knows where we might end up.
Who would've thought a small island nation would build an empire in all corners of the globe. Who would've thought a small Austrian corporal would cause a world war only 20 years after the war to end all wars. Who would've thought a small half crippled Caucasian would've caused the deaths of 10's of millions with his vision of Communism.

[hibsbollah]

If they are not kept in check who knows where we might end up.
Who would've thought a small island nation would build an empire in all corners of the globe. Who would've thought a small Austrian corporal would cause a world war only 20 years after the war to end all wars. Who would've thought a small half crippled Caucasian would've caused the deaths of 10's of millions with his vision of Communism.

So with that logic we should launch a pre-emptive strike on the Shetlands:thumbsup:

[Killiehibbie]

So with that logic we should launch a pre-emptive strike on the Shetlands:thumbsup:

You do the Shetlands and i'll do Arran as it is closer to me and i've got to go to work tonight.

[hibsbollah]

You do the Shetlands and i'll do Arran as it is closer to me and i've got to go to work tonight.

Those ****ers with their wee ponies and fancy jumpers coming over here and stealing oor women:grr:

[Hibrandenburg]

You are wasting your time Joe, some on here believe the UK will in the future , be under the rule of Shariah Law. :rolleyes:



Who?

[Betty Boop]

Who? Good evening, have a look back through the posts. :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

You are wasting your time Joe, some on here believe the UK will in the future , be under the rule of Shariah Law. :rolleyes:


Good evening, have a look back through the posts. :wink:

Hiya :embarrass
Don't think anyone truly believes that the UK will be under the rule of Shariah Law BB. Islamists however have taken their holy war to us and some believe we should try and stop them. The threat from Islamic extremists is real as previous attacks have shown, so I'm confused as to why some people think everything is hunky dory between Islam and the west?

[Betty Boop]

Hiya :embarrass
Don't think anyone truly believes that the UK will be under the rule of Shariah Law BB. Islamists however have taken their holy war to us and some believe we should try and stop them. The threat from Islamic extremists is real as previous attacks have shown, so I'm confused as to why some people think everything is hunky dory between Islam and the west?
:agree: I believe this is because of our blind support for the USA, and our participation in the illegal war in Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Add to that our perceived support for Israel and it all makes for a heady cocktail of hatred, by extremists. I just think there appears to be a lot of Muslim bashing going on in the UK and beyond at the moment, it is verging on Islamophobia, and very sad IMO. Just my thoughts. :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree: I believe this is because of our blind support for the USA, and our participation in the illegal war in Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Add to that our perceived support for Israel and it all makes for a heady cocktail of hatred, by extremists. I just think there appears to be a lot of Muslim bashing going on in the UK and beyond at the moment, it is verging on Islamophobia, and very sad IMO. Just my thoughts. :greengrin

Whilst I agree that what you say is mostly true (mostly :greengrin), I'd still like to point out that the attacks (plural :greengrin) on 9/11 were carried out before the Iraq war, Guantanamo and Abu-Ghuraib. The West must take part of the blame for the situation we find ourselves in, however even if we were to cease any hostilities on our part, Islamists would continue their war of terror. Do we have a right to try and defend ourselves against such attacks? yes yes yes.

[Betty Boop]

Whilst I agree that what you say is mostly true (mostly :greengrin), I'd still like to point out that the attacks (plural :greengrin) on 9/11 were carried out before the Iraq war, Guantanamo and Abu-Ghuraib. The West must take part of the blame for the situation we find ourselves in, however even if we were to cease any hostilities on our part, Islamists would continue their war of terror. Do we have a right to try and defend ourselves against such attacks? yes yes yes. Yes, I have my own thoughts on 9/11, but that is a different story, however the situation in the Middle East has been going on for years now, and with Gaza being bombed back to the Stone Age, there is nothing going to be resolved any time soon. There will be no peace until there is justice for the Palestinians IMO.

[Hibrandenburg]

Yes, I have my own thoughts on 9/11, but that is a different story, however the situation in the Middle East has been going on for years now, and with Gaza being bombed back to the Stone Age, there is nothing going to be resolved any time soon. There will be no peace until there is justice for the Palestinians IMO.

That's the crux of it, there'll be no peace until all sides have justice :agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Whilst I agree that what you say is mostly true (mostly :greengrin), I'd still like to point out that the attacks (plural :greengrin) on 9/11 were carried out before the Iraq war, Guantanamo and Abu-Ghuraib. The West must take part of the blame for the situation we find ourselves in, however even if we were to cease any hostilities on our part, Islamists would continue their war of terror. Do we have a right to try and defend ourselves against such attacks? yes yes yes.

Which was, of course, the beginning of the pernicious Western influence in the Middle East. :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

Which was, of course, the beginning of the pernicious Western influence in the Middle East. :wink:

We could go back to Saracen hordes plundering southern europe or even further with the children of Israel being banished from their homeland. Peace here and now in the Middle East can only be negotiated on the basis of here and now.

[Sir David Gray]

I never really read much of the thread before posting, and at first glance your post seemed racist, but at second, it doesn't. You seem to be prophesising Islamism taking over the world. It won't happen. (going back to my previous post) people used to think Communism would take over the world. That never happened.

There have been Muslims trying to get to get Muslims to unite, and "join the Jihad against the Western infidels" for a while now, and t the best of my knowlege, the vast vast majority of Muslims do not want to join Jihad against the West.

Just because Communism wasn't successful in taking over the world, doesn't mean Islamism will also fail. As it happens, I don't believe radical Islam will succeed in taking over the world, but they'll make a good shot of it and will come pretty close.

In terms of your last comment there about "the vast vast majority of Muslims" not wanting to join Jihad against the West. As I've said before, there are an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the World. Even if, for argument's sake, 90% of Muslims (the vast vast majority) had no interest in joining Jihad against the West, that means 150 million people (10%) are actively involved in Jihad against the West.

That may be the vast vast minority, but it's an extremely large minority.


I didn't specify religion, I said 'group'. Since Islamism is a political ideology and not a religion it follows that I meant political group.

Islamism is both a form of religion and a political ideology. It obviously has a huge political basis, that's what makes it so powerful, but it is still an offshoot of Islam. It is spread by Imams and Islamic scholars and their message can be heard in mosques and Islamic schools.

Islam has, pretty much ever since its formation, had very strong ties with the political scene.


The fact that there are some posts on this thread (assuming theres no :fishin: going on)that seem to support the ludicrous theory that the all-powerful Western military and capitalist machine is somehow under threat from the worlds most displaced, impoverished, disunified and fragmented religious group just shows how ridiculous this debate is getting.:bye:

Eat more rack badgers:greengrin


You are wasting your time Joe, some on here believe the UK will in the future , be under the rule of Shariah Law. :rolleyes:

I'm not too sure how else I can say this. No-one on this thread has ever said that Sharia Law will be implemented in the UK. We are saying that is the aim of Islamists and these people must be opposed, to make sure that they are not successful.


I believe this is because of our blind support for the USA, and our participation in the illegal war in Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Add to that our perceived support for Israel and it all makes for a heady cocktail of hatred, by extremists. I just think there appears to be a lot of Muslim bashing going on in the UK and beyond at the moment, it is verging on Islamophobia, and very sad IMO. Just my thoughts.

I can understand why Muslims might be angry at the Iraq war but that does not excuse terrorism against people who are not directly involved in the decision to go to war. I'm angry at the persecution of Christians across the World, much of which is happening in Muslim countries, but that doesn't give me the right to go and blow up Muslims who have nothing at all to do with that persecution.

As for the last part, I wondered when Islamophobia would be brought up. Mention anything remotely critical of Islam and you get accusations of being Islamophobic shoved down your throat. It's exactly the same with Xenophobia and Homophobia.

A phobia is a fear of something and I think there is a lot to be fearful of with Islam, so I can fully understand why some people are Islamophobic.

Perhaps if the Muslim community presented a united front, stating that they completely renounce all forms of terrorism, whilst shunning any rogue elements within their community, Islamophobia might cease.


There will be no peace until there is justice for the Palestinians IMO.

As I have said countless times before, the Israel/Palestine conflict is central to most of the violence in the World, it is at the heart of everything.

There won't be a peaceful resolution to that conflict and subsequently, there will be no longlasting peace in the World.

Apologies for that sombre, late night message but it's unfortunately the way it is.

[Pete]

As for the last part, I wondered when Islamophobia would be brought up. Mention anything remotely critical of Islam and you get accusations of being Islamophobic shoved down your throat. It's exactly the same with Xenophobia and Homophobia.

A phobia is a fear of something and I think there is a lot to be fearful of with Islam, so I can fully understand why some people are Islamophobic.

I've noticed that as well regarding "islamophobia". Even if you merely question certain aspects of islam you get the same accustations thrown at you.

For example: Why are Muslim men allowed to be with women of any faith, yet muslim women are only allowed to be with muslim men? I've heard this question asked so many times but never have I heard a satisfactory reply that doesn't convince me that this is the most blatant and basic form of "non-integration" you can get.

Going off on a tangent perhaps....but asking such questions of a religion is far from being afraid of it. It is recognising it head on and trying to understand it.




Perhaps if the Muslim community presented a united front, stating that they completely renounce all forms of terrorism, whilst shunning any rogue elements within their community, Islamophobia might cease.

You have to admit that it would be quite difficult for the whole community to represent this united front. I reckon there are people in every community who has ever been "wronged" who advocate "terrorism" in some form. There are no doubt some Irish catholics who would happily support a return to the old ways and methods against the UK.
I think the muslim community in Britain (if there even is such a thing as a muslim community) is doing quite well in distancing themselves who go against what Islam is meant to be.

[Sir David Gray]

I've noticed that as well regarding "islamophobia". Even if you merely question certain aspects of islam you get the same accustations thrown at you.

For example: Why are Muslim men allowed to be with women of any faith, yet muslim women are only allowed to be with muslim men? I've heard this question asked so many times but never have I heard a satisfactory reply that doesn't convince me that this is the most blatant and basic form of "non-integration" you can get.

Going off on a tangent perhaps....but asking such questions of a religion is far from being afraid of it. It is recognising it head on and trying to understand it.




You have to admit that it would be quite difficult for the whole community to represent this united front. I reckon there are people in every community who has ever been "wronged" who advocate "terrorism" in some form. There are no doubt some Irish catholics who would happily support a return to the old ways and methods against the UK.
I think the muslim community in Britain (if there even is such a thing as a muslim community) is doing quite well in distancing themselves who go against what Islam is meant to be.

All I meant was, people keep saying that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and reject terrorism. If that is the case, which I suspect it probably is, then this majority should come out and say that they will not tolerate anyone from within their own community spouting hatred against the West and against other religious groups, namely the Jews and Christians.

If anyone is found to be crossing that line, then the peaceful majority should state that they'll immediately report such people to the Police.

In the past couple of days, I have read about British Muslims supplying the Taliban with electrical equipment that is made to produce roadside bombs in Afghanistan, that kill UK troops. I have also read that some Muslim schools in the UK are providing their students with anti-Western propaganda and some even list links to sites promoting Jihad, on their websites.

This is exactly the kind of behaviour that i'm talking about. Until the moderate Muslims convince their more radical counterparts that action like this is totally unacceptable and is doing them absolutely no favours, people will continue to be hostile towards Muslims and treat them all the same, as if they are all potential suicide bombers, who are on a mission to destroy Britain.

They need to isolate the rogue elements, as I called them before, and make sure that they play no part in mainstream Islam.

[Pete]

All I meant was, people keep saying that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and reject terrorism. If that is the case, which I suspect it probably is, then this majority should come out and say that they will not tolerate anyone from within their own community spouting hatred against the West and against other religious groups, namely the Jews and Christians.

If anyone is found to be crossing that line, then the peaceful majority should state that they'll immediately report such people to the Police.

In the past couple of days, I have read about British Muslims supplying the Taliban with electrical equipment that is made to produce roadside bombs in Afghanistan, that kill UK troops. I have also read that some Muslim schools in the UK are providing their students with anti-Western propaganda and some even list links to sites promoting Jihad, on their websites.

This is exactly the kind of behaviour that i'm talking about. Until the moderate Muslims convince their more radical counterparts that action like this is totally unacceptable and is doing them absolutely no favours, people will continue to be hostile towards Muslims and treat them all the same, as if they are all potential suicide bombers, who are on a mission to destroy Britain.

They need to isolate the rogue elements, as I called them before, and make sure that they play no part in mainstream Islam.

If there's muslim institutions found out to be spreading anti-west propaganda they should be shut down and prosecuted at once! Same for these semi radical mosques but they know the law and and they're probably keeping a fag-paper within it. Sickening but there's nothing anyone can do.

Moderate muslims in powerfull positions do come out and speak out against terrorism. However, what influence does a "head of community" actually have in the general scheme of things?
I think the "Muslim community" does exist to a certain extent but it has become naturally fragmented due to it's growth. I reckon it's now virtually impossible to separate a real nutter from a mouthy boy who is just looking for some form of identity if you can't get to know them personally.

This is becoming a more difficult problem to solve as Britain becomes more multi-racial and multi-cultural but it will never be solved unless those on the far left admit that there actually is a problem within certain religions.

[Hibrandenburg]

If there's muslim institutions found out to be spreading anti-west propaganda they should be shut down and prosecuted at once! Same for these semi radical mosques but they know the law and and they're probably keeping a fag-paper within it. Sickening but there's nothing anyone can do.

Moderate muslims in powerfull positions do come out and speak out against terrorism. However, what influence does a "head of community" actually have in the general scheme of things?
I think the "Muslim community" does exist to a certain extent but it has become naturally fragmented due to it's growth. I reckon it's now virtually impossible to separate a real nutter from a mouthy boy who is just looking for some form of identity if you can't get to know them personally.

This is becoming a more difficult problem to solve as Britain becomes more multi-racial and multi-cultural but it will never be solved unless those on the far left admit that there actually is a problem within certain religions.


Don't the far left have a problem with all religions :dunno:

[hibsbollah]

Sorry but all this repition about 'not being able to criticise Islam' is just nonsense. Cast an eye at all the British media outlets, it is constant Islam bashing from the Telegraph, Times, Sun, Star, etc etc. The only mainstream commentator who presents a pro-Palestinian position in the recent Israel situation, for example, is Robert Fisk, who gets vilified as 'anti-semitic' 24/7.

In the same way, the only 'political correctness' at play in the recent violence was about the word 'zionism'. If you even mention this acknowledged extreme form of religious nationalism you are immediately denounced as 'anti-semitic':bitchy: by the ranks of Israeli apologists in the media. For the left, who historically were at the front line in the battles against fascism, being labelled as anti-semitic is a bit much to take.

If the UK media was able to differentiate between a)Muslims and b)Islamists, there might be a bit more mutual understanding around. Until that happens, Islamaphobia will continue to be a real problem for anyone genuinely interested in promoting a multi-racial society.

[Hibrandenburg]

Sorry but all this repition about 'not being able to criticise Islam' is just nonsense. Cast an eye at all the British media outlets, it is constant Islam bashing from the Telegraph, Times, Sun, Star, etc etc. The only mainstream commentator who presents a pro-Palestinian position in the recent Israel situation, for example, is Robert Fisk, who gets vilified as 'anti-semitic' 24/7.
In the same way, the only 'political correctness' at play in the recent violence was about the word 'zionism'. If you even mention this acknowledged extreme form of religious nationalism you are immediately denounced as 'anti-semitic':bitchy: by the ranks of Israeli apologists in the media. For the left, who historically were at the front line in the battles against fascism, being labelled as anti-semitic is a bit much to take.

If the UK media was able to differentiate between a)Muslims and b)Islamists, there might be a bit more mutual understanding around. Until that happens, Islamaphobia will continue to be a real problem for anyone genuinely interested in promoting a multi-racial society.

Sounds like the old eat poo argument, 276 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 flies can't be wrong.

Also if your average Islamic terrorist could differentiate between a schoolgirl on her way to school in the tube after visiting the Dr's and catching up on her maths homework and the spawn of satan's army and the riders of the apocalypse, then there may be a chance of more understanding in our society.

Until that happens, Islamaphobia will continue to be a real problem for anyone genuinely interested in promoting Islam in a multi-racial society.

[Betty Boop]

Sorry but all this repition about 'not being able to criticise Islam' is just nonsense. Cast an eye at all the British media outlets, it is constant Islam bashing from the Telegraph, Times, Sun, Star, etc etc. The only mainstream commentator who presents a pro-Palestinian position in the recent Israel situation, for example, is Robert Fisk, who gets vilified as 'anti-semitic' 24/7.

In the same way, the only 'political correctness' at play in the recent violence was about the word 'zionism'. If you even mention this acknowledged extreme form of religious nationalism you are immediately denounced as 'anti-semitic':bitchy: by the ranks of Israeli apologists in the media. For the left, who historically were at the front line in the battles against fascism, being labelled as anti-semitic is a bit much to take.

If the UK media was able to differentiate between a)Muslims and b)Islamists, there might be a bit more mutual understanding around. Until that happens, Islamaphobia will continue to be a real problem for anyone genuinely interested in promoting a multi-racial society. :top marks

[LiverpoolHibs]

Islamism is both a form of religion and a political ideology. It obviously has a huge political basis, that's what makes it so powerful, but it is still an offshoot of Islam. It is spread by Imams and Islamic scholars and their message can be heard in mosques and Islamic schools.

Islam has, pretty much ever since its formation, had very strong ties with the political scene.

It's not a 'form of religion' at all no more than, say, Christian Voice is a branch of Christianity. It's a political ideology based on a fundamental reading of a particular religion.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your second point. Are there any religions that haven't had (/has) very strong ties with politics through their histories?


As for the last part, I wondered when Islamophobia would be brought up. Mention anything remotely critical of Islam and you get accusations of being Islamophobic shoved down your throat. It's exactly the same with Xenophobia and Homophobia.

Yeah, hibsbollah deals pretty well with this fallacy.


A phobia is a fear of something and I think there is a lot to be fearful of with Islam, so I can fully understand why some people are Islamophobic.

Perhaps if the Muslim community presented a united front, stating that they completely renounce all forms of terrorism, whilst shunning any rogue elements within their community, Islamophobia might cease.

Why should they have to? Again your coming from a position of presumption of guilt. Unless 'they' go miles out of their way to prove otherwise 'they' are targets for suspicion.

[LiverpoolHibs]

All I meant was, people keep saying that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and reject terrorism. If that is the case, which I suspect it probably is, then this majority should come out and say that they will not tolerate anyone from within their own community spouting hatred against the West and against other religious groups, namely the Jews and Christians.

If anyone is found to be crossing that line, then the peaceful majority should state that they'll immediately report such people to the Police.

In the past couple of days, I have read about British Muslims supplying the Taliban with electrical equipment that is made to produce roadside bombs in Afghanistan, that kill UK troops. I have also read that some Muslim schools in the UK are providing their students with anti-Western propaganda and some even list links to sites promoting Jihad, on their websites.

This is exactly the kind of behaviour that i'm talking about. Until the moderate Muslims convince their more radical counterparts that action like this is totally unacceptable and is doing them absolutely no favours, people will continue to be hostile towards Muslims and treat them all the same, as if they are all potential suicide bombers, who are on a mission to destroy Britain.

They need to isolate the rogue elements, as I called them before, and make sure that they play no part in mainstream Islam.

Where did you read this?

[Woody1985]

Where did you read this?

Quick search on the net.

http://herforderassociation.blogspot.com/2009/02/british-muslims-supplying-talibans-bomb.html

I think it was in the news / papers.

Edit; Page 10 of the Sunday Mail.

[Sir David Gray]

Sorry but all this repition about 'not being able to criticise Islam' is just nonsense. Cast an eye at all the British media outlets, it is constant Islam bashing from the Telegraph, Times, Sun, Star, etc etc. The only mainstream commentator who presents a pro-Palestinian position in the recent Israel situation, for example, is Robert Fisk, who gets vilified as 'anti-semitic' 24/7.

In the same way, the only 'political correctness' at play in the recent violence was about the word 'zionism'. If you even mention this acknowledged extreme form of religious nationalism you are immediately denounced as 'anti-semitic':bitchy: by the ranks of Israeli apologists in the media. For the left, who historically were at the front line in the battles against fascism, being labelled as anti-semitic is a bit much to take.

If the UK media was able to differentiate between a)Muslims and b)Islamists, there might be a bit more mutual understanding around. Until that happens, Islamaphobia will continue to be a real problem for anyone genuinely interested in promoting a multi-racial society.

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily describe someone who criticises Israel as being anti-semitic (although you can draw some similarities), I think there is a difference between anti-semitism and Islamophobia.

Anti-semitism has very little, almost nothing in fact, to do with criticising Judaism as a religion. It is a hatred of the Jewish people as an entire race (regardless of whether they are secular or religious) and a belief that the Jews should be wiped out.

Islamophobia, I would argue, is not comparable to anti-semitism. Obviously, there are some people who hate all Muslims and want to see them entirely wiped out. But for a lot of people, they are Islamophobic simply because of what radical Muslims have done in the past 8 years or so and there is a genuine fear of Islam. I would say it's pretty understandable.


It's not a 'form of religion' at all no more than, say, Christian Voice is a branch of Christianity. It's a political ideology based on a fundamental reading of a particular religion.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your second point. Are there any religions that haven't had (/has) very strong ties with politics through their histories?



Yeah, hibsbollah deals pretty well with this fallacy.



Why should they have to? Again your coming from a position of presumption of guilt. Unless 'they' go miles out of their way to prove otherwise 'they' are targets for suspicion.

First point-You're comparing one organisation, which has a membership totalling around 600, (Christian Voice) to a whole ideology that is adhered to by millions of people across the globe (Islamism). I would actually say that Christian Voice is a Christian organisation, in the same way that I believe Islamism is a form of Islam. As I said before, all religions have extremists within their ranks. However some have more than others.

As for the last part of your first point, yes all religions do have a degree of political influence. But with Islam it has been evident throughout its 1400 years of existence, that the ties between Islam and politics are particularly strong. It all goes back to the foundations of Islam, when Muhammad came to rule Medina and it subsequently fell under Sharia Law.

Second point-Who decides that its a fallacy? I think there is widespread evidence that whenever someone dares to criticise, or challenge, certain aspects of Islam, they are immediately denounced as 'Islamophobes' by left wing groups.

Third point-They (moderate Muslims) should do it because they are the people who are much more likely to have any sort of influence over the Islamists, than anyone else. It is in the best interests of moderate Muslims to do all they can to stop Islamic related terrorism because, whether anyone likes it or not, if Al Qaeda, and other such groups, continue to attack the UK and the West, some people in this country and countless others, will take the law into their own hands and that will undoubtedly mean innocent Muslims being targetted.

Which would be just as much of a problem as the Islamists.


Where did you read this?

I read the Taliban story on teletext about 3 or 4 days ago and the school story, I found on an online version of a newspaper, a couple of days ago.

[Betty Boop]

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily describe someone who criticises Israel as being anti-semitic (although you can draw some similarities), I think there is a difference between anti-semitism and Islamophobia.

Anti-semitism has very little, almost nothing in fact, to do with criticising Judaism as a religion. It is a hatred of the Jewish people as an entire race (regardless of whether they are secular or religious) and a belief that the Jews should be wiped out.

Islamophobia, I would argue, is not comparable to anti-semitism. Obviously, there are some people who hate all Muslims and want to see them entirely wiped out. But for a lot of people, they are Islamophobic simply because of what radical Muslims have done in the past 8 years or so and there is a genuine fear of Islam. I would say it's pretty understandable.



First point-You're comparing one organisation, which has a membership totalling around 600, (Christian Voice) to a whole ideology that is adhered to by millions of people across the globe (Islamism). I would actually say that Christian Voice is a Christian organisation, in the same way that I believe Islamism is a form of Islam. As I said before, all religions have extremists within their ranks. However some have more than others.

As for the last part of your first point, yes all religions do have a degree of political influence. But with Islam it has been evident throughout its 1400 years of existence, that the ties between Islam and politics are particularly strong. It all goes back to the foundations of Islam, when Muhammad came to rule Medina and it subsequently fell under Sharia Law.

Second point-Who decides that its a fallacy? I think there is widespread evidence that whenever someone dares to criticise, or challenge, certain aspects of Islam, they are immediately denounced as 'Islamophobes' by left wing groups.

Third point-They (moderate Muslims) should do it because they are the people who are much more likely to have any sort of influence over the Islamists, than anyone else. It is in the best interests of moderate Muslims to do all they can to stop Islamic related terrorism because, whether anyone likes it or not, if Al Qaeda, and other such groups, continue to attack the UK and the West, some people in this country and countless others, will take the law into their own hands and that will undoubtedly mean innocent Muslims being targetted.

Which would be just as much of a problem as the Islamists.



I read the Taliban story on teletext about 3 or 4 days ago and the school story, I found on an online version of a newspaper, a couple of days ago.
What a surprise! :rolleyes:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily describe someone who criticises Israel as being anti-semitic (although you can draw some similarities), I think there is a difference between anti-semitism and Islamophobia.

Such as?


Islamophobia, I would argue, is not comparable to anti-semitism. Obviously, there are some people who hate all Muslims and want to see them entirely wiped out. But for a lot of people, they are Islamophobic simply because of what radical Muslims have done in the past 8 years or so and there is a genuine fear of Islam. I would say it's pretty understandable.

On those grounds, would you accept a similar phobia of the U.S. is 'understandable' (nice choice of word. :wink:) in Latin America, the Middle East, South East Asia etc. etc. etc.?


First point-You're comparing one organisation, which has a membership totalling around 600, (Christian Voice) to a whole ideology that is adhered to by millions of people across the globe (Islamism).

What difference does that make?


I would actually say that Christian Voice is a Christian organisation, in the same way that I believe Islamism is a form of Islam. As I said before, all religions have extremists within their ranks. However some have more than others.

A Christian organisation, no doubt, but a genuine branch (or sect) of Christianity? Seriously?

I think you have a fairly bizarre way of defining a religon. It's like claiming that the Indian BJP is a branch of Hinduism. Incredible...


As for the last part of your first point, yes all religions do have a degree of political influence. But with Islam it has been evident throughout its 1400 years of existence, that the ties between Islam and politics are particularly strong. It all goes back to the foundations of Islam, when Muhammad came to rule Medina and it subsequently fell under Sharia Law.

Whereas Jesus wasn't an intensely political figure, although maybe not quite as explicitly as Mohammed? (I await a 'render unto Caesar' response :greengrin)

The Crusades? The Holy Roman Empire? The Reformation? You're flogging a dead horse here.


Second point-Who decides that its a fallacy? I think there is widespread evidence that whenever someone dares to criticise, or challenge, certain aspects of Islam, they are immediately denounced as 'Islamophobes' by left wing groups.

I refer you back to hibsbollah's comments, he covers it.


Third point-They (moderate Muslims) should do it because they are the people who are much more likely to have any sort of influence over the Islamists, than anyone else.
It is in the best interests of moderate Muslims to do all they can to stop Islamic related terrorism because, whether anyone likes it or not, if Al Qaeda, and other such groups, continue to attack the UK and the West, some people in this country and countless others, will take the law into their own hands and that will undoubtedly mean innocent Muslims being targetted.

Which would be just as much of a problem as the Islamists.

Hmmmm, there's a definite nasty subtext there, no matter how you've tried to coat it.

[hibsbollah]

whether anyone likes it or not, if Al Qaeda, and other such groups, continue to attack the UK and the West, some people in this country and countless others, will take the law into their own hands and that will undoubtedly mean innocent Muslims being targetted.



:faf: Come on now!:faf:
Imagine if someone turned that sentence around...

'whether anyone likes it or not, if the UK and the West continue to attack the muslim world, some people and countless others, will take the law into their own hands and that will undoubtedly mean innocent Westerners being targetted.'....

...It would sound like a proclamation from Osama Bin Laden himself. You are guilty of shocking double standards FH:bitchy:

[Betty Boop]

:faf: Come on now!:faf:
Imagine if someone turned that sentence around...

'whether anyone likes it or not, if the UK and the West continue to attack the muslim world, some people and countless others, will take the law into their own hands and that will undoubtedly mean innocent Westerners being targetted.'....

...It would sound like a proclamation from Osama Bin Laden himself. You are guilty of shocking double standards FH: :agree:

[Woody1985]

On those grounds, would you accept a similar phobia of the U.S. is 'understandable' (nice choice of word. :wink:) in Latin America, the Middle East, South East Asia etc. etc. etc.?


Why do you continually keep turning the conversation around?

I know there are two sides to every coin. However, the points he was raising were F all to do with what you're going on about.

Of course there will be similarities between what you've said and Islamaphobia. What exactly is your point? :confused:




What difference does that make?


I think the point he was making is that a small group of 600 people are a lot less likely to have as much of an influence and threat as millions of people looking to end your way of life.

I can guess that you'll probably go onto say stuff about governments with small numbers doing this etc but that's not what he's getting at.




Hmmmm, there's a definite nasty subtext there, no matter how you've tried to coat it.

I'm not really sure what FH is going on about here. Sounds like he's rambling and talking about skinheads going out and attacking Muslims or something.

I do think that FH is correct in saying that moderate Muslims do have a lot more influence on Islamists than the west will. You can kill every Islamist that tries to attack us but there will always be more looking to join the Jihad.

This problem is never going to go away. All countries (Muslim/Christian/Whoever) can do is to try and contain it and stop it from spreading as much as possible.

These Islamists are like the rats in the film Wanted. One by one they are insignificant and can't really do much damage but when there are thousand / millions it almost become unstoppable.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Why do you continually keep turning the conversation around?

I know there are two sides to every coin. However, the points he was raising were F all to do with what you're going on about.

Of course there will be similarities between what you've said and Islamaphobia. What exactly is your point? :confused:

I wouldn't say I'm 'continually turning the conversation around'. It's an attempt to expose the constant inconsistencies and contradictions in his argument. He's attempting to justify the existence of Islamophobia, so I wondered if he would be so quick to justify anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East and other areas. I sincerely doubt he would...


I think the point he was making is that a small group of 600 people are a lot less likely to have as much of an influence and threat as millions of people looking to end your way of life.

I can guess that you'll probably go onto say stuff about governments with small numbers doing this etc but that's not what he's getting at.

Yes, but that isn't the point. I was disputing his (ridiculous) claim that Islamism was - or could be considered to be - a branch of Islamic faith.

[Woody1985]

I wouldn't say I'm 'continually turning the conversation around'. It's an attempt to expose the constant inconsistencies and contradictions in his argument. He's attempting to justify the existence of Islamophobia, so I wondered if he would be so quick to justify anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East and other areas. I sincerely doubt he would...

Yes, but that isn't the point. I was disputing his (ridiculous) claim that Islamism was - or could be considered to be - a branch of Islamic faith.

Fair enough.

We'll find out soon enough!

[LiverpoolHibs]

Fair enough.

We'll find out soon enough!

I don't doubt it! :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

I see Geert Wilders has been granted entry to the USA. I saw him doing an interview on Fox News this morning. I haven't heard of any riots taking place as a consequence of his visit...


What a surprise! :rolleyes:

That's me, full of surprises, I wouldn't want to disappoint you. :wink:

In all seriousness, I must say I expected a better reply than that.


Such as?



On those grounds, would you accept a similar phobia of the U.S. is 'understandable' (nice choice of word. :wink:) in Latin America, the Middle East, South East Asia etc. etc. etc.?



What difference does that make?



A Christian organisation, no doubt, but a genuine branch (or sect) of Christianity? Seriously?

I think you have a fairly bizarre way of defining a religon. It's like claiming that the Indian BJP is a branch of Hinduism. Incredible...



Whereas Jesus wasn't an intensely political figure, although maybe not quite as explicitly as Mohammed? (I await a 'render unto Caesar' response :greengrin)

The Crusades? The Holy Roman Empire? The Reformation? You're flogging a dead horse here.



I refer you back to hibsbollah's comments, he covers it.



Hmmmm, there's a definite nasty subtext there, no matter how you've tried to coat it.

First point-I would say that most Muslims who make comments against Israel, are anti-semitic as well as anti-Israeli.

Second point-People are entitled to think what they want. If there are people who are against the USA or are "Ameriphobic" (just made that up!:greengrin), that's up to them.

Third point-I think it makes a big difference. Woody has basically said what I was going to say on that.

Fourth point-You could go up to every single religious person in the world, and get a different perspective on their faith, from every one of them. You get extremists in every religion, but it doesn't mean that they're not Christian/Muslim/Hindu etc. It just means that they interpret their faith in a different way to the majority.

If someone believes in one God and that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins and then rose again, I would say they are a Christian, regardless of their views on any other issue. In the same way that I would say that if someone believes in one Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger, I would say they are Muslim, regardless of what their views are on any other subject.

Fifth point-Jesus wasn't involved in politics to the extent that Muhammad was, which you've basically said yourself. Jesus was also not a military leader, nor did he kill anyone.

I don't deny that Christianity has had links to politics, my point was that it's not to the extent that it exists within Islam.

Islamists aim to recreate the Islamic Caliphate, you can't get much more political than that. There is no such comparison within Christianity, or any other religion for that matter.

Sixth point-You don't need to refer me back anywhere. I've seen his comments, I just happen to disagree.

Seventh point-I'm not sure how you can say there's a "nasty subtext" to what I'm saying. I would have thought it would be obvious that the people who would have the most influence over the extremists, and who have the greatest chance of changing attitudes, would be other Muslims, themselves.


:faf: Come on now!:faf:
Imagine if someone turned that sentence around...

'whether anyone likes it or not, if the UK and the West continue to attack the muslim world, some people and countless others, will take the law into their own hands and that will undoubtedly mean innocent Westerners being targetted.'....

...It would sound like a proclamation from Osama Bin Laden himself. You are guilty of shocking double standards FH:bitchy:

No Islamist would come out with a statement like that because, to them, there's no such thing as an "innocent Westerner". We are all legitimate targets, we are all infidels and we are all enemies of Islam, who must be defeated.

At least I am able to distinguish between an Islamic terrorist and a moderate Muslim. As I've said previously, I only have a problem with the former, and the latter never have been, and never will be, my enemy.


I'm not really sure what FH is going on about here. Sounds like he's rambling and talking about skinheads going out and attacking Muslims or something.

I do think that FH is correct in saying that moderate Muslims do have a lot more influence on Islamists than the west will. You can kill every Islamist that tries to attack us but there will always be more looking to join the Jihad.

The second paragraph answers the confusion that you've highlighted in your first paragraph, that's exactly what I'm getting at.


I wouldn't say I'm 'continually turning the conversation around'. It's an attempt to expose the constant inconsistencies and contradictions in his argument. He's attempting to justify the existence of Islamophobia, so I wondered if he would be so quick to justify anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East and other areas. I sincerely doubt he would...



Yes, but that isn't the point. I was disputing his (ridiculous) claim that Islamism was - or could be considered to be - a branch of Islamic faith.

First point-I have now answered that question above. If people feel they have genuine concerns about the USA, or the West in general, then they are more than entitled to express those concerns. I would defend the right of anyone to think/say whatever they like, so long as they are not directly encouraging violence against anyone.

Second point-Why is it a ridiculous claim? Let me ask you a few questions;

Do these Islamists attend a Mosque regularly?

Do these Islamists read the Qur'an?

Do these Islamists believe in Allah and pray to him five times a day?

Do these Islamists believe that Muhammad is Allah's messenger?

If the answer to all those questions is 'yes' (which it is) then they are a part of the Islamic faith.

PS-I watched the first part of that video today, I've only just realised that there's three episodes. The first one was very interesting, although it hasn't changed the way I view the whole issue.

I'll watch the next two and then report back.

[LiverpoolHibs]

First point-I would say that most Muslims who make comments against Israel, are anti-semitic as well as anti-Israeli.

That's handy! What's that based on? So they're just better keeping their heads down and not complaining about anything, yeah?


Second point-People are entitled to think what they want. If there are people who are against the USA or are "Ameriphobic" (just made that up!:greengrin), that's up to them.

Third point-I think it makes a big difference. Woody has basically said what I was going to say on that.

And as I've said, I don't see how numbers makes any difference whatsoever. I'd appreciate an explanation of that.


Fourth point-You could go up to every single religious person in the world, and get a different perspective on their faith, from every one of them. You get extremists in every religion, but it doesn't mean that they're not Christian/Muslim/Hindu etc. It just means that they interpret their faith in a different way to the majority.

If someone believes in one God and that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins and then rose again, I would say they are a Christian, regardless of their views on any other issue. In the same way that I would say that if someone believes in one Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger, I would say they are Muslim, regardless of what their views are on any other subject.

I'm not sure what this was in reply to. This?


A Christian organisation, no doubt, but a genuine branch (or sect) of Christianity? Seriously?

I think you have a fairly bizarre way of defining a religon. It's like claiming that the Indian BJP is a branch of Hinduism. Incredible...

I don't see how what you've said is relevant. Of course all Islamists are Muslims, but that doesn't make Islamism a genuine branch of Islam.


Fifth point-Jesus wasn't involved in politics to the extent that Muhammad was, which you've basically said yourself. Jesus was also not a military leader, nor did he kill anyone.

I don't deny that Christianity has had links to politics, my point was that it's not to the extent that it exists within Islam.

Islamists aim to recreate the Islamic Caliphate, you can't get much more political than that. There is no such comparison within Christianity, or any other religion for that matter.

Equating Islam and Islamism again!


Second point-Why is it a ridiculous claim? Let me ask you a few questions;

Do these Islamists attend a Mosque regularly?

Do these Islamists read the Qur'an?

Do these Islamists believe in Allah and pray to him five times a day?

Do these Islamists believe that Muhammad is Allah's messenger?

If the answer to all those questions is 'yes' (which it is) then they are a part of the Islamic faith.

Which is very different to the political ideology of Islamism being a branch of Islam. You really think Christian Voice should be considered an arm of Christianity in the same way that Catholicism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxism Methodism etc. etc. are?

[Sir David Gray]

That's handy! What's that based on? So they're just better keeping their heads down and not complaining about anything, yeah?

I think that a lot of Muslims who are anti-Israel, aren't simply making their point because they're supporting the Palestinian people, or because they disagree with the policies of the Israeli Government. I think that, for many of them, there is a deep-rooted hatred of the Jewish people, which makes their stance anti-semitic, as well as anti-Israeli.


And as I've said, I don't see how numbers makes any difference whatsoever. I'd appreciate an explanation of that.

It appeared to me, at the time, that you only mentioned Christian Voice as a means of providing an example of an extremist Christian group, to compare them to the Islamists.

Having looked again at the exchange of comments that have been made on this issue, I now understand what you mean.


I'm not sure what this was in reply to. This?


A Christian organisation, no doubt, but a genuine branch (or sect) of Christianity? Seriously?

I think you have a fairly bizarre way of defining a religon. It's like claiming that the Indian BJP is a branch of Hinduism. Incredible...

I don't see how what you've said is relevant. Of course all Islamists are Muslims, but that doesn't make Islamism a genuine branch of Islam.

Yes, it was in response to the above.

Surely if you're a Muslim, then you're an adherent of Islam (regardless of how extreme or otherwise your views might be), in the same way that if you are a Christian, then you're an adherent of Christianity, and so on?



Which is very different to the political ideology of Islamism being a branch of Islam. You really think Christian Voice should be considered an arm of Christianity in the same way that Catholicism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxism Methodism etc. etc. are?

Obviously not as there isn't a 'Church of Christian Voice', but I would say that members of Christian Voice are just as involved with Christianity as other Christians are, who would completely oppose what they stand for.

However, it could be argued that many Islamists adhere to Wahhabism, an extreme form of Sunni Islam, that has a significant amount of followers in Saudi Arabia. This is most definitely a branch of Islam.

Perhaps a better Christian comparison would be the aforementioned Westboro Baptist Church in America, that is run by Fred Phelps. Although they have been completely shunned by the mainstream Baptist Church, I would say that they are a genuine arm of Christianity, in the same way that Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism etc. are.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think that a lot of Muslims who are anti-Israel, aren't simply making their point because they're supporting the Palestinian people, or because they disagree with the policies of the Israeli Government. I think that, for many of them, there is a deep-rooted hatred of the Jewish people, which makes their stance anti-semitic, as well as anti-Israeli.

I have no idea what you base that on. It's pure supposition, and dangerous and offensive to boot.


It appeared to me, at the time, that you only mentioned Christian Voice as a means of providing an example of an extremist Christian group, to compare them to the Islamists.

Having looked again at the exchange of comments that have been made on this issue, I now understand what you mean.

Yes, it was in response to the above.

Surely if you're a Muslim, then you're an adherent of Islam (regardless of how extreme or otherwise your views might be), in the same way that if you are a Christian, then you're an adherent of Christianity, and so on?

Yes. But I never said Islamists weren't Islamic, just that there is no way that Islamism can be considered a genuine branch of Islam.


Obviously not as there isn't a 'Church of Christian Voice', but I would say that members of Christian Voice are just as involved with Christianity as other Christians are, who would completely oppose what they stand for.

Argh! Stop missing the point!


However, it could be argued that many Islamists adhere to Wahhabism, an extreme form of Sunni Islam, that has a significant amount of followers in Saudi Arabia. This is most definitely a branch of Islam.

Yes, that is arguable. I'd say not very successfully, but it's arguable. There's a huge dichotomy betweem Wahhabism and Islamism, however.

Funnily enough, you've consistently argued the Islamist line, regarding the relationship between Islam and Islamism, during this debate.

There's a much deeper question in deabtes such as this. To quote Edward Said,

"How does one represent other cultures? What is another culture? Is the notion of a distinct culture - or race, or religion, or civilization - a useful one, or does it always get involved either in self-congratulation, when one discusses one's own, or hostility and aggression, when one discusses the 'other'?"


Perhaps a better Christian comparison would be the aforementioned Westboro Baptist Church in America, that is run by Fred Phelps. Although they have been completely shunned by the mainstream Baptist Church, I would say that they are a genuine arm of Christianity, in the same way that Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism etc. are.

I don't even think that's comparable to be honest.

[Sir David Gray]

I have no idea what you base that on. It's pure supposition, and dangerous and offensive to boot.

I base it on quotes from Islamic extremists, they absolutely hate the Jewish people and are quite open about that hatred. That point was emphasised, to me at least, when one of the targets in the Mumbai attacks last year, was a Jewish centre. That was not a coincidence.

The only people who would be offended by what I've said would be the anti-semitic Islamists. I am not saying that every single Muslim is anti-semitic, i'm not even saying that every single Muslim who is critical of the state of Israel, is anti-semitic. However, I do believe that there is a link between certain aspects of Islam and anti-semitism.


Yes. But I never said Islamists weren't Islamic, just that there is no way that Islamism can be considered a genuine branch of Islam.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point, it'll just keep going round in circles.


Yes, that is arguable. I'd say not very successfully, but it's arguable. There's a huge dichotomy betweem Wahhabism and Islamism, however.

That's about as much of an agreement as I'm going to get from you, so that'll do for me. :wink:


I don't even think that's comparable to be honest.

Why not? The Westboro Baptist Church has an actual church, in the same way that the Roman Catholics have a church, the Methodists have a church and the Anglicans have a church.

So they are a genuine branch of Christianity, even although they are deemed to be extremists by just about everyone outside their church.

It's been quite interesting having yet another debate with yourself. It's probably best if we begin to wrap things up as it's clear that we are poles apart in terms of political outlook on such issues and are unlikely to see eye-to-eye, any time soon.

No doubt it won't be long before we're next in discussion. :wink: