What truly idiotic sophistry.
You could have just said right off the bat that you would attempt any dishonest rationalization at your disposal in order to obscure the truth.
I'm glad to see you express this position. Of course, Your stupendous and Intentional numerical Blooper remains Uncorrected.I'm no fan of radical Islam, and I think it's dangerous and cancerous. I also advocate the limitation of all religion in Western society, Islam foremost as a particularly repressive and anti-modern one.
I heard and referenced those words from Brits.Ad_Captandum said:But I can't help at laugh at the truly, utterly absurd claims by some US conservatives about "Britainistan" or "Londonistan" or other silly (albeit amusing) references to the 'Islamisation' of Western Europe.
I wouldn't be surprised considering the Radical Finsbury-Mosque-types that - London!stan- is rightfully famous for. Though I doubt it's true in the rest of the EU. Perhaps you'd like to post the numbers.Ad_Captandum said:If you were really up on the subject, you would know that 90% of all persons charged with hate speech and discrimination are Muslims, and both Cameron's government and the New Labour before it have taken huge steps to arrest any growing radical influence in the British Islamic community.
We had a string on that Large problem, which was NOT just a few teachers.Ad_Captandum said:I'll also point you to the recent enquiries in some London inner-city schools, in which police and government officials have identified and neutralised several radical Islamist teachers. So, all this is to say that where there is a potential problem, we deal with it. But overwhelmingly, the more important thing I'd like to let you know, having lived in London for a long, long time -- the idea that there are neighbourhoods that follow Sharia law or are patrolled by radical Islamic militias is nonsense.
Yeah it IS different.Ad_Captandum said:Seriously, it has zero basis in fact. The Daily Mail (essentially a tabloid notorious for running scaremonger articles about anything from killer broccoli to killer Pakistanis) periodically comes up with a story about a woman harassed in some bad part of London for wearing skimpy clothes, or some mosque that's teaching the kids to be suicide bombers. Inevitably, when you delve deeper into these stories, you realise that they're either A) Unsubstantiated or B) Grossly twisted for the purpose of selling newspapers. It probably occurs occasionally -- something like a woman walking home at night being harassed by a bunch of young men because she's in a short dress, or an outsider wandering into the wrong neighbourhood and getting mugged. I ask you -- is it any different in Chicago, New York, Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, LA, Detroit, Boston or Miami? Or any other US city I can name?
Unfortunately, Race, even more than poverty, IS the single best indicator when predicting crime in America.Ad_Captandum said:Maybe I should start running headlines: "The increasing Africanisation of Chicagafrica! FOUR WHITE WOMEN RAPED BY RAMPAGING AFRICANS -- WHEN WILL THE GOVERNMENT STAND UP TO THE INCREASING BLACKIFICATION OF AMERICA?!" It's absurd. Socioeconomic factors are the cause here. The Pakistanis in inner-city London are poor and uneducated. They resort to crime, and feel oppressed by outsiders, particularly white Britons.
They don't have to grow up to be Osama bin Laden to change UK/EU civilization/values for the worse.Ad_Captandum said:They're not all going to grow up to be Osama bin Laden, as much as every black person in Chicago isn't going to grow up to be Malcolm X.
I'm no fan of radical Islam, and I think it's dangerous and cancerous. I also advocate the limitation of all religion in Western society, Islam foremost as a particularly repressive and anti-modern one.
But I can't help at laugh at the truly, utterly absurd claims by some US conservatives about "Britainistan" or "Londonistan" or other silly (albeit amusing) references to the 'Islamisation' of Western Europe.
If you were really up on the subject, you would know that 90% of all persons charged with hate speech and discrimination are Muslims, and both Cameron's government and the New Labour before it have taken huge steps to arrest any growing radical influence in the British Islamic community.
I'll also point you to the recent enquiries in some London inner-city schools, in which police and government officials have identified and neutralised several radical Islamist teachers.
So, all this is to say that where there is a potential problem, we deal with it.
But overwhelmingly, the more important thing I'd like to let you know, having lived in London for a long, long time -- the idea that there are neighbourhoods that follow Sharia law or are patrolled by radical Islamic militias is nonsense.
Seriously, it has zero basis in fact. The Daily Mail (essentially a tabloid notorious for running scaremonger articles about anything from killer broccoli to killer Pakistanis) periodically comes up with a story about a woman harassed in some bad part of London for wearing skimpy clothes, or some mosque that's teaching the kids to be suicide bombers. Inevitably, when you delve deeper into these stories, you realise that they're either A) Unsubstantiated or B) Grossly twisted for the purpose of selling newspapers.
It probably occurs occasionally -- something like a woman walking home at night being harassed by a bunch of young men because she's in a short dress, or an outsider wandering into the wrong neighbourhood and getting mugged.
I ask you -- is it any different in Chicago, New York, Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, LA, Detroit, Boston or Miami? Or any other US city I can name?
Maybe I should start running headlines: "The increasing Africanisation of Chicagafrica! FOUR WHITE WOMEN RAPED BY RAMPAGING AFRICANS -- WHEN WILL THE GOVERNMENT STAND UP TO THE INCREASING BLACKIFICATION OF AMERICA?!"
It's absurd. Socioeconomic factors are the cause here. The Pakistanis in inner-city London are poor and uneducated. They resort to crime, and feel oppressed by outsiders, particularly white Britons.
They're not all going to grow up to be Osama bin Laden, as much as every black person in Chicago isn't going to grow up to be Malcolm X.
Ok so the tea party is extremist?
What about the left who will say that I'm engaging in a "war on women" and that I hate women and want to control them for no other reason than that I am pro-life. All I have to say to a leftist is that I'm pro-life, nothing else and that is the response they give to me. they know nothing at all about me other than I disagree with their views of abortion yet they know for a fact that I want to control women. They don't know nor do they care that I am a husband and father who does everything possible to make my wife and daughters lives happy and safe. Nope.....all they need to know is I don't share their opinion on the abortion issue so I hate women and want to control them.
That's not extreme?
Fine. Explain how someone who believes homosexuality should be criminalized and believes in Islam, but does not support terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, is relevant to the discussion of terrorism.
The discussion is extremism.
You have defended those who support the mission of Islamist terrorists but not their methods,and are unwilling to consider any Muslimas extreme unless they explicitly support a terrorist group. Were you to use this barometer for other groups,you would find essentially NO extreme Jews,NO extreme Christians,and NO extreme just about anybody else. Only Muslims receive this special deference of yours where you feel somehow required to engage in these bizarre mental gymnastics where you move the goal posts so as to attempt to remain true to the dictates of your dogma. Most obviously,what you consider "moderate" for a Muslim is not what you consider moderate for anybody else, as even those Muslims who support a viscious, oppressive totalitarian state get a free pass from you.This is just plainly dishonest since the double standards are so patently hypocritical.
The large number of Muslims who support the mission,if not the precise methods of Islamist terrorists ARE the issue here. When you defend them like you do,you only hurt those Muslims who truly ARE moderate. By calling people with extreme views "moderate" for no other reason than you have been programmed to do so through various insinuations that you are some sort of bigot if you tell the truth,you undermine the ability of the very people who are always the first to suffer under their yoke of oppression. If you were even the tiniest bit progressive in any real sense,you would understand this.
That is false because I am talking about people who identify with Islam and win elections, not Islam radicals who want to shove the Quran down the throats
. The Pakistani government is not the kind of government you are referring to. And as I have previously mentioned, persecuting those who do not identify with Christianity is not exactly absent from the U.S.
It amazes me,sometimes, how uneducated, dishonest people can get so carried away by their dogmatism that they would resort to such idiotic comparisons. If the tea party are extremists for their conservative beliefs, then over a billion Muslims must be extremists. If the Landover Baptist is an extremist organization for their opinions about gay people, there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of extremist Muslims. If a religious sect in the west shuns apostates,these same chittering parrots would call them extremist and then in the next breath call muslims "moderate" who would support KILLING apostates.
I guess what bothers me more than anything about these profoundly illiberal apolgists for the antithesis of liberalism is that they do nothing but contribute what amounts to rhetorical pollution to the discussion. Since they are on the left (usually the authoritarian hard left), they are often confused with liberals, and the voices of actual liberals cannot be heard above the cacophany of their polluted views. People think these automatic defenses of pre-enlightenment belief systems IS the sign of a liberal, and that the lies, the mealy-mouthed double talk and the false equivalences that constitute their stock in trade is smehow a liberal characteristic. It isn't. Their duplicity is not the product of a world view that is liberal. It is the product of a world view that is profoundly ANTI liberal, so thorough is their support for the misogyny, the patriarchy, the theocratic ideology,the hatred of gays, and the enormous disregard for humanist values.
Simply put --they would not produce such a huge,stinking pile of sophistry to defend these archly regressive values if there was even the tiniest hint of liberalsim in their world view.
So my question is what do we call these non-liberals? .
The question made me LOL. what a troll post.
I can think of many terrms but none represents an actual political philosophy.That is because they havenone,
I suppose the closest term I would choose is "Islamist useful idiot"
Which one?
THe OP of the post. The question was funny. Are you the OP of this poll?
The discussion is extremism.
You have defended those who support the mission of Islamist terrorists but not their methods,and are unwilling to consider any Muslimas extreme unless they explicitly support a terrorist group.
Were you to use this barometer for other groups,you would find essentially NO extreme Jews,NO extreme Christians,and NO extreme just about anybody else.
Only Muslims receive this special deference of yours where you feel somehow required to engage in these bizarre mental gymnastics where you move the goal posts so as to attempt to remain true to the dictates of your dogma.
Most obviously,what you consider "moderate" for a Muslim is not what you consider moderate for anybody else, as even those Muslims who support a viscious, oppressive totalitarian state get a free pass from you.This is just plainly dishonest since the double standards are so patently hypocritical.
The large number of Muslims who support the mission,if not the precise methods of Islamist terrorists ARE the issue here.
When you defend them like you do,you only hurt those Muslims who truly ARE moderate.
By calling people with extreme views "moderate" for no other reason than you have been programmed to do so through various insinuations that you are some sort of bigot if you tell the truth,you undermine the ability of the very people who are always the first to suffer under their yoke of oppression. If you were even the tiniest bit progressive in any real sense,you would understand this.
the bolded group is precisely who wins elections.
:lol: when it becomes a major cultural thing to set fire to Mosques and kidnap young Muslim girls in order to force them to convert to Christianity and marry a Christian who is free to treat her as he pleases, let me know. Or, say, when we decide to support a death penalty for those who leave Christendom.
I am. How was it funny? Why do you feel it was a troll post?
OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Sorry. The question had a video to it. I didn't watch the video until today. I am new to the forum as you can see. I thought the question itself meant women in general. Because ya know muslims hate women, lol.
1. I don't think you have looked much into the people you are citing,
2. Pakistan is ruled by its security apparatus where it hasn't given up attempting to rule altogether,
3. (and, this is important) They are patrons of the Taliban, whom they intend to support in taking over Afghanistan after we leave, and work with the Haqqani Network, and by extension, Al-Qaeda. So..... maybe depending on them to demonstrate that Islam, by and large, has been through the Enlightenment isn't your best bet.....
Culturally, these people are crazy backwards. Say what you will about Western Civilization, at last we generally gave up pederasty as a "thing" with the Greeks.
Ok so the tea party is extremist?
What about the left who will say that I'm engaging in a "war on women" and that I hate women and want to control them for no other reason than that I am pro-life. All I have to say to a leftist is that I'm pro-life, nothing else and that is the response they give to me. they know nothing at all about me other than I disagree with their views of abortion yet they know for a fact that I want to control women. They don't know nor do they care that I am a husband and father who does everything possible to make my wife and daughters lives happy and safe. Nope.....all they need to know is I don't share their opinion on the abortion issue so I hate women and want to control them.
That's not extreme?
No, Actually the Discussion had gotten to whether or not as many as "25%" of Muslims were "Radical".The panel was on terrorism, not religious extremism regarding separation of church and state.
That is correct, because we're discussing terrorism. Muslims with fundamentalists views are not relevant to this discussion. If we want to discuss religious extremism, and the fact that some political parties in Islamic countries would not be welcomed in this country as mainstream, that's true. That's an entirely separate discussion.
SocialDemocrat said:There are Muslims with extreme views. This group in question that we're discussing right now (Muslims against a separation of church and state and opposed to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups) are not affiliated with terrorist groups, or even in support of them, so I fail to understand why you are so obsessed with them.
They don't get a so called "free pass" from me. I'm going to disagree with an Islamic fundamentalist just as much as any other religious fundamentalist.
There are two different definitions of moderate being used here. Moderate in regards to terrorism, which I am using, and moderate in regards to fundamentalism, which you are using.
Here is the ideology of the most recent winning party in Pakistan, who you claimed to be run by extremists.
The 'moderate' Majority Sect of Pakistan condoned/Celebrated the [Terrorist assassination]/Murder and issued threats of More of the same for those opposing the Death Penalty for 'insulting Islam'. That's right, ie, a 5 year sentence isn't enough. Even sober Lawyers showered Rose petals on the Terrorist Murderer of a Governor.LAHORE, Pakistan | Lawyers showered the suspected killer of a prominent Pakistani governor with rose petals when he arrived at court Wednesday,
and an influential Muslim scholars group Praised the assassination of the outspoken opponent of laws that order death for those who Insult Islam.
Mumtaz Qadri, 26, made his first appearance in an Islamabad court, where a judge remanded him in custody. Mr. Qadri is accused of spraying automatic gunfire at the back of Punjab province Gov. Salmaan Taseer while he was supposed to be protecting him as a bodyguard.
A rowdy crowd slapped him on the back and kissed his cheek as he was escorted inside the court. The lawyers who tossed the rose petals were not involved in the case.
As he left the court, a crowd of about 200 sympathizers chanted slogans in his favor. The suspect stood at the back door of an armored police van with a flower necklace given to him by an admirer and repeatedly yelled, “God is great.”
More than 500 clerics and scholars from the group Jamat Ahle Sunnat said no one should pray or express regret for the killing of the governor. The group representing Pakistan’s Majority Barelvi sect, which follows a brand of Islam considered moderate, also issued a veiled threat to other opponents of the blasphemy laws.
Pakistanis bury Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer, who enraged Muslims by opposing
laws that decreed death for insulting Islam and was slain by a bodyguard.
“The supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy,” the group warned in a statement, adding that politicians, the media and others should learn “a lesson from the exemplary death.”
Jamat leader Maulana Shah Turabul Haq Qadri paid “glorious tribute to the murderer … for his courage, bravery and religious honor and integrity.”
[.......]
Did you not read the section about increasing relations with the U.S. and cracking down on terrorism?
No, Actually the Discussion had gotten to whether or not as many as "25%" of Muslims were "Radical".
Both by specification and Obviously Ms Gabriel did Not say/feel Radical Muslim 25% were "Terrorists".
As to whether 25% of the Large Majority who are Religious Radicals are terrorist sympathizers as well, I'd say, easily Yes.
Pakistan governor’s suspected assassin hailed as hero
Jan 5, 2011
Pakistan governor's suspected assassin hailed as hero - Washington Times
The 'moderate' Majority Sect of Pakistan condoned/Celebrated the [Terrorist assassination]/Murder and issued threats of More of the same for those opposing the Death Penalty for 'insulting Islam'. That's right, ie, a 5 year sentence isn't enough. Even sober Lawyers showered Rose petals on the Terrorist Murderer of a Governor.
Further: They are in Healthy Majority Radical/extremists, and I oppose their immigration to the USA/EU.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?