Fallaci: "This is what I write about Europe..

[Republic_Of_Public]

Of course it is important.

Democracy's important to we Westerners, of course. It's (at least in theory) we the People having representation in government.

But the next thing to consider is whether the Muslims WANT or LIKE the Sharia which is so-called 'imposed'.

...And they do!



(Data to follow)

You know you have no case so you have sunk to insults. This conversation is hence over.

What, 'insults' like being a nutjob 'still fighting the Crusades', nauseous and sick? Those insults you mean? You must do, you remember where they came from!

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Who wants Sharia.....?


Most Muslims want Sharia!

The separation of mosque and state | 89.3 KPCC



israel today | Palestinians want to live under Sharia Law - israel today

Many Turks, Iranians, Egyptians Link Sharia and Justice

Infidel Bloggers Alliance: Pakistanis Want More Sharia

Majority of Pakistanis want Shariah in the Country: Javed Hashmi. - Free Online Library , etc.




Hmmm, the 'oppressed' Islamic world!






If Muslims want Sharia law why don't they just stay in their home countries?

Sudan will declare Islamic sharia law after rid of infidel south « Creeping Sharia

40% of British Muslims want Sharia Law in U.K. Free Dating, Singles and Personals



________________________________



.....Oh do they now?!

Muslims perceive lack of respect

(Picture courtesy of JEWISH SINGLES LEARNING TO LAUGH!)

 

[Grant]

Of course it is important. If you begin by implying that these sort of practises were brought in knowingly by free democratic elections, then if this is not the case you were wrong and wilfully or by ignorance making a false claim.

Yes, if RoP ever implied that Sharia was taking over via the ballot box, rather then through killings, threats and intimidation, then he would be wrong.

If as is the case these 'titillations' you have a wad of were not brought in by free democratic elections, then it is necessary to look a little deeper at what is going on in each individual case but certainly not to claim they were brought in by free democratic elections.

I think he has pointed out often enough that they are brought about by Muslims intent on creating Islamic states, and that these people present a clear and present danger to human rights and freedoms, and to the world.

You know you have no case so you have sunk to insults. This conversation is hence over.

You're not the first to cut and run when confronted with the truth, Alexa. It's common among the left.

With regard to the Blasphemy laws they are not Islamic but were brought in by the British. They are used against minorities people do not like as they are almost impossible to prove wrong. This is the first time a death sentence has been given.

Actually the British are one of those against any criticism of Islam being made illegal, as there vote in the UN would indicate. It's only Muslims who want this law passed, not Christian, Jews or any other religion, and of course it is only Muslims who would enforce such a law.

If you genuinely have any interested in 'truth' which I noticed you did mention in an earlier thread, then instead of blaming the Blasphemy laws on Islam and brutal Sharia Law on Free Democratic elections you will start to look at the situation a bit more thoroughly. Next you will be saying that the destruction of Sufi Shrines and Temples across Pakistan was by democratic vote.

Whether it was voted in or encouraged by other means, the fact remains that Islamism is a dangerous movement and the West must guard against it however they can.

 

[Manc Skipper]

If only the chattering classes were capable of differentiating between the ideology of Islamism, and the faith of Islam...

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

It's only Muslims who want this law passed, not Christian, Jews or any other religion, and of course it is only Muslims who would enforce such a law.

Indeed, just recently a new UN 'anti blasphemy' motion had only Muslims whooping with delight. The devil can't stand to be criticised and there's a lot of him to protect.




Only now do other Muslims want the punishment for such a 'crime' as apostasy lifted from the brows of men:

U.N. receives Muslim 'apostasy' petition



Oh so predictable: Pakistan strikes deal with Taliban on Sharia law | UN Dispatch

PAKISTAN New apostasy bill to impose death on anyone who leaves Islam - Asia News

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

You're not the first to cut and run when confronted with the truth, Alexa. It's common among the left.

Plenty of practice for our good friends though!




DEBUNKING THE EXCUSES: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export.html#post1059162285

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-8.html#post1059166853

 

[Grant]

If only the chattering classes were capable of differentiating between the ideology of Islamism, and the faith of Islam...

What makes you think people don't understand the difference?

Islam isn't much of a faith, as faiths go, and it's side effects have proven harmful and dangerous. On the surface, it seems quite ridiculous.

But if you can think of something positive to say about this faith, why not explain it to those "chattering classes"?

 

[alexa]

Yes, if RoP ever implied that Sharia was taking over via the ballot box, rather then through killings, threats and intimidation, then he would be wrong.

which is exactly what he did.

I think he has pointed out often enough that they are brought about by Muslims intent on creating Islamic states, and that these people present a clear and present danger to human rights and freedoms, and to the world.

There is no reason to believe that new Islamic democracies would be based on this model and that is where the situation began. That was not what I was talking about. RoP then inferred that democracies in Pakistan and Indonesia had voted for brutal Sharia in democratic elections. This was a lie. It shows the weakness of both of your knowledge and how it is stunted by your one trip pony beliefs.

You're not the first to cut and run when confronted with the truth, Alexa. It's common among the left.

I frequently stop discussions when all people have is insults. RoP wrongly implied that Pakistan and Indonesia and god help us Syria had in free democratic elections voted in parties who supported harsh Islamic Law. This is simply not ture.

Actually the British are one of those against any criticism of Islam being made illegal, as there vote in the UN would indicate. It's only Muslims who want this law passed, not Christian, Jews or any other religion, and of course it is only Muslims who would enforce such a law.

What madness is this? You clearly know nothing of our country. The point I made was that it was the British who Introduced the Blasphemy Laws to the Indian Subcontinent through Section 295A of the penal code in 1860. Clearly Muslims before had no need of one.

Whether it was voted in or encouraged by other means, the fact remains that Islamism is a dangerous movement and the West must guard against it however they can.

So what are you going to do about it. The question was whether if new countries get democracy and they begin to experiment with an Islamic type of democracy, as our democracy was originally linked and helped by Christianity, people would feel able to give them respect and dignity.

I guess the answer from you is No.

RoP and now you have ignored what the question was and turned it into a rehash of your usual rant with your usual insults. When RoP illustrated that Democracy would never work by pretending 2 democracies had elected Sharia Law Parties he was lying. This conversation with you is now over as well.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Indeed, just recently a new UN 'anti blasphemy' motion had only Muslims whooping with delight --

I'm very much against such resolutions however they are non binding and as such will join the countless other meaningless non-binding resolutions passed by the UN.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

That they bothered with it at all is what makes me think.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

which is exactly what he did.

Even though I clarified otherwise when asked? A little bit of leftist deception in Islam here?

It shows the weakness of both of your knowledge and how it is stunted by your one trip pony beliefs.

I suppose I could say that 'this conversation is over' because of the 'insults', but I'm actually getting into this debate.

______________________________________


GIMME SOME TRUTH:

The point I made was that it was the British who Introduced the Blasphemy Laws to the Indian Subcontinent through Section 295A of the penal code in 1860. Clearly Muslims before had no need of one.

Assuming the essential text is exactly the same as it was (it isn't), here's what the law says: Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860).... Blasphemy Law and related issues..

Blasphemy Law « PAKISTAN BLASPHEMY LAW

The Blasphemy law is a part of the Pakistan Penal Code, which was introduced in 1860 by the British Government to protect religious feelings.

They obviously DID need one and we did it for them. Just for a bit of peace and quiet.

But look what happens now. Did the British want executions for doubting Muhammad do you think?!

The wave of Islamisation of the judiciary and constitution made Pakistan take the lead in having the strictest blasphemy laws among all Muslim-majority states. An Amendment was introduced to 295 (B) in 1982 that extended penalty options to include life imprisonment, in addition to inserting Section 295 (C) whereby defamation against Prophet Mohammad was punishable by death.

Ahmadiyya Times: Where did the blasphemy law come from?


Let this be a moral equivilence-free zone!



__________________________________

So what are you going to do about it. The question was whether if new countries get democracy and they begin to experiment with an Islamic type of democracy, as our democracy was originally linked and helped by Christianity, people would feel able to give them respect and dignity.

Democracy and Islam clash hideously. And when the majority of Muslims STOP calling for the brutal Sharia their governments impose, we may actually look at the Islamic world with a renewed sense of respect and perception of equals.

When RoP illustrated that Democracy would never work by pretending 2 democracies had elected Sharia Law Parties he was lying.

Never stated such. I wouldn't talk about lies if I were you, not after the ones you printed.

RoP and now you have ignored what the question was and turned it into a rehash of your usual rant with your usual insults.

I probably couldn't top yours Alexa. I don't even gnash my teeth when writing.

 

[Grant]

Alexa

What madness is this? You clearly know nothing of our country.

Which country is that?

The point I made was that it was the British who Introduced the Blasphemy Laws to the Indian Subcontinent through Section 295A of the penal code in 1860. Clearly Muslims before had no need of one.

Why do you think they had no need of one? It's clear from the reading of the statute and the reasons attached that the British were trying to control not only the religious differences but the class system as well. But in any case it seems that Muslims learned something from this obscure statute created in India in 150 years ago and are using it to outlaw anyone criticizing Islam today, and to make this law international. It has become so commonplace among the Islamic apologists to blame everyone else for the very obvious and glaring flaws in the Islamic movement and all without any seeming embarrassment. It's amazing to witness.

So what are you going to do about it. The question was whether if new countries get democracy and they begin to experiment with an Islamic type of democracy, as our democracy was originally linked and helped by Christianity, people would feel able to give them respect and dignity.

Like many others I'll continue to speak out against Islamism. And there is no "Islamic type of democracy", at least not in any meaningful sense. The "Islamic" aspect will always overwhelm and succeed the "democracy" aspect. With the rise of Islamism any "respect and dignity" within Islam is not easily observed. Many have chosen to be 'the other' in order to distinguish themselves from non-Muslims, and with that they will remain 'the other', and with the associated mayhem and violence many now have come to expect from Muslims.

I guess the answer from you is No.

if you're going to guess at the answers, why ask the questions?

RoP and now you have ignored what the question was and turned it into a rehash of your usual rant with your usual insults. When RoP illustrated that Democracy would never work by pretending 2 democracies had elected Sharia Law Parties he was lying. This conversation with you is now over as well.

What a delicate little flower you are, and so obviously unaccustomed to debate. I expect there will be even less debate in the future once Sharia law gets a foothold in the democracies,

 

[julietsm]

It's very sad how once sensible and rational people can become unhinged in later life through illness and depression. Even Christopher Hitchens, born-again Islamophobe, recognised Fallaci's inability to write rationally about Islam.

I thought she articulated the problem quite well.

 

[Andalublue]

I thought she articulated the problem quite well.

You would.

 

[Djoop]

It's very sad how once sensible and rational people can become unhinged in later life through illness and depression. Even Christopher Hitchens, born-again Islamophobe, recognised Fallaci's inability to write rationally about Islam.

Show me where he said what you claim.

It IS very sad to see some inferior loser write crap about someone like Christopher Hitchens, knowing he wouldn't stand a chance debating the giant.

 

[Andalublue]

Show me where he said what you claim.

It IS very sad to see some inferior loser write crap about someone like Christopher Hitchens, knowing he wouldn't stand a chance debating the giant.

You do know that that post is a year old, don't you? I am looking for the specific quote, but here is his critical, if sad, assessment of the fairly unhinged state of Fallaci at the end of her life:

When someone becomes obsessed with the hygiene and reproduction of another group, it can be a bad sign: Oriana's conversation (actually there was no conversation, since she scarcely drew breath) was thick with obscenities. I shall put them in Italian—brutto stronzo, vaffanculo—and omit some others. As to those who disagreed with her, or who did not see the danger as she did, well, they were no more than cretini and disgraciatti. It was like standing in a wind tunnel of cloacal abuse. Another bad sign was that she had started to refer to herself as "Fallaci." From Vanity Fair 2006.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Show me where he said what you claim.

It IS very sad to see some inferior loser write crap about someone like Christopher Hitchens, knowing he wouldn't stand a chance debating the giant.

You do know that that post is a year old, don't you? I am looking for the specific quote, but here is his critical, if sad, assessment of the fairly unhinged state of Fallaci at the end of her life: fromVanity Fair

Priceless.... (There were some killer pics but I'd get suspended for posting them - especially the man getting his butt spanked)

 

[Andalublue]

Show me where he said what you claim.

It IS very sad to see some inferior loser write crap about someone like Christopher Hitchens, knowing he wouldn't stand a chance debating the giant.

While I'm sure Hitchens wouldn't accept the epithet of Islamophobe, that's a part of his make-up in my assessment. That's not damning his entire work. I like the guy in general, I particularly enjoy his take on atheistic ethics. This is just great. Why the drafters of the OT failed so badly with the 10 Commandments when he did so much better a job, I don't know.

[video]http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/04/hitchens-commandments-video-201004[/video]

So, you see Djoop, you can be critical of one aspect of a person and be impressed by another part of their make-up. It's known as subtlety and balance.

 

[Andalublue]

Priceless.... (There were some killer pics but I'd get suspended for posting them - especially the man getting his butt spanked)

I beg your pardon! There was no butt spanking going on on the pages of Vanity Fair that I read.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I beg your pardon! There was no butt spanking going on on the pages of Vanity Fair that I read.

No, I know that but to illustrate my "priceless" comment for your reply to Djoop I had a link to an image of a guy getting his butt spanked. Pretty funny pic but he was naked and that would get me suspended.

 

[Andalublue]

No, I know that but to illustrate my "priceless" comment for your reply to Djoop I had a link to an image of a guy getting his butt spanked. Pretty funny pic but he was naked and that would get me suspended.

Hahahaha! I see. Sorry, I must be experiencing a temporary IQ dip, I call it, 'having an Apo moment'.

 

[Gardener]

Hahahaha! I see. Sorry, I must be experiencing a temporary IQ dip, I call it, 'having an Apo moment'.

Wow -- a personal attack on a poster who hasn't even been posting on the subject.

Way to keep it classy, anda.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

That's nothing. We see how they behave to bogeymen like me!

 

[Andalublue]

That's nothing. We see how they behave to bogeymen like me!

Wow -- a personal attack on a poster who hasn't even been posting on the subject.

Way to keep it classy, anda.

Bless you for your non sequiturs.

 

[Gardener]

Bless you for your non sequiturs.

What non sequitur?

You attacked Apo who isn't even here, and R.O.P pointed out that he is a frequent punching bag as well. No non sequitur that I can see, especially inasmuch that I have seen him referenced in third party terms before, too.