Just where do we go from here?

[Limehouse]

Mouarfff !

Look David, I know I have made you cross and I am sorry, because I respect you greatly as a poster. However, what I was trying to point out in my post is that fanatics come from all walks of life and from all religions.

Objecting to Islam based on its treatment of women is fair enough, but it is not the only religion that does so (but certainly it does so more forcefully in some regions).

Objecting to Islam on the basis that some of its followers commit acts of extreme violence is, in my opinion, misplaced because not all of its followers do so. It would be like objecting to all Catholics on the grounds that some of them planted bombs in various places. I was trying to point out that Muslims are not the only religious group to have attacked soldiers and civilians in the Uk.

My first post on this thread pointed out that many Muslims were horrified by this act and prayed for the victim and his family with a great deal of sincerity. I stand by that statement.

[DVV]

The facts are this: 99.9% of muslims in this country are not involved in such acts of terrorism.

I cannot think of a poorest argument.

99,9999999999 percent of Norvegian fascists were not involved in the Utoyah massacre.

It doesn't mean they're not potentially dangerous.

[DVV]

Look David, I know I have made you cross and I am sorry, because I respect you greatly as a poster. However, what I was trying to point out in my post is that fanatics come from all walks of life and from all religions.

Objecting to Islam based on its treatment of women is fair enough, but it is not the only religion that does so (but certainly it does so more forcefully in some regions).

Objecting to Islam on the basis that some of its followers commit acts of extreme violence is, in my opinion, misplaced because not all of its followers do so. It would be like objecting to all Catholics on the grounds that some of them planted bombs in various places. I was trying to point out that Muslims are not the only religious group to have attacked soldiers and civilians in the Uk.

My first post on this thread pointed out that many Muslims were horrified by this act and prayed for the victim and his family with a great deal of sincerity. I stand by that statement.

Thanks for your kind words, Julie. I too have respect and friendship for you.

I'm just sorry to see people trying to exonerate islam by all means. It shouldn't be the case.

I know the New Testament says (sorry for my English) : "Woman, be submitted to your husband like Sarah was submitted to Abraham", etc etc
Still, it's better to be a woman in Ireland than in Saudi, Somalia, Nigeria...and now Egypt, Tunisie, etc

Of course, everybody kills everybody, that we know.

But what people should understand, is that islam is fundamentally non-egalitarian. And that jihadists are "good" muslims. They perfectly understood the Koran, follow its commandments and the example of their prophet - who allowed rapes, war and murder.

That's why I too stand by my statement, that islam is the problem.

Lydia's two daughters study in Bruxelles. It's hell over there because of muslims immigrants. They're insulted in the street because of the clothes they wear. That's true, and it didn't happen only once or twice.
In Belgium too, there is a political party called "islam". Two members of that party won the recent local elections. Have a look at their program. Listen to their leader and tell me what you think.

Decades ago, religion wasn't really a problem. It was a time where muslim countries were ruled by Arab nationalists.

Nowadays, they settle in Europe and don't want to eat our meat, ask for more mosques, pray in the street. Well, what are they doing in France if they hate our culture ? If they want to marry only a muslim ?

In France, everybody knows most of the rapes are committed by muslims on non-muslims women - but hush ! that's not politically correct say so. Still, that is true.

I remember, about 10 years ago, when I was studying the relationships between Christians and Muslims in Ethiopia, we were surprised that, although it was rather peaceful and friendly between them, they were unable to sit together and eat the same meat. For us, Europeans, it seemed the Middle Ages...

Nowadays it happens in France. More and more Muslims only accept to eat hallal meat. Two years ago I lived in Saint-Denis (north of Paris) and was compelled to take the bus to buy my meat. Because there were ONLY islamic butcheries around - and I disagree with the way animals are killed in their slaughterhouses. It's illegal, but we let them do. Why ? I don't know.

What a jump backward.

Therefore, imo, it's not only about terrorism. I hate the way islam affects our societies.

As far as I know, Chinese do not ask for dog meat in schools, and they seldom commit crimes. They don't ask for Chinese or buddhist bank holidays either.

Best regards

[DVV]

I got it, David.

But some others might have thought "Ur" was just modern text-speak.

(Er...spell?)

Best regards,
Archaic

Sharp you are, my dear Bunny !

[Smoking Joe]

More personal abuse? Thanks - I expected no less. It's all more useful information about "where you're coming from".

But seriously, do you not see any irony in the fact that you have whined endlessly about your right to criticise Islam being stifled (which, it seems, actually means only that you think people are trying to stifle your opinions - which on further enquiry apparently means only that people are disagreeing with you) on the one hand - and on the other, the fact that you want this man to be locked up, not for anything he has actually done or said, but because you infer there may be thoughts in his head that you don't like?

It really is priceless entertainment. Please carry on not being stifled!

It would appear that there is more than a little of"Mr Pot calling Mr Kettle black" in your post.I dont seem to hold a monopoly on "whining" either.
Regarding Choudary ........there are times when one can say more by remaining silent. Maybe you could use that to your advantage some time.
I realise I have probabley lost you there,so I will give you time to catch up.

O.K Now what else were you droning on about?..Oh yes, Personal Abuse.....you must be a very sensitive soul ,or perhaps you are just looking for someone to say something that you can be offended about.

I am glad you are enjoying the show.If there are Any other comments ,whines, or abuse you wish to bore me with,please dont hesitate to do so.

[Smoking Joe]

Why I am not surprised that I can find absolutely no mention of any trouble in Oldham on Google News?

I'd guess these 'reports' - you don't say where you saw them - were an attempt to fan the flames. I'd advise you to check with a reputable news source rather than spreading rumours in future.

Oh! Its you again. I seem to have a fan....or is it a stalker?
But no mind about that.
Actually there was a report ,posted by some mischevious person on a social media site. And it was a report ,as I said .False report? it would seem so .

Again you" infer " my motive was to fan the flames. You really should think about your posts before you post them.

It was nice knowing you Chris, now can you please pester someone else? xxxx

[Chris]

[Deleted: Poster has already responded.]

[Chris]

Smoking Joe

"Stalking" you? I thought we were having a discussion - and a very useful and revealing one too. I'm just trying to give you the fullest possible opportunity to articulate your views, because I think it's very beneficial that you should do so.

But anyway, thank you for clarifying that the false report about rioting that you relayed here was "posted by some mischevious person on a social media site". Apparently you agree with me that it was an attempt to make mischief (though obviously you have made a faulty inference in thinking I was accusing you of doing so - you see what a risky business inference can be?).

Of course, that's why - as I said - it's wise for people to check whether rumours they read on the Internet are true before rushing to disseminate them further.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Errata
Thanks for your considered and thoughtful post #161 but I must profoundly disagree with you on two points you make.
1) Islam is not the enemy is because Islam is a book and a story. It's no more an enemy of anybody you've ever met than Sith Lords.
To me the comparison is flawed as everyone knows that the Sith Lords - and the whole Star Wars world - is fictional and fantasy. Many people would describe the Koran in the same term but unfortunately to many millions of people the Koran is the revealed word of their deity and treated as such. Star Wars fans do not bomb, mutilate and maim people in the name of the Sith Lords - but the Koran, its teachings and the effect of those teachings exist in the real world and continue to have their baleful effect.
2) Ideas don't hurt people. People hurt people.
Ideas are infinitely more dangerous than people - or rather how people act on the inspiration of those ideas. This argument is along the lines of the dictum that "guns don't kill, people do," and in my opinion is just as specious. Texts like the Koran are in my opinion the most dangerous of all as they are believed to be divinely inspired and thus any attempt to question them is tantamount to blasphemy. This becomes a self fulfilling argument - the Koran is true so it cannot be questioned, and it cannot be questioned because it is true.
I care not one jot what anyone chooses to believe - I have neither the right nor the desire to tell people what they can think. But I care very much indeed when the results of any belief system leads to brutal murder and indiscriminate killing on the streets of the country I live in.
In the aftermath of atrocities such as the appalling events in Woolwich we always hear two arguments, both of which in my opinion do not stand up to analysis:-
1) The perpetrators of such acts are not "real" Muslims, as though their acts have nothing whatever to do with Islam and the Koran when they are blatantly inspired by that faith and that text. There is no "real" Islam for, as posters on this thread have said, Islam does not and cannot speak with one voice. It is a highly fragmented faith with many streams of thought and practice. But to pretend that those that support violent islamism are not Muslims is untrue and ingenuous. Ironically, those who carry out these violent acts almost see themselves as better Muslims and truer to their violent interpretation of their faith than those who settle peacefully into non Muslim countries.
2) The number of those who follow and support movements within Islam which advocate the use of violent means to achieve their ends are a vanishingly small minority and a completely non representative percentage of followers of Islam.
This makes it sound as though radical followers of Islam who are prepared to use violence and murder are insignificant little cells meeting in dark backrooms, radicalised, misguided young men who misinterpret the Koran. This ignores the fact that there are major movements within Islam that fall into this very category. If you add up the followrs of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Al Shobab, the Taliban and many other groups worldwide, and add in the number of those who support these aims without being practising foot soldiers of these movements, do you really believe this total number would be insignificant or vanishingly small? I think not.

In another post I suggested the introduction of a new term - Muslimophobe, for those who dislike or fear people who are Muslims. I would reserve the term Islamophobe for those who fear, distrust or dislike Islam as a faith. In those terms I am an Islamophobe in that I believe that Islam as a faith system is dangerous and cannot be exonerated from the vile acts done in its names.
To dislike or abuse anyone for what they believe is absurd and illogical. As I said I have no desire whatever to dictate what anyone else thinks, however far fetched and baseless I personally think those beliefs may be. Intellectually I cannot understand how anyone could believe in Islam but I could say exactly the same about any organised religion. I am not in that context putting Islam into any special category.
What I am saying is judge people by what they do, not what they believe. But I repeat that to pay lip service immediately on the commission of an atrocity to the mantra that such acts are not committed by "real" Muslims and have nothing to do with Islam is simply not true and seeks to avoid an unpleasant truth. In this context to call someone not a "real" Muslim simply means someone whose interpretation of the Koran you do not agree with, but that does not exonerate the faith that inspired the act from further involvement.

[Smoking Joe]

Smoking Joe

"Stalking" you? I thought we were having a discussion - and a very useful and revealing one too. I'm just trying to give you the fullest possible opportunity to articulate your views, because I think it's very beneficial that you should do so.

But anyway, thank you for clarifying that the false report about rioting that you relayed here was "posted by some mischevious person on a social media site". Apparently you agree with me that it was an attempt to make mischief (though obviously you have made a faulty inference in thinking I was accusing you of doing so - you see what a risky business inference can be?).

Of course, that's why - as I said - it's wise for people to check whether rumours they read on the Internet are true before rushing to disseminate them further.

Well Chris, short of travelling to Oldham to check it out for myself there was very little else I could do .
As for inference, well that may well be true,but the phrase "fanning the flames" pops up on a regular basis here.Sometimes one might wonder whether it's sometimes more than just coincidence.
You expect a meaningful discussion.Thats fine. But you seem to want to inject another agenda into it. Phrases such as "fanning the flames" (my god that phr ase is making me wince,Ive heard it so many times)" "Now I know where you are coming from" and such like.Its not helpfull. You seem to want to analyse every word for hidden meanings.Now nothing wrong with analysis ,but sometimes one can analyse things too much,just as one cannot analyse things enough.The word "stifle" springs to mind,I explain what I mean by the word.But no thats not enough for you until you have squeezed and stretched every possible meaning you can out of it. You infer that I "complain" or whine because others might disagree with my opinion.You say I am in effect a "music hall entertainer"and presumabley not a very good one .Now is there "personal abuse" hidden away there somewhere? Probabley,but its no issue to me, others might rush to press the report button ,But Id like to think Im not as childish to do that.If there is no room for Brevity, light hearted humour ,(even if its directed against ones self) seriousness and yes,passion too,then what is the point?In the light of that ,What kind of response do you exoect from me?

You then complain and label any response I make as "personal abuse" when none is intended. I can only judge you on your words.Maybe I dont see the grimace,or the smile on your face as you type ,so I cant get the real meaning at times. That applies equally to you as you read my posts. Which again brings on board the word "inference" .....but Im not going there again.

[Chris]

In another post I suggested the introduction of a new term - Muslimophobe, for those who dislike or fear people who are Muslims. I would reserve the term Islamophobe for those who fear, distrust or dislike Islam as a faith. In those terms I am an Islamophobe in that I believe that Islam as a faith system is dangerous and cannot be exonerated from the vile acts done in its names.

The trouble is that - if I understood correctly - you also suggested that we should adopt an immigration policy designed to limit the number of Muslim immigrants, or at any rate to make it more difficult for Muslims to immigrate than for others. So I think the kind of clean distinction between 'Muslimophobia' and 'Islamophobia' that you're suggesting would be very difficult to maintain in practice.

[The Good Michael]

Chris Scott,

I agree with everything you said in that particular rant.

Mike

[Chris]

Well Chris, short of travelling to Oldham to check it out for myself there was very little else I could do.

????

Some useful links:

http://news.google.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

http://news.sky.com/

As for the rest of your post I can only say, "Keep it coming!"

[Fleetwood Mac]

I cannot think of a poorest argument.

99,9999999999 percent of Norvegian fascists were not involved in the Utoyah massacre.

It doesn't mean they're not potentially dangerous.

You're doing exactly what you claim Islam to be.

Fundamentalism is characterised by censorship, and censorship is borne out of a belief that people are potentially dangerous - in some capacity or another.

There is one massive ingredient you need for a rich (rich in ideas and wealth) society to develop, and that is "potentially" is not grounds to lay claims. Far too vague and open to bias.

[DVV]

Chris Scott,

I agree with everything you said in that particular rant.

Mike

Hi Mike

Does it mean you're not impressed by Fleetwood Mac ?



Cheers