Mr Cameron: do we really want Turkey in the EU?

[Andalublue]

Once again, slander and counter-questions to escape answering my points.

Your points? That Islam=Terrorism, that Mohammed was a genocidal megalomaniac, and that the Qu'ran is full of imprecations to violence? I'm pretty sure all those were dismissed posts ago.

Hatwed... Oh, you've got me bitchslapped! Rave away, rave away.

There's the silly voices again. They always come out when you're floundering.

So you CAN'T prove that Islam is a Religion of Peace. And as I've said many times before, because the truth has been ignored, Islam was founded for the purposes of war, whilst the others were built for peace but had no shortage of brutal madmen spreading violence in its name until such junk was abolished.

I can't prove that Islam is a religion of peace, the phrase means nothing to me. I'm not a Moslem, but I know a number of Moslems for whom that's exactly what it means to them and they live by it. I've no doubt that there are many like Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden and the like, who call it such but are hypocrites. You obviously believe that a billion and a half followers of Islam are either deluded or hypocrites. Well, believe away.

And what's more, Islam is the only religion which is supposed to be unreformable, unlike Christianity say. There's your major difference.

Were that true there would be one, rather than a multitude, of expressions of Islam; Shia, Sunni, Ismaili, Sufi and dozens more. Do those subtleties and complexities confuse you?

Perhaps this clash of civilisations that you take such glee in exposing in thread after thread, post after post is the way you want to see the World. The Islamist extremists and the Islamophobes, you included, are two sides of the very same coin. I'm not comparing you to murderous terrorists, they are a tiny minority, but it seems to be the wider Islamic world too that you find anathema. I am saying that the us vs. them attitude, hateful disparagement of a faith that you don't understand, don't share and have never lived with and utter convicition in your own superiority is mirrored by the bigots in the Mosques that you so claim to despise. You rightly berate them for hideous attitudes towards women and gay people and yet exhibit pretty antidiluvian attitudes to those same groups yourself.

Is Islam a religion of peace? I don't know enough about it to opine, but sectarian bigotry is most certainly not a philosophy of peace, and I don't see in any of your posts a scintilla of commitment to peace and coexistence. You want them to live in peace with the non-Moslem communities? Then show them that you have some intention of doing so with them.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

That Islam=Terrorism, that Mohammed was a genocidal megalomaniac, and that the Qu'ran is full of imprecations to violence? I'm pretty sure all those were dismissed posts ago.

Only by ignoring the huge catalogue of links I posted to back me up through the months an on this very post.

I know a number of Moslems for whom that's exactly what it means to them and they live by it.

Good for them. And for the gazillionth time, let them be as my quarrel's not with them. But the likes of Ahmadinejad aren't hypocrites, which is why Islamic terrorism can't just be dealt with by the world just like that.


And as for the different expressions of Islam, these seperate groups share the same essential Islamic beliefs yet became these sub-divisions for reasons including political power play after Muhammad's death. A bit like with gang leaders fighting it out after the mob boss goes.

That's what happened between the Sunnis and Shias for example: What's the Difference Between Shia and Sunni Muslims?

Though I'm sceptical of claims of Ismali spiritual enlightenment because of where the base creed came from: Ismaili

And the less said about the Wahabbis the better.

I am saying that the us vs. them attitude, hateful disparagement of a faith that you don't understand, don't share and have never lived with and utter convicition in your own superiority......

Let the ranting commence.

 

[Andalublue]

Only by ignoring the huge catalogue of links I posted to back me up through the months an on this very post.

All you've proved is that you know how to use Google but aren't too picky about which hate sites you quote.

Good for them. And for the gazillionth time, let them be as my quarrel's not with them.

But frankly, it is. When you say Islam=Terrorism, you expect them not think you are attacking them?

Though I'm sceptical of claims of Ismali spiritual enlightenment because of where the base creed came from: Ismaili

I'm aware of the foundation of the Ismaili sect. How does that impact on the nature of the modern adherents? Go down that route and the Holy Catholic church doesn't come out smelling of roses.

And the less said about the Wahabbis the better.

Now THERE'S a decent target for your ire. I think that's the first time you've mentioned them. Wahabbism is the cancer in the body of Islam. It needs treatment to remove it. Your solution seems to be a bullet in the head of the sufferer, rather than treatment.

Let the ranting commence.

If I was ranting I would be writing everything in large fonts and manically posting irrelevant links.
Colon cleansing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Gob gob gob gob, hate hate hate hate! Found the level have we!

Revealing hatred isn't the same as promoting it. For example, Muhammad's 'revelations' that only certain people can be Muslims (Koran 7:100-1), that non-Muslims are deliberately led 'astray' by Allah so they can be punished with death (7:146 and 4:89), that non-Muslim cultures must be destroyed (7:138-9) or that non-believers are hateful and so must be hit until they pay protection money (7:177 and 9:29) are sadistic aspects of Islam which Muslims would be best advised to ignore.

No wonder the Wahabbyists have such an easy time being devout.

When you say Islam=Terrorism, you expect them not think you are attacking them?

That's an interesting one. I put in my caveats as the thought can occur. When debating with many Muslims I go easy, a lot easier than even on here. It's a shock for many of them to have this jack-in-the-box of extremism in their religion sprung into the mainstream after September 11.

I'm well aware that peaceful Muslims can be almost wholly ignorant on the basis that not even their friendly imams or family tell them. (Though I can sometimes think the same thing I thought of the post-war Germans: They must have known or had their guesses!)

Wahabbism is the cancer in the body of Islam.

We agree. Ought to frame this! ..Or perhaps not, as Wahabbyism takes the literal words of the hadiths as their guide. Other Muslims also now doubt the divinity of many of the the hadiths, through embarassment or disgust, though the hadiths make up Islam's instruction manual.

See, it all comes back to the actual things Muhammad said and did, things which even other Muslims have found distasteful, the disgust for which Muhammad himself ordained brutality.* However, even the peaceful Muslims theoretically sign up to the full package when they decide to be devout, though the forces of human nature still mean that most want to perceive mostly goodness in it.




* For example, Koran 7:71 or 4:150-151.

 

[alexa]

It may come down to something far nearer home, colonialism and the belief that the West, is better. - and for the other recovering from that. We still haven't learnt enough humility or insight to look into a situation, see it's roots. understand what is going on with the hope of moving it forward.

No, that all stopped after 9/11 when Bush announced he was going on a 'crusade'

Franz Fannon psychologist dealing with African colonialism in The Wretched of the Earth

every colonised people in whose sole an inferiority complex has been created by the death and burial by it's local culture creativity finds itself eventually face to face with the language of the civilising nation that is with the culture of the mother country. The colonised is raised above his jungle state in proportion to his adoption of the Mother countries cultural standards. He becomes whiter as he renounces his blackness, his jungle.
...............

Speaking French means that one accepts, or is coerced into accepting, the collective consciousness of the French, which identifies blackness with evil and sin. In an attempt to escape the association of blackness with evil, the black man dons a white mask, or thinks of himself as a universal subject equally participating in a society that advocates an equality supposedly abstracted from personal appearance. Cultural values are internalized, or "epidermalized" into consciousness, creating a fundamental disjuncture between the black man's consciousness and his body. Under these conditions, the black man is necessarily alienated from himself. ”

Alistair Crooke, former MI6 and involved in numerous peace attempts believes this is basically the formula for all oppressed people.

Robs him of individuality, he must bring him into step with the modern world. .”These pressures may ultimately result in the collapse of ego. The goal of his behaviour will become fixated on the other because the other alone can give him his worth and his esteem. For some the climax of their anguish their remains only one solution for the miserable colonial, to be overwhelmed by his desire to show his proof of his whiteness and modernity to others and above all to himself. The alternative to this mindset of passive acceptance. Those affected must abandon their hallucinatory search after whiteness, (you could substitute western modernity) and act for change, (in other words pursue resistance) in order to compel the white man, that I the negro, (could be a Muslim), am human.

I think underlying that is that for someone who feels they are oppressed or in a colonial situation or who have had their culture eradicated the answer is either acquiescence and try and become more like the oppressor or resistance.

What did Saudi Arabia do having got it's right to rule back after 500 years or so - My god go back to the type of world, they and we were living then. I have no more love of Whabbism than you and I am well fed up that they transported it to Afghanistan with the help of the US, but try to look beneath the surface.

Your views still have the mindset of the colonial, the imperialist.

Besides that all this has nothing to do with Turkey who were one of the colonialists involved in all of this and certainly do not have that form of Islam.

 

[Gardener]

Your views still have the mindset of the colonial, the imperialist.

.

and your views still have the mindset of the subjugated dhimmi, so accepting of their second class status that they have come to champion those who consider themselves superior to you.

You post your endless hate sites targeting one group, yet wag your little fingers in the face of anybody who does not accept Islamist totalitarianism by calling them racist.


How utterly pathetic.

 

[Andalublue]

You post your endless hate sites targeting one group, yet wag your little fingers in the face of anybody who does not accept Islamist totalitarianism by calling them racist.

Reading you loud and clear, G. Hate sites are only hate sites if they criticise Israel and if you declare them to be. Got it, Alexa?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Funny thing hate. It's been used by certain someones to call me things like racist, sick or perverted in the name of peace, tolerance and greater understanding!

 

[alexa]

Reading you loud and clear, G. Hate sites are only hate sites if they criticise Israel and if you declare them to be. Got it, Alexa?

Indeed hark at the man who praises Islamaphobes and depicts as hate, psychologists who experienced the French in Algeria and people from MI6 who have been involved in Peace talks around the world including the ME.

Can't let any genuine information or understanding interfere with our god given right to hate the other.

 

[Andalublue]

Funny thing hate. It's been used by certain someones to call me things like racist, sick or perverted in the name of peace and tolerance!

I've never called you sick, nor perverted, but you've certainly got some issues with race that you ought to seek help with.

 

[Gardener]

Reading you loud and clear, G. Hate sites are only hate sites if they criticise Israel and if you declare them to be. Got it, Alexa?

No, I didn't say that at all. What I was pointing out is the hypocrisy of one who has linked to so many hate sites calling other people names.

I do not use hate sites as my sourcing like Alexa does, so your comments are unwarranted.

 

[Gardener]

Indeed hark at the man who praises Islamaphobes and depicts as hate, psychologists who experienced the French in Algeria and people from MI6 who have been involved in Peace talks around the world including the ME.

Can't let any genuine information or understanding interfere with our god given right to hate the other.

Oh, yes, I'm just SURE you have been involved in peace talks around the world.

sheesh :roll:

 

[alexa]

No, I didn't say that at all. What I was pointing out is the hypocrisy of one who has linked to so many hate sites calling other people names.

I do not use hate sites as my sourcing like Alexa does, so your comments are unwarranted.

I am aware of linking to one hate site on a different forum when I was new to internet forums and did not know better. What was on that site and what I produced was however correct and can be found many places. You several months later found this and believed you had exposed the great hater I was. I told you then exactly what I am telling you now. You and MBig seem to believe such the guardian is a hate site, so do not expect me to take that. Apart from that early mistake I do not. You see as hate sites those with information and opinions which you do not share. Your mother or kindergarten teacher should have taught you that many people have different ideas.

Now, just when do you ever make a reply with any content other than insults?

 

[Gardener]

I am aware of linking to one hate site on a different forum when I was new to internet forums and did not know better. What was on that site and what I produced was however correct and can be found many places. You several months later found this and believed you had exposed the great hater I was. I told you then exactly what I am telling you now. You and MBig seem to believe such the guardian is a hate site, so do not expect me to take that. Apart from that early mistake I do not. You see as hate sites those with information and opinions which you do not share. Your mother or kindergarten teacher should have taught you that many people have different ideas.

Now, just when do you ever make a reply with any content other than insults?

Actually, you linked to yet another hate site just a couple of days ago.

Good try, though. I imagine those similarly afflicted with your particular point of view will accept your claims.

 

[alexa]

Oh, yes, I'm just SURE you have been involved in peace talks around the world.

sheesh :roll:

Pathetic, did not even read the post he replied with an insult to. I have not suggested I have been involved in peace talks but in the post you replied to talking about hate sites I gave quotes from a psychologist who worked with the colonial French and a man from MI6. As your reply was to the content of this, I would have to imagine that was what you were replying to.....

unless of course you just troll with your silly replies regardless of the content you are replying to. That is personal attack and is against forum rules.

 

[alexa]

Actually, you linked to yet another hate site just a couple of days ago.

Good try, though. I imagine those similarly afflicted with your particular point of view will accept your claims.

Not convinced that was a hate site. Strongly critical of Israel yes. The content was also accurate I believe. Even if I had made a mistake, I would not be getting geed up about 2 mistakes in 18 months, but I do not believe that one was, though the first definitely was.

Now would you please take your trolling of the European forum

 

[Gardener]

Pathetic, did not even read the post he replied with an insult to. I have not suggested I have been involved in peace talks but in the post you replied to talking about hate sites I gave quotes from a psychologist who worked with the colonial French and a man from MI6. As your reply was to the content of this, I would have to imagine that was what you were replying to.....

unless of course you just troll with your silly replies regardless of the content you are replying to. That is personal attack and is against forum rules.

Alexa, the fact that your writing indicates you probably did not make it past the first or second form is YOUR problem, not mine, but according to the dictates of basic grammar, your statement "people from MI6 who have been involved in Peace talks around the world including the ME" DOES claim you have been involved in peace talks -- as a representative of m16 no less.

 

[iangb]

Oh, yes, I'm just SURE you have been involved in peace talks around the world.

sheesh :roll:

Uh, ME= Middle East. Jus' saying.

As for the 'inherant violence of islam', every religion has it's darker sides. Christianity, for example; even if you want to discount the entirety of the Old Testament, you still have JC bringing not peace, but a sword (and telling his disciples to arm themselves), you still have Paul saying that gossips, slanderers and those who disobey their parents deserve death, and that women should dress modestly and not teach, or have authority over man.

If you approach any religion with a cherrypicker, you'll get exactly what you were looking for. Don't take it to be an accurate representation, though.

 

[soguks]

ohh my friends , you are still trying to convince the same person, but you are wasting your time , if you are not a psychiatrist.

 

[Andalublue]

Alexa, the fact that your writing indicates you probably did not make it past the first or second form is YOUR problem, not mine, but according to the dictates of basic grammar, your statement "people from MI6 who have been involved in Peace talks around the world including the ME" DOES claim you have been involved in peace talks -- as a representative of m16 no less.

No. Not even in Gardenlandia. "People," isn't that a 3rd person plural? Were she referring to herself she would have said, "we people" or "those of us". Is English your first language?

 

[Djoop]

Uh, ME= Middle East. Jus' saying.

As for the 'inherant violence of islam', every religion has it's darker sides. Christianity, for example; even if you want to discount the entirety of the Old Testament, you still have JC bringing not peace, but a sword (and telling his disciples to arm themselves), you still have Paul saying that gossips, slanderers and those who disobey their parents deserve death, and that women should dress modestly and not teach, or have authority over man.

If you approach any religion with a cherrypicker, you'll get exactly what you were looking for. Don't take it to be an accurate representation, though.

Ok, I pick hinduism. Go ahead.

Concerning Islam, less terrorist acts may help. They will do more than the hollow rhetoric of your friends here.

 

[iangb]

Ok, I pick hinduism. Go ahead.

Apologies, to be precise I should have said "Every religion which I've looked into". I'm woefully ignorant of Hinduism, and though I'd quite like to become less so, now isn't the time.

Though I could have expanded that into "...and many Big Ideas I've come across, too". Evolution, secularism, communism, capitalism... all of those have had atrocities committed under their respective names, or been linked to them. Hitler was a vegetarian.

Concerning Islam, less terrorist acts may help. They will do more than the hollow rhetoric of your friends here.

The crusades. Northern Ireland. AIDS in Africa. The Spanish Inquisition.

I agree, less atrocities would be nice - that's blatantly a truism. But don't make the mistake of tarring a group with the steriotype perpetuated by extremists.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Christianity, for example; even if you want to discount the entirety of the Old Testament, you still have JC bringing not peace, but a sword (and telling his disciples to arm themselves), you still have Paul saying that gossips, slanderers and those who disobey their parents deserve death, and that women should dress modestly and not teach, or have authority over man.

After the last supper Jesus Christ knew his days were numbered and thought the same of his nucleus belief system. So he broke the usual good will and peace thing he's been famous for and got ready to rumble on his enemy's terms. Distasteful if you don't live under a dictatorship, but there you are.

http://prophetgene.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-did-jesus-ask-his-disciples-to-arm.html


And Paul's commandments have long since fallen by the wayside. But Islam, as we know, was designed for war and Muhammad has gone on record countless times telling that the Jews are fit for death, that Christians are fit for death, as are peaceful Muslims unwilling to embark on jihad or anybody else getting in the way.

As the po-headed Left have been told time and again, violence is Islam's rule whilst it is the exception for Christians prepared to follow the personal example of Christ. But they've ignored it time and again. Hence the insults and the invalidation and the being patronised because their fantasy is more attractive than the hard reality.


And lastly, there is a difference between the Crusades, brutal as they were, and the Spanish Inquisition. The Crusades were a belated response to the first great Islamic invasion of Europe, which pushed them all the way back to the Middle East. The Inquisition was a politico-religious campaign to subjugate ordinary people for the benefit of ruling elites.

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

 

[iangb]

After the last supper Jesus Christ knew his days were numbered and thought the same of his nucleus belief system. So he broke the usual good will and peace thing he's been famous for and got ready to rumble on his enemy's terms. Distasteful if you don't live under a dictatorship, but there you are.

Prophet Gene: Why did Jesus ask his disciples to arm themselves before going to the Garden of Gethsemane


And Paul's commandments have long since fallen by the wayside. But Islam, as we know, was designed for war and Muhammad has gone on record countless times telling that the Jews are fit for death, that Christians are fit for death, as are peaceful Muslims unwilling to embark on jihad or anybody else getting in the way.

As the po-headed Left have been told time and again, violence is Islam's rule whilst it is the exception for Christians prepared to follow the personal example of Christ. But they've ignored it time and again. Hence the insults and the invalidation and the being patronised because their fantasy is more attractive than the hard reality.


And lastly, there is a difference between the Crusades, brutal as they were, and the Spanish Inquisition. The Crusades were a belated response to the first great Islamic invasion of Europe, which pushed them all the way back to the Middle East. The Inquisition was a politico-religious campaign to subjugate ordinary people for the benefit of ruling elites.

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your interpretation of Christianity - one which I'm quite in agreement with. But there are other people who interpret it in other ways.

The same can be said of Islam. For many, it's a religion of peace. For some, it's an excuse for war. You're the one agreeing with the fundamentalists on which of those interpretations is more 'correct'.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

It's not a question of agreeing as much as seeing what stares you in the face if you care to look.

Once once once again for some in this audience, whose selective memory is like Teflon, if many Muslims see it as a religion of peace then great - as long as when push comes to shove they still remain peaceful. If there was no Islam then there would be no jihads, fundamentalism, supremacism or anything else recurring time and again where Muslims congeal in huge numbers abroad.

But the truth's the truth. And if a religion is bad then no amount of wriggly moral equivilence will change that I'm afraid.