Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
nd ISIS doesn’t need to win anyone over to their view, because their view is just normative Islam; similarly they don’t really need to recruit people either because mainstream Islamic texts do it for them.
That isn’t strictly true, as ISIS is very strongly in the Sunni branch of islam. I think a ‘normative’ version of islam would just be a literal interpretation of the Quran, without using the Sunnah or the Hadiths. Which is something that doesn’t exist as far as I know of.
Respectively disagree, it’s crucial. Allowing people who identify as Muslims to live here entails the continual acceptance of Islam within society. The continual acceptance of Islam within society means that it stays tolerated and protected; that Muslims who adhere to it remain tolerated and protected; and that the Islamisation of this country, and the wider Western world, continues unabated.
You can tollerate moderate (I don’t think a lot of people the media calles moderate actually are though) muslims without giving them a protected status. We are one of few countries that doesn’t have blasphemy laws, and should stay that way. Making practice of shariah illegal would also help, as it would encourage muslims to adopt British values instead.
And you posit war, but we’re already in a war as far as I’m concerned (albeit an internal one). Any nations that do threaten war on a people trying to rid themselves of Islam though, would be akin to somebody threatening to attack somebody else who has an infection or a form of necrosis, upon them attempting to stop it spreading through their own body. Those threatening to attack will therefore be trying to harm you just as much as the infection/necrosis is already doing, so more war it will just have to be.
I don’t think that all muslims have the potential to become radicalised, certainly some of them might do in certain situations but I don’t think a reaction against every single muslim can be justified.
Islam is an intolerant death cult of conquest and domination and it’s been fighting everything that Western civilisation is founded upon for the last 1400 years. A lot of the fighting of the crusades took place with the aim of stopping Islam spreading into Europe – it’s what thousands of men were once laying down their lives for to prevent from happening. But yet now in the modern era it’s been welcomed into the fold with open arms and labelled as something benign, despite it never even have changed.
I can see the theat that Islam poses much more than some others here do, but there are benign versions of Islam. I think thats something we can encourage (in place of conservative Islam) in this country if we can get past the media calling all critcism of Islam racist or islamophobic (a term that was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood just for this purpose).
Reformation of Islam will never come out of places like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, even Turkey is slipping back towards fudementalism. But I thinks it’s achievable here, and with any luck it might be able to spread to other Islamic countries with time. Even if that doesn’t happen we should still try for it here.
The route of avoiding conflict with Islam is reminiscent of Chamberlain’s stance towards the Nazis in WWII. The order of the day was to follow the strategy of appeasement towards a fundamentally dominating and expansionist ideology–a strategy of which did not work then, just as it will not work now. Chamberlain’s eagerness to champion co-existence along with his now infamous declaration that “there will be peace for our time”, right before Hitler then invaded Poland, should serve as a historic warning to everyone. Fortunately, the one guy who did have enough backbone to stare reality in the face, and of who possessed the courage and conviction do what was needed to be done, stood up, and he spoke a now famous quote which was just as relevant in 1939 in the fight against Nazism, as it is today in the fight against Islam:
I am fully supportive of conflict with Islam, but I would choose a different battlefield than you. As I said I think that Ideological means are enough to remove radical Islam from this country (assuming that we restrict non-intergrated muslims from comming here until we have made the muslim community reject radical members on their own), and we have enough ecconomic power to place sanctions on other Islamic countries that sponser terrorism.
Radical Islam supposes a moderate Islam, but there’s no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam and is inherently a radical ideology, and always has been.
Christianity isn’t a lot better than Islam, but there is now a moderate form of it.
There are, however, ‘Muslims’ who don’t follow it as they ought to – who are then labelled as hypocrites by actual Muslims.
The Catholic church has never done this as well I suppose then, or there has never been some sort of inquisition (nobody would expect it) to punish people who are not ideologically pure enough.
You have described Hitler as centre-Left, drac, so your categories tend to be confusing and, dare I say, confused. I do think you’re acting in a rational manner insofar as you try to develop arguments from a set of premises. The premises aren’t totally clear, probably not to yourself if you’re normal. Most of us rely on premises which aren’t totally clear. That allows us to develop and grow as we try to clarify them, and as circumstances change. I do think you tend to be over-abstract, but generally your comments aren’t so clear a to clearly define your politics. As opposed to mine! I am a racist and a Muslim, a liberal and a communist according to various people here
If socialism is right wing to you, then you might actually be a communist, lol.
My categories are based on ecconomic policies, I don’t really see how social policies can be classes as either left or right wing, especially taking into account how accurate the horseshoe theory seems to be.
I guess i’m daft and gullible for believing Bank Of England then.
And also racist.
Probably throw in islamaphobic too for good measure.
They must have employed a member of ISIS to drive the brexit lorry, because from what I see there’s going to be bloody hell for us all to pay.
Really?
Jinksy, that seems a fair description of the Mail from what I’ve seen of it. They supported Hitler in the thirties. But in our post-truth society (when was it not?), I would expect to end up with Tinsel sectioning you. The loons are taking the asylum, and gawd help the rest of us.
I don’t know if that’s true or not, but that was 70 years ago. It doesn’s seem very fascist to me, mostly it focuses on celebrity gosip more than actual news. Celebrities who mostly repeat the left wing propaganda pushed by the Guardian and sometimes the BBC.
If you want to see actual facist news coverage go to somewhere like the Daily Stormer, that’s more in line with what was described. They have such wonderful sections as ‘Jewish Problem’ and ‘Race War’. That is what a facism looks like.
Attachments:
I will get around to replying to you probably tomorrow BB, you wrote quite a lot that I have to think about the right reponses for.
The Daily mail (aka hate mail, Daily fail, Daily Heil, Daily Moan, crazy mail and so on) is a reactionary, neo-fascist middle-class newspaper that is
1 member liked this post.
So, it happened again.
Seems like this kind of attack is going to become more common in the future.
I very rarely talk about my health to anyone, even my girlfriend or my children.
All your mighty 1 whole argument, has been refuted countless times, you just mix the same words up to rehash that same 1 argument. You are a Christian fundamentalist, far right in ideology and disguise yourself as a “liberal”. You don’t budge an inch and you have an answer for everything and a solution to nothing.
I am confused as to why you keep accusing me of being Christian. I’m an athiest, and I have never believed in any God.
Am I right wing? Center right I would agree, far left certainly not.
I don’t think my arguments have been refuted, Scep only says they won’t be as effective as I believe them to be. Nobody else has really said anything about the,
