"Islamaphobia" explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeeJay

Most definitely NOT the German PM - may well have been a member of the German Bundesbank, of course:cool2:? Does make you wonder though: if "youtube" or you "Woody1985" gets a major aspect like this completely wrong, what can be relied on in any so-called report on a topic such as this?:confused:

---

It was a short documentry I watched a month or two back. I don't have all of the exact details but I believe that's what was stated in the video.

I was adding some points that were made on what I watched. As per the above, you will see that I have stated that I don't know if much/all of the information on the video was correct and took it with a pinch of salt.

I was merely adding to the discussion, perhaps the video was created as a propoganda tool to promote Islamaphobia, therefore I would say it's extremely relevant to the thread regardless of the accuracy of information contained within it.

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

It was a short documentry I watched a month or two back. I don't have all of the exact details but I believe that's what was stated in the video.

I was adding some points that were made on what I watched. As per the above, you will see that I have stated that I don't know if much/all of the information on the video was correct and took it with a pinch of salt.

I was merely adding to the discussion, perhaps the video was created as a propoganda tool to promote Islamaphobia, therefore I would say it's extremely relevant to the thread regardless of the accuracy of information contained within it.

---

a) IMO "Youtube" is a place for watching funny videos and suchlike, not for gaining political insight into anything (not without checking elsewhere at least!)
b) Perhaps common sense would have suggested that the German PM could not possibly have said what you think she said - Germany would be in political meltdown if she had said it, and you would hear something about it on reputable news outlets (i.e. not "youtube")
c) "...therefore I would say it's extremely relevant to the thread regardless of the accuracy of information contained within it" - a) Woody-1985, how can the "youtube" inaccuracy or your bad hearing/recollection be of relevance to the topic if it's nonsense??:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterdouglas

It's a term used far too often for my liking...often by muslims who don't understand the questions that non muslims ask of their faith.

The main question I have is why can't I, as a non-believer in any faith not entertain a muslim female?

The answer is I just can't....because I'm not a muslim.

However, If a muslim male was to court a female it would be OK if she was a believer in any other sort of religion??

This is the most basic and blatant form of "non-integration" possible yet it isn't questioned by anyone.
Can anyone explain how this can happen in a so called "multi-cultural" society?..I though that meant we were all meant to mix as exuals.

I know for a fact that such issues are a crux of the problem in places like Oldham and bradford....You don't touch a muslim woman if you don't believe...or else!

Is it not time islam to grow up and accept others...regardless of belief?

This is a large part of the problem.

---

By "entertain", do you mean "ride"?

Are you having bother with a particular young lady? :cool2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeeJay

:confused:

a) IMO "Youtube" is a place for watching funny videos and suchlike, not for gaining political insight into anything (not without checking elsewhere at least!)
b) Perhaps common sense would have suggested that the German PM could not possibly have said what you think she said - Germany would be in political meltdown if she had said it, and you would hear something about it on reputable news outlets (i.e. not "youtube")
c) "...therefore I would say it's extremely relevant to the thread regardless of the accuracy of information contained within it" - a) Woody-1985, how can the "youtube" inaccuracy or your bad hearing/recollection be of relevance to the topic if it's nonsense??:confused:

---

A) That's why I said that I don't know if any of the video was accurate.
B) I appreciate that but IIRC the video was posted a couple of years back and I didn't take much of an interest in politics then so wouldn't have been aware one way or the other.
C) The topic is Islamaphobia, a video like this that may well be pure propoganda from the right wing on one of the most used websites in the world is extremely relevant. Failure to see that is obtuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dinkydoo

You stop being a freedom fighter and become a terrorist as soon as you cause the death of an innocent.

Quite simple really.

Religion is the cause for so many problems (and is used as an excuse to do wrong time and time again)

The sad thing is that chances are, these ass holes are never going to be punished for their crimes and when they die they'll never know that they were wrong because that'll be it.

Religion taken too literally is a sure path back to the dark ages imo. It can give people great strength to get through difficult times but it can also fuel you into doing something evil like crashing a two planes into the previously tallest sky scrapers in the world........:grr:

I'm not an Atheist, I believe in something but I have no idea what that is and I've great doubts about whether any of us will ever truely know how we were created etc etc etc etc.....:blah:

So I see no point in taking religion too seriously:rolleyes:

---

You can't have war without the loss of lives of innocents. What constitutes an innocent anyway? Were the soldiers killed at their barracks in Northern Ireland recently innocents, or do they count as combatants if they joined the army with a view to fighting the battles of what the Real IRA view as occupying forces? Does this make our grandparents terrorists for bombing German cities during WWII? I feel that this rather too simplistic a view to be honest.

I agree with your views on religious intolerance of any kind being a major factor in the Worlds instability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BravestHibs

You can't have war without the loss of lives of innocents. What constitutes an innocent anyway? Were the soldiers killed at their barracks in Northern Ireland recently innocents, or do they count as combatants if they joined the army with a view to fighting the battles of what the Real IRA view as occupying forces? Does this make our grandparents terrorists for bombing German cities during WWII? I feel that this rather too simplistic a view to be honest.

I agree with your views on religious intolerance of any kind being a major factor in the Worlds instability.

---

I don't really want to get into the whole IRA debate because I simply don't agree with the way that either side has handled Ireland's troubles over the years. I can understand as to why they killed him in this particular instance but the act in it'self was cowardly. The guy was unarmed and waiting for his dinner...:grr:

Thats about all I'm wanting to say about Ireland as it gets far too complicated and I've neither the knowledge or will to try and justify the IRA, British Government or UVA.

As you said, the statement was simplistic, but my view isn't. I understand that killing innocents is unavoidable in every war but what I should have said was:

IMO, if you set out to kill an innocent person (child, man, women uninvolved in the situation and not having taken human life or POW's themselves) then you are a terrorist. Or your behaviour could be descirbed as that of a terrorist's nature.

If hypothetically, US troops on command from thier government came and occupied Scotland and made us prisoners of our own country, killed children, raped people and started a reign of tyrony. I would then perceive someone sending a bomb to the US aiming to kill the people high up who ordered their army to attack us and what not, as a freedom fighter.

If this hypothetical person bombed a US shopping mall out of revenge then I'd see him/her as a terrorist.

It all depends on what factors are involved within each situation and I admit that attempting to sum up my feelings on the matter in a simple sentence was simplistic.

However, I didn't really want to have to go into great detail.....:wink:

Oh well:faf:

Whether you are a terrorist or a soldier depends on who won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

I'm not really sure what you mean here?

Far and away the largest non-German ethnic group in Germany is the Turkish. Out of a national population of 82+ million people they number c. 1.7 million...

It's another interesting bit of this sort of thing that people invariably believe there are far, far more of the 'threat ethnicity' than there actually are.

---

And if you have been to Turkey recently, you'll realise that while it is a muslim country, it is only nominally so.

I'm pretty sure the majority of Turks living in other parts of continental Europe are not about to bring about the Caliphate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

It was a short documentry I watched a month or two back. I don't have all of the exact details but I believe that's what was stated in the video.

I was adding some points that were made on what I watched. As per the above, you will see that I have stated that I don't know if much/all of the information on the video was correct and took it with a pinch of salt.

I was merely adding to the discussion, perhaps the video was created as a propoganda tool to promote Islamaphobia, therefore I would say it's extremely relevant to the thread regardless of the accuracy of information contained within it.

---

Let me put it to you more pointedly Woody: your statement "I think that part of the argument that was stated was that a large amount of Turks moved to Germany during the WW and have since grown at a much larger rate that the traditional German population." is completely incorrect!!!!!:grr:
Anyone with any knowledge of the subject KNOWS that the great influx of Turkish people into this country (Germany) came during Germany's "Economic Miracle" which took place during the years 1950 to 1960, i.e. AFTER the WW (in the Turkish workers case from 1960 onwards) - they were recruited by the German Government which was short of workers and had to advertise for "Guest Workers" (Gastarbeiter) to come to Germany. What are you talking about? You are supposedly discussing Islamophobia by referring to "youtube" nonsense and "facts" you have 'picked up', most of which seem to be wrong. When I point them out to you, you reply that they are still of some relevance to the debate! How? How can you "add to the discussion" when what - in your mind - are facts are obviously and demonstrably not facts? Either you misheard, misunderstood or you are perhaps propogating propoganda. What agenda are you following? This is the age of the internet: people will believe any old nonsense if you pack it up the right way, and say you believe it to be accurate!

By all means debate the topic, but don't add nonsense to what is already a badly misunderstood topic!:bye:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeeJay

Let me put it to you more pointedly Woody: your statement "I think that part of the argument that was stated was that a large amount of Turks moved to Germany during the WW and have since grown at a much larger rate that the traditional German population." is completely incorrect!!!!!:grr:
Anyone with any knowledge of the subject KNOWS that the great influx of Turkish people into this country (Germany) came during Germany's "Economic Miracle" which took place during the years 1950 to 1960, i.e. AFTER the WW (in the Turkish workers case from 1960 onwards) - they were recruited by the German Government which was short of workers and had to advertise for "Guest Workers" (Gastarbeiter) to come to Germany. What are you talking about? You are supposedly discussing Islamophobia by referring to "youtube" nonsense and "facts" you have 'picked up', most of which seem to be wrong. When I point them out to you, you reply that they are still of some relevance to the debate! How? How can you "add to the discussion" when what - in your mind - are facts are obviously and demonstrably not facts? Either you misheard, misunderstood or you are perhaps propogating propoganda. What agenda are you following? This is the age of the internet: people will believe any old nonsense if you pack it up the right way, and say you believe it to be accurate!

By all means debate the topic, but don't add nonsense to what is already a badly misunderstood topic!:bye:

---

Let me put this to you... Whether the facts of the video are correct or not is irrelevant. The point is that the video exists and is promoting these points, therefore potentially promoting islamaphobia on one of the most widely used internet sites in the world. How can that not be relevant to a discussion on islamaphobia?

I've stated what I watched, you, along with LH have provided information contrary to the video and have therefore cleared up on a couple of things.

I'm not defending the points made so I have no agenda as you put it, I've already said that's what was stated on the video and I don't know how many of the points made are accurate or not. Is that so hard to understand?

The use of the :bye: is generally for patronising *****, I'm sure you were aware of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

The use of the :bye: is generally for patronising *****, I'm sure you were aware of that.

---

One thing I'd like to assure you on this is that my :bye:meant nothing other than Schluss as we say in Germany, i.e. "I'm of out here - no hard feelings": that's the way I personally always use it. Of course if it's an internet convention and everyone else uses it in the manner you suggest: I may have to stop or find another smiley thing."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Whether you are a terrorist or a soldier depends on who won.

---

Who ever wins is the side who decides what to write in the history book, which I suppose is the same thing really.