Better than what? Asking a question of a debate that someone else questioned the fact of christians that were involved in atrocities. Using any racist card on me will not work.
Pah sod it
Explosion outside a mosque in Tipton
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
Better than what? Asking a question of a debate that someone else questioned the fact of christians that were involved in atrocities. Using any racist card on me will not work.
Pah sod it
Except that we haven't.
An unknown person or persons has made an attack...who do you think we should villify?
This unknown person or persons doesn't rule countries, doesn't impose brutality and tyranny on many millions of people, doesn't conquer countries, isn't attempting to conquer the entire world and doesn't routinely carry out attacks for the purpose of conquest and terrorising people into obedience. In other words, they aren't the same thing at all. Even if we knew who they were, which we don't.
Neither are the vast majority of Muslims.
People seem to be consistantly confusing Muslim with Conservative Islamist.
Since I never made any reference to the vast majority of Muslims, your reply is very misleading.
It might seem that way to you, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's what's happening. In fact, it seems to me that you're the one confusing those two groups in this case, since you've assumed that a reference to the worst of the conservative Islamists is a reference to all Muslims.
You were responding directly to The Geezer who was complaining of blanket villification of Muslims, was he not? and as at no point did you clarify who you are specifying so the implication would be generically the Muslims to which The Geezer was referencing?
I pointed out the description you forwarded would not be relevant to what The Geezer was pointing out and what a common misconception of both the thread and in general when ascribing responsibility to Muslim Groups is ascribing such as inherent to Islam (and by association, Muslims) in general..such as Poobrain and others have done.
I'm not sure that even makes sense..I haven't assumed anything, only responded directly to what you have written in the context of the post by The Geezer. If you were referencing a specific Islamic political grouping such as Conservative Islamism (Wahabbi/Salafi) then perhaps you should actually clarify such, particularly if the post you are responding to is making reference to Muslims in the generic sense.
(That is not to imply that all Salafis/Wahabbis are terrorists or fulfil the criteria you described either)
What do you mean that isn't necessarily what is happening? Are you suggesting that Islamism is not the underlying motivation for the majority of politically led Islamic terrorism?
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 10,263
- Location
- UK
What the EDL and PooBrain don't want you to know
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23276327?SThisFB
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23276327?SThisFB
I routinely read reports of violence in reaction to anything/everything related to this community, how is that that not an attempt to force people to submit? I've never had a Christian raise an eyebrow at blasphemy involving their sky pixie.
So no desire for a Caliphate state from anyone then, uh huh. I'm amazed at how apparently every Muslim changes beliefs as soon as they step of the boat.
Care to define what "people like me" actually means?
I think everyone in the thread realises that beheading people and planting bombs is only carried out by a tiny proportion of Muslims?
The problem is that the atrocities committed by that little group are so horrific:
(http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3135/muslim-persecution-of-christians-may-2012)
that many people wonder what they have since let unknowingly into the country.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 5,038
That's all very well and good, but if you read it the purpose was to was to sway public opinion. If it was a truly altruistic act it would come without motive.
Why wouldn't the EDL want people to know that?
What about this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mates-eat-pork-Britains-toughest-prisons.html
I couldn't care less what the EDL do just as long as they rid themselves of hooligan followers. I'm more concerned with the moronic UAF and their hippy regime.
Saudi Arabia has seperate roads for muslims and non muslims i believe.Hell try taking a journey to Mecca and see what they do to your head.We have no problems with muslims coming here and we pretty much bend over backwards these days to not seem racist.
Yet they treat most of us like complete dirt and view us as dirty infidels that will burn in hell.And they sugar coat it and deny everything.I have never once saw it in the bible that we should lie to non believers to decieve them to further the interests of christianity or try to enforce christian rule in arabia like they want to do here.
A recent poll i saw said 33% of muslims thought the west was immoral and thought it was thier duty to overthrow it.
Another 34% or so wanted to see Sharia Law in the UK or something like that.We bend over way too much for them i think if they are unhappy they know where the road is.Im sick of it and the double standards who do they think they are fooling? A quick look on youtube or glance at the opinions of imams on womens rights or female mutilation will show you the truth.Here is a quote from the leading Imam in Ireland from his book.
Last edited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/14/boko-haram-school-attacks-nigeria
Nigerian Al-Queda call for attacks on schools.
Nigerian Al-Queda call for attacks on schools.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,647
he describes education system as a plot against Islam
TROLOLOLLOLOLOL!!!!
tell me why we humour Muslims any more?
Because if you dont you are a racist apparantly!
Also notice how when you offer up facts and blogs and quotes and what not they all seem to fade into the background.It is pretty obvious whats going on here and more people are waking up to it thankfully.
Yea thats why you shot a 15 year old girl in the head in Afghanistan for going to school.And he is right about the touching women.I hear its more goats with those boko harem guys haha.
Also notice how when you offer up facts and blogs and quotes and what not they all seem to fade into the background.It is pretty obvious whats going on here and more people are waking up to it thankfully.
Yea thats why you shot a 15 year old girl in the head in Afghanistan for going to school.And he is right about the touching women.I hear its more goats with those boko harem guys haha.
Last edited:
1) I started off by denying that everything is always blanket villification of all Muslims, so clearly I wasn't agreeing with The Geezer regarding who was being referred to.
2) That was not the only thing that The Geezer wrote in the post I referred to. I quoted clearly - the text I wrote that you wrongly claimed referred to all Muslims wasn't even in reply to The Geezer's claim that "we have villified ALL Muslims". So it wasn't in reply to what you said it was in reply to and even if it had been it wouldn't have meant what you said it meant.
3) The Geezer's post was part of a subthread on why "we" (whoever they mean by that) don't make blanket villification of all non-Muslims in response to a bomb exploding near a mosque. My response was illustrating the disproportionate amount of harm done, after I had already disagreed with the targetting of villification.
If you have two groups, one of which kills many people, routinely uses torture and murder as a means of forcing obedience by fear, is hell bent on destroying civilisation and imposing brutal tyranny on the whole world and is steadily making progress towards that goal, and none of those things are true for the other group (although they might want them to be), then there is a bona fide reason for villifying the first group more than the second.
If I was suggesting that, I would have done so or at least written something in reply to the underlying motivation for Islamic terrorism. I've no idea how you've made that connection to something which wasn't mentioned at all and which has no connection to what I wrote.
I showed the quoting clearly.
You wrote:
"People seem to be consistantly confusing Muslim with Conservative Islamist."
I replied, very clearly and very directly to that specific piece of text from you:
"It might seem that way to you, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's what's happening."
I have no idea how I could have been clearer. I still don't.
In general:
Person A: It seems to me that X is happening.
Person B: It might seem to you that X is happening, but that doesn't necessarily mean that X is happening.
And yet you went on, without any clarification otherwise, to suggest through very clear implication that the group to whom The Geezer was referring...you even quoted the specific part in which he references that general vilification.
You did indeed quote clearly...clearly the section in which, as I mentioned above, The Geezer references the general vilification and whether that would happen in opposing situations, if the perpetrators were not Muslim (he also mentions other commonly vilified groups, again usually based on misconception and generalisations)....your example makes some very clear comparisons between those opposing groups, again, without any clarification, so it is reasonable to think you are indeed following The Geezers lead on the group under comparison.
Here, you make the same comparison...implying, despite your statement to the contrary, that Muslims are indeed the group under assessment. You are saying that non-Muslims are not a target group because Muslims create a disproportionate amount of harm so therefore you are justifying it....
It's not unlike the "I'm not being a racist...but..." scenario.
You may not even realise you are doing it, but you are nonetheless.
And again, The Geezer was specifically talking about vilification (unjustified in his opinion) of Muslims based on the actions of a few, you have come along and tried to justify that vilification through a comparison of two generic groupings to establish why there is a bone fide reason, as you term it, why the specific group The Geezer is talking about is indeed vilified. (Even though you state you don't agree with it).
Calling them "The Group".."Group A" or whatever you want to call them doesn't remove the position of just which group is being implied, particularly as The Geezer was referring to a specific identifiable group, rather than a generic one.
Actually you accused me of making the very same misconception that I feel many others are making, which is a nonsense. You made a comparison to justify your position opposing what The Geezer stated was unjustified vilification of Muslims based on the acts of the few....and it is a common misconception that many make when they try to justify such through the kind of comparisons that you have...you gave a list of justifications of why said group (The Geezers Muslims) would be vilified as opposed to another (unnamed/unidentified) group who would not, justifications that might apply to specific Islamist Political Demographics, (as I pointed out) but then that was not what The Geezer was referring to, in fact he was stating something quite different....at no time did you clarify that you were talking in any other context than the one in which The Geezer made his statement.
I stand by my statement, I think it was a justified one to make and applicable to the context of the comparisons being made at the time.
Last edited:
That is untrue.
Since your entire argument rests on an untrue statement, I will not dignify it with a reply.
If anyone cares, they can click back to see what I actually wrote and what I was replying to, since I quoted what I was replying to (and it wasn't the section in which The Geezer references universal villification).
It's an untruth, you just disagree with my reasoning, which is entirely fine. There is a difference, particularly given the context in which the original post you quoted was made, simply quoting selectively doesn't alter the context in which the selected post was made Angillion, unless you make it clear form the outset, which you did not. I think you need to be more aware of the context in which you are replying, rather than calling people liars when they respond within said context. I gave good solid reasoning for why I think as I do, that doesn't make it untrue just because you don't like it or cannot/will not see it.
Last edited: