Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t confuse it at all, in one breathe you claim to be a liberal and in the next breathe deny others, the liberalism, you support. You are certainly not “centre” left or “progressive” and your ideology is far right. Based solely on what you type on here of course. In my opinion.
Foreign nationals are not entilted to enjoy the benifits of a liberal nation, and can be refused entry. This is a liberal position.
I never claimed to be center-left, I reject progressive values entirely.
1 member liked this post.
Why would it be irrational and paranoid to know that I am a suspect if my parents or grandparents were Muslims? Why would it be irrational and paranoid to think that regarding Islam as a force of evil, so that immigration form Islamic countries is forbidden, that I would be a suspect as a Muslim? It strikes me as a very rational response.
Its irrational to fear something that is specifically designed not to target you. If you are a British citizen then you are not effected by immigration bans.
I’m not a Muslim, of course, I find Islam deeply unattractive. The point is that I tolerate Islam, and find the Muslims I have met to be really nice people.
I don’t really like to use anecdotal evidence, its not very good practice. I know many muslims who are nice, I have also met ones that have tried to physically attack me and my girlfriend on sight for not wearing a hijab.
Radical Islam cannot be tolerated – they’re the ones involved in a reconquista – you have to be a bit paranoid to think Islam as a whole is. That ended in 1492 (well more like 1683 at the gates of Vienna).
ISIS?
Saudi Arabia?
Qatar?The same thinking would see Catholics as murderous killers because of twhat happened in ulster in the 1641 massacres.
Isn’t really comparable to hundreds of years of oppression and murder of pagans and christians under islamic caliphates.
This is the essential argument you haven’t answered, drac. You make assertions, but you haven’t answered it. Islam is a faith, practised by Muslims. In the political terms you’re talking about, they can’t be differentiated in the way you do. You rightly say that Muslims (well I assume most) don’t practise it in full. That’s fine by me. It’s up to them. But then you say Islam is awful. But if it’s awful, then Muslims who practise part of it are also awful.
I have been very clear on this. Muslims who practice the aweful parts of Islam are aweful. Muslims who do not are not aweful. The immigration ban I proposed doesn’t effect just muslims either, it also effects atheists, christians and hindus in those countries equally as much.
However, what you have not answered is how you restrict the spread of ‘radical’ Islam without doing this.
The argument is toleration. Muslims and you as a christian atheist vampire (lol) don’t see eye-to-eye. Fair enough. Live with one another. As long as Muslims live with us, and don’t try to forcibly change us, I’m happy.
I don’t tollerate murder or the sexual assault of children. Which happen at a disprotionately high rate in areas surrounding Islamic enclaves.
But they (the islamists) don’t want to live with us, they segregate themselves into enclaves. And push for legal acknowlagement of Sharia law.
Are you really so naive as to the existance of these things?
Hello, and welcome to Just Chat!
Je ne suis pas a Londres, desole.
It’s not relevant at all, sidestepping and blasting out irrelevant information as a red herring that can be countered every step of the way, is just a waste of font. It never goes anywhere.
The logic you seem to be using is unbelievable. If we were instead taking about nazism, would you also say that talking about WW2 is sidestepping? Would the holocaust be a red herring?
This is the argument you are making.
Do you want Muslims from countries you don’t approve off to wear a yellow star on their chest? You automatically connect all Muslims to violence and radicalization
I have never said either of those things.
I guess, you are a far right Christian fundamentalist yourself.
Lol, i’m an fundamentalist christian atheist?
I think you confuse progressivism (center left) with liberalism (center right) though.
I absolutely agree that lobbing in obscure random points adds nothing of substance to the debate and is extremely frustrating to deal with. Thank you though Skeptical for saying it more eloquently than I can.
The points I made about the reconquista are absolutely relevant to the debate. It is an example of what it would be like if Islamic rule (think of Sharia being introduced into British law) was allowed to happen in the west.
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” seems like a fitting description for your attitude towards this.
Western (secular) liberalism isn’t better though is it, only in your opinion and it is laughable that a liberal, you, wants to impose your ideology on everyone else.
Liberalism certainly isn’t perfect, but it’s better than fundementalist Islam in pretty much any metric you could think of.
Oh and while ISIS were savagely burning women alive and beheading, Obama was murdering women and children in North West Pakistan with drone bombers. As Father Ted would say they are “two cheeks of the same erse”.
I don’t agree with US policy regarding drone strikes either. But Obama wasn’t deliberately targeting civilians to my knowlage, so those things aren’t exactly the same.
The other problem with this tactic is that you can ignore the essential arguments of your opponent and obscure the main point as a result.
Please tell me which of your arguments I have ignored.
The essential argument is that you can’t distinguish between Islam and Muslims in the way that you’re doing. Islam is a faith practised by Muslims.
Muslims practice certain parts of Islam that they like, and ignore the rest (except ISIS). Just like every religion. The problem is that nearlly all of Islam is aweful, at least christianity at least has positive or contradicting passages that can be chosen from by it’s followers. Not being able to distinguish is exactly why a complete ban on immigration is required.
if I were a British Muslim, I would see you declaring my faith to be your enemy, and would start wondering when BB and his mates are going to be arriving at my door with the baseball bats.
That would be a highly irrational, and paranoid response.
Secondly, it’s not going to deal wiht the problem of terrorism. The muslims who’ve struck in the UK aren’t form Islamic countries. They are British Muslims. At least that barbarian BB has consistency on his side.
That is partially correct, but where do those British muslims come from? They are (~95%) the children or grandchildren of muslim immigrants. If we can stop british muslims from becomming radicalised, it would then be safe to remove the ban.
Everybody (almost – with the exception of Owen Jones) recognises this. ISIS is an organisation which practises mass terror and fear. They represent an unusually extreme version of Islam – even al-Quaeda think they’re too extreme. A big question is why they attract so many young people in the West, even in the UK.
It represents a litteral version of Islam, its very similar to how Islam has always been historically. We should be doing more to support the Iraqi government’s (Who we installed) fight against ISIS. But I disagree with you that everyone recognises this, a large minority of the ‘rebels’ in Syria are members of ISIS, but both the US and UK governments are supporting them, and selling them weapons.
Islam has never declared war on the West.
Every major islamic power has declared war on western countries, see my earlier example of the invasion of Iberia, another example would be the Ottoman empire. Today the major islamic powers are Saudi Arabia, who are financing terrorism in western countries, and Pakistan, who are threatening to go to war but haven’t actually done anything yet.
It as called for the conversion of non-Muslims, just as Christians in a very different way call for the conversion of all non-Christians.
Conversion or death, in the case of Islam.
Both religions have a very violent wing (think of the Inquisition), though they’re justified differently.
The Inquisition was a result of Christians being either enslaved or killed in Iberia for hundreds of years, I think its understandable why they went in that direction.
You can’t declare a physical war on Islam without declaring it on Muslims.
You can’t declare physical war on an ideology at all. The only thing you can do is prevent it from spreading, and showing it’s members why the alternative (western liberalism) is better.
Banning all immigration from Muslim countries without alienating British Muslims and creating fear in that community is a result of a pretty strange reasoning, a hair-splitting which makes no sense to most people.
I still don’t understand why you think an immigration ban on a foreign country alienates British citizens.
btw I’m not going to spend time looking at a war which ended in 1492.
Why? It’s a good example of what would happen if ISIS (or any other Wahabi / Salafi muslims) was to spread into the west.
I don’t think Muslims (apart form ISIS) want to set up a caliphate in Spain.
Remember that study I showed you before? The one that reported that ~30% of British muslims (students) wanted to establish a global islamic caliphate… Yeah.
To me, it seems a bit like you are saying that WW2 isn’t a good example of why the ideology of Nazism is harmful to the west.
Btw, the Iberian Peninsula was an islamic caliphate for several hundred years.
Wikipedia has a fairly breakdown of the islamification of Iberia.
