rendelc Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I'm more concerned about the growth of the far-right as a genuine alternative for middle-class voters than I am about extremist Muslims. The former is a growing trend and this constant narrative of violent Muslims creates distrust and unease in the cosy suburbs. Im not . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) as soon as you hear about this attack or that attack you just know its by muslim extremists, its got that bad. C'mon man. Israel, Palestine, Hamas, the rising attacks by fanatical African christian's gangs/mitia, American police/gangs, China, Hong Kong. Plus more I'm forgetting. Not every attack big enough to attract a biased, manipulative media is a Muslim attack. Edited January 7, 2015 by Ingram85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Your point about taking it on the chin is what I meant when I gave the example of the Prophet (pbuh). He took abuse much worse aimed directly at him to his face. He never retaliated in such a way. He kinda did though, once he had the numbers. Islam was spread at the point of a sword (convert or die) by a bunch of psychotic Arab Bedouin who the Sheikhs wisely thought would be less trouble expressing their talents as far away from home as possible. A glimpse at modern Saudi Arabia reveals that little has changed in that regard. Don't mistake me as being anti-Muslim, I'm not. I do dislike the pussy footing around historical truths that occurs in order to avoid giving offence. Cartoons are what they are. Cartoons. There is no death penalty for non-muslims for drawing a cartoon. Your depiction of history has nothing to do with it. I hate it when attacks like today is used to attack Islams and Muslims as a religion and group. Anyway, here is my interpretation of what you wrote. It has as little to do with today's attacks as your veiled attack on Muslims as a group.Christianity was spread at the point of a sword (convert or die) by a bunch of psychotic Englishmen who the Kings wisely thought would be less trouble expressing their talents as far away from home as possible.A glimpse at modern USA reveals that little has changed in that regard.Don't mistake me as being anti-Christian, I'm not. I do dislike the pussy footing around historical truths that occurs in order to avoid giving offence. I am not sure what you're objecting at? The historical reality is that Mohammed was able to use a monotheistic idea to create a "supertribe" from his ummah that was capable militarily of conquering his neighbours. "Strive, O Prophet against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal with them firmly. Their final abode is Hell; And what a wretched destination". A strong message, which was violently executed with some aplomb. This is what AWOL is rightly pointing out, that it is a religion spread through violence. Mohammed's ummah and the supertribe brought together carried this out literally as did the successors. The Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon in 637, Persepolis in 648, Nishapur in 651, Kabul in 664, Samarkand in 710, in the Eastern Empire, Damascus and Antioch in 635, Alexandria 642, Carthage 698. That is the historical reality. I won't stoop down to your level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Muslim world is in tatters. The vacum is there for these kind of fanatics to exist. Apart from coming out condemning the attacks and imprisoning those who do wrong what else is there? Nothing. Unless they are proven to be agents of a state. But individual Muslims shouldn't be under any obligation to condemn the attacks. It's like demanding that conservative European Christians condemn the Anders Breivik shootings. However, groups like the Arab League should condemn the Paris shooting, just as the government of Japan should. Or the government of Bolivia. Most Muslims living in the western world will condemn the attacks. That's what you don't seem to understand. They just get drowned out. That's what I don't seem to understand, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 When I heard about the shootings in Paris i knew it was a Muslim extremist attack, same with Sydney. In years to come Ingram Europe will be a completely different place as we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Muslim world is in tatters. The vacum is there for these kind of fanatics to exist. Apart from coming out condemning the attacks and imprisoning those who do wrong what else is there? Nothing. Unless they are proven to be agents of a state. But individual Muslims shouldn't be under any obligation to condemn the attacks. It's like demanding that conservative European Christians condemn the Anders Breivik shootings. However, groups like the Arab League should condemn the Paris shooting, just as the government of Japan should. Or the government of Bolivia. Most Muslims living in the western world will condemn the attacks. That's what you don't seem to understand. They just get drowned out. That's what I don't seem to understand, eh? There's definitely a way of debating that doesn't resort to belittling others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 7, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2015 S. Abbas Raza: "... the Islamists have largely been winning this war... They have successfully intimidated a very large number of writers and artists and journalists and film-makers all over the world into silence (and many live in exile because of threats to their safety), and within Muslim countries they have in addition used blasphemy laws to persecute their enemies and basically make any discussion of religion impossible. All this while religious apologists continue to proclaim to CNN and the BBC that their religion stands only for peace. Tell that to the tens of thousands of victims of religious violence in Pakistan alone. "Oh, the number of extremists is very small; most Muslims are peace-loving people." The number of actual terrorists is always small. The problem is that a great proportion of Muslims sympathize with these people, which is why it is impossible to eliminate them. Let us stop fooling ourselves with this nonsense. People need to stand up for free speech unequivocally, and against this barbarity, especially Muslims." Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tezvilla Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Another attack, same religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Your point about taking it on the chin is what I meant when I gave the example of the Prophet (pbuh). He took abuse much worse aimed directly at him to his face. He never retaliated in such a way. He kinda did though, once he had the numbers. Islam was spread at the point of a sword (convert or die) by a bunch of psychotic Arab Bedouin who the Sheikhs wisely thought would be less trouble expressing their talents as far away from home as possible. A glimpse at modern Saudi Arabia reveals that little has changed in that regard. Don't mistake me as being anti-Muslim, I'm not. I do dislike the pussy footing around historical truths that occurs in order to avoid giving offence. Cartoons are what they are. Cartoons. There is no death penalty for non-muslims for drawing a cartoon. Your depiction of history has nothing to do with it. I hate it when attacks like today is used to attack Islams and Muslims as a religion and group. Anyway, here is my interpretation of what you wrote. It has as little to do with today's attacks as your veiled attack on Muslims as a group.Christianity was spread at the point of a sword (convert or die) by a bunch of psychotic Englishmen who the Kings wisely thought would be less trouble expressing their talents as far away from home as possible.A glimpse at modern USA reveals that little has changed in that regard.Don't mistake me as being anti-Christian, I'm not. I do dislike the pussy footing around historical truths that occurs in order to avoid giving offence. I am not sure what you're objecting at? The historical reality is that Mohammed was able to use a monotheistic idea to create a "supertribe" from his ummah that was capable militarily of conquering his neighbours. "Strive, O Prophet against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal with them firmly. Their final abode is Hell; And what a wretched destination". A strong message, which was violently executed with some aplomb. This is what AWOL is rightly pointing out, that it is a religion spread through violence. Mohammed's ummah and the supertribe brought together carried this out literally as did the successors. The Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon in 637, Persepolis in 648, Nishapur in 651, Kabul in 664, Samarkand in 710, in the Eastern Empire, Damascus and Antioch in 635, Alexandria 642, Carthage 698. That is the historical reality. I won't stoop down to your level. What level is that? Maintaining a courteous tone whilst debating a topical issue? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Muslim world is in tatters. The vacum is there for these kind of fanatics to exist. Apart from coming out condemning the attacks and imprisoning those who do wrong what else is there? Nothing. Unless they are proven to be agents of a state. But individual Muslims shouldn't be under any obligation to condemn the attacks. It's like demanding that conservative European Christians condemn the Anders Breivik shootings. However, groups like the Arab League should condemn the Paris shooting, just as the government of Japan should. Or the government of Bolivia. Most Muslims living in the western world will condemn the attacks. That's what you don't seem to understand. They just get drowned out. That's what I don't seem to understand, eh? There's definitely a way of debating that doesn't resort to belittling others. Erm, not sure if this was directed at me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I am not sure what you're talking about when you say "stoop to my level"? Of you disagree with what I have said or think my history is incorrect, then I'd prefer you to debate the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Short of a sarcastic flippant response or missing the point I'm not sure that's an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 i avoided birmingham this christmas for the first time in years purely because of this shit, i also told my partner that i did not want her going there with the kids. paranoia?? no chance, this shit is real and major cities in the uk will have similiar fates. it pisses me off how much this shit is played down and how its not a big threat etc etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Shame to hear Ruge. The more people that think like that means the better chance of zealots and word removeds winning. If you'd said because its packed, expensive and a depressing experience then I'd have agreed with you 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robojoel Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I particularly despise the religious zealots who don't have the decency to blow themselves up afterwards and provide an ironic further proof of natural selection and evolution. I applaud those who use free speech in the face of threats, whether said threats come from idiotic religions or tyrannical corporate puppets in some sinister form or other.Bravo Mon'Ami across the channel, bravo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Your point about taking it on the chin is what I meant when I gave the example of the Prophet (pbuh). He took abuse much worse aimed directly at him to his face. He never retaliated in such a way. He kinda did though, once he had the numbers. Islam was spread at the point of a sword (convert or die) by a bunch of psychotic Arab Bedouin who the Sheikhs wisely thought would be less trouble expressing their talents as far away from home as possible. A glimpse at modern Saudi Arabia reveals that little has changed in that regard. Don't mistake me as being anti-Muslim, I'm not. I do dislike the pussy footing around historical truths that occurs in order to avoid giving offence. Cartoons are what they are. Cartoons. There is no death penalty for non-muslims for drawing a cartoon. Your depiction of history has nothing to do with it. I hate it when attacks like today is used to attack Islams and Muslims as a religion and group. Anyway, here is my interpretation of what you wrote. It has as little to do with today's attacks as your veiled attack on Muslims as a group.Christianity was spread at the point of a sword (convert or die) by a bunch of psychotic Englishmen who the Kings wisely thought would be less trouble expressing their talents as far away from home as possible.A glimpse at modern USA reveals that little has changed in that regard.Don't mistake me as being anti-Christian, I'm not. I do dislike the pussy footing around historical truths that occurs in order to avoid giving offence. I am not sure what you're objecting at? The historical reality is that Mohammed was able to use a monotheistic idea to create a "supertribe" from his ummah that was capable militarily of conquering his neighbours. "Strive, O Prophet against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal with them firmly. Their final abode is Hell; And what a wretched destination". A strong message, which was violently executed with some aplomb. This is what AWOL is rightly pointing out, that it is a religion spread through violence. Mohammed's ummah and the supertribe brought together carried this out literally as did the successors. The Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon in 637, Persepolis in 648, Nishapur in 651, Kabul in 664, Samarkand in 710, in the Eastern Empire, Damascus and Antioch in 635, Alexandria 642, Carthage 698. That is the historical reality. I won't stoop down to your level. What level is that? Maintaining a courteous tone whilst debating a topical issue? I have better things to do than arguing about random texts from the Internet and random historical events. I can pick out a lot of events from from thousands of years ago and beat you with it, like the crusaders, who have their own texts and behaved like savages, the vikings, who behaved like savages (but was ironically enough forced into Christianity by the sword), or the European Zionists (Jewish and Christians) who went to Palestine and slaughtered (still ongoing) the Palestinians, or the Americans (with the help of the British among others) who went to war against Iraq because: George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' link So you see...there are a lot of people using religion one way or another to kill. What happened today can be seen in many ways as Muslims waging war against Christians and the West. But in the same way, Western intrusion in the Middle East can be seen as a Christian war against Muslims. This is the reality today. So no, I wont be discussing fictional or non-fictional events from a thousand years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Shame to hear Ruge. The more people that think like that means the better chance of zealots and word removeds winning. If you'd said because its packed, expensive and a depressing experience then I'd have agreed with you im afraid thats how its got me mate. i dont think im being paranoid at all, i am really worried about this mass movement and i say mass movement because thats what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 One poster mentioned Mohammed's responses to insults framed in a hirstorical context of turning the other cheek. AWOL pointed out that it's a bit of an historical fallacy, which as far as I can see is relevant when you have men still looking to violently impose their ideas on others. I am not really sure how brining up other events in history lessens the point, when nobody is suggesting that Islam is unique in this? If you wanted to have historical debates about the papacy or the intentions of the crusades, Ottomon conquests or US foreign policy, then I am sure if you started a thread, people would contribute. Your being defensive and I am not sure why? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 7, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 7, 2015 They're everywhere! They're coming out of the goddamn walls! What nonsense. You're more likely to get stabbed by some scrawny white chav than blown up or gunned down by some nutcase ISIS sympathiser. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Well that's two things that could happen to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts