I do sometimes wonder if you actually read threads or individual messages before responding to them.
For example
"Interest of balance? Please. Islamists are fighting just about everyone they brush up against around the world and you blame everyone but Islamists. That's not balanced, that's biased".
Perhaps you could explain how my stating in this thread:
1. I agree with Mr Slater that Islam has not gone through a similar phase as Christianity did in the Renaissance and in many of the countries where Muslims live in Asia, there is little or no government, life is harsh and brutal and religion is all that they have got to get them through in the same way as it was for peasants in England centuries ago.
2. Because Muslims are not a homogenous grouping. And the same with imams. Some of them make mediaeval preachers look progressive whilst others are much more balanced and condemn the attacks in the UK wholeheartedly.
3 What I am saying in the interest of balance as opposed to blanket generalisations, that the Muslims are sometimes the aggressor and on other occasions, different Asian religious groups such as Hindus and Buddhists are.
translates in the Sam Slater brain to "You blame everyone but Islamists"?
"You then went on to list all conflicts, wars and interferences the US had been involved in in Islamic lands for the last 50 years. Without expressing your feelings about the Woolwich murder, I respect you enough to know that that long list of US fighting and bombing was in no way an attempt to excuse that murder."
Do you really think I should start every single post in this thread with "the Woolwich crime was a vile and despicable act?"
Obviously my list of US interventions is to counterbalance your opening post in this thread which appears to imply that the concept of Islam as a peaceful religion is a joke because Islamists are involved in all these wars.
"Balance is only the right goal when things are in fact equally true/false/right/wrong.........."
This is utter nonsense. You seem to have the same fundamentalist attitude towards Islam as the more brainwashed followers of Islam have about other religions. This is an issue which is not black and white.
What I suggest you need to consider is
1. If this concept of Islam as a peaceful religion is so nonsensical as you imply in your opening post why is it that it is only in the last 20 or 30 years we have been inundated with stories about radical Islam, terrorism etc etc. Why did we not hear about them in say the period before 1970s?
2. Could a key factor in the growth of militant, radical Islam in the west be down to the endless interventions in the Muslim world undertaken by America and its allies?
Woolich Attack
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Mr Slater
[quote]I do sometimes wonder if you actually read threads or individual messages before responding to them.
For example
"Interest of balance? Please. Islamists are fighting just about everyone they brush up against around the world and you blame everyone but Islamists. That's not balanced, that's biased".
Perhaps you could explain how my stating in this thread:
1. I agree with Mr Slater that Islam has not gone through a similar phase as Christianity did in the Renaissance and in many of the countries where Muslims live in Asia, there is little or no government, life is harsh and brutal and religion is all that they have got to get them through in the same way as it was for peasants in England centuries ago.
2. Because Muslims are not a homogenous grouping. And the same with imams. Some of them make mediaeval preachers look progressive whilst others are much more balanced and condemn the attacks in the UK wholeheartedly.
3 What I am saying in the interest of balance as opposed to blanket generalisations, that the Muslims are sometimes the aggressor and on other occasions, different Asian religious groups such as Hindus and Buddhists are. [/quote]
That's easy. I sometimes click on links which lead me to conversations and debates you have with others. Sometimes I do not. In future, if you want to put across a point to me, I suggest you do it directly, as I don't have the time -nor sometimes the inclination- to read every post you submit on these forums. Sorry.
[quote]"You then went on to list all conflicts, wars and interferences the US had been involved in in Islamic lands for the last 50 years. Without expressing your feelings about the Woolwich murder, I respect you enough to know that that long list of US fighting and bombing was in no way an attempt to excuse that murder."
Do you really think I should start every single post in this thread with "the Woolwich crime was a vile and despicable act?"[/quote]
No, no no....you miss my point. I'm saying you DON'T have to do it because I respect you enough to guess you're in no way attempting to justify murder of innocent people. I want the same courtesy returned, that's all.
[quote]Obviously my list of US interventions is to counterbalance your opening post in this thread which appears to imply that the concept of Islam as a peaceful religion is a joke because Islamists are involved in all these wars.[/quote]
I know what it was, but I wasn't pitting Islam against US foreign policy. I was merely expressing my disbelief in an all-too-common utterance regarding the peacefulness of Islam. If I'd submitted a post being sarcastic about US foreign policy, I doubt you'd have felt the need to produce a rebuttal which included every Islamic massacre and wrongdoing of the last 50 years, all in the name of 'balance'. You're biased.
[quote]"Balance is only the right goal when things are in fact equally true/false/right/wrong.........."
This is utter nonsense. You seem to have the same fundamentalist attitude towards Islam as the more brainwashed followers of Islam have about other religions. This is an issue which is not black and white.[/quote]
The nonsense is all coming from you, David. How is my view of Islam 'fundamentalist? I have already stated that I think there is both good and bad in Islam, yet for me, the bad outweighs the good and I cannot bend and mould it to fit in with my principles regarding equality of women, homosexuals, my sense of justice nor attitudes to 'outsiders'. That's not being fundamentalist because I'm willing to change my mind if someone could persuade me to believe treating non-Muslims as secondary citizens, women as chattel, and making homosexuals legitimate targets of hatred and death are somehow good and make the world a better place. I'm sure you believe the same things I do regarding these matters, but you feel the protection of Islam is more important than feminism and other forms of equality. I think you've lost your way and let race cloud your judgement. I think that if Islam was born in Oslo and 90% of it's followers were white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryans who were fighting with Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, secularists and anyone else that didn't act subservient to their philosophy on life, you'd see them for what they really were within seconds.
And, as I say, some things don't need 'balance'. I'm sure you wouldn't think giving race-hatred and multiculturalism classes in schools and universities is an ideal way to educate the next generation for the sake of 'balance'. It has it's place, but is not the be all and end all of every discussion.
[quote]What I suggest you need to consider is
1. If this concept of Islam as a peaceful religion is so nonsensical as you imply in your opening post why is it that it is only in the last 20 or 30 years we have been inundated with stories about radical Islam, terrorism etc etc. Why did we not hear about them in say the period before 1970s?
2. Could a key factor in the growth of militant, radical Islam in the west be down to the endless interventions in the Muslim world undertaken by America and its allies?
[/quote]
No. That's completely and utterly obvious: Because pre 1970 we'd be hard-pressed to meet a Muslim in the West. And, we had a policy of, 'if the ragheads want to lock up their women and kill each other let them get on with it'. It is more to do with having more contact with Muslims via immigration, the fact Islam hasn't gone through the same process as Christianity and is almost indistinguishable from the Islam of 800 years ago, and frustration that their perfect, unalterable religion hasn't made them into the world leaders the infidels are at the moment. I'm not saying our meddling in Islamic countries is insignificant, but for a British kid of Nigerian roots to kill a fellow Brit in retaliation of a country he's never been to, who's only link is religious-based, who calls Afghanistan 'his lands' and is fellow Brits 'you people' he's doing so based purely on religious grounds. Like I said, he didn't behead an oriental-looking guy to send a message to the Chinese about Tibet.
Do your really think the Fatwa on Salmon Rushdie in 1989 was retaliation for US or 'western' interfering in the Middle East? Do you think that Islamic nutters only burned Danish embassies and killed Danish-looking people in various spots because we ousted Saddam Hussain? That if we'd left the Al Qaeda free to murder or disfigure schoolgirls for daring to get an education that they'd have let those blasphemous cartoons go? I don't think so.
This obsession by some to lay all the blame on themselves for everything that's wrong with the world is unhealthy and sadistic. I'm sure Orwell wrote an essay on this exact phenomena and I will try to seek it out for you for I remember it a good read.
Tara.
For example
"Interest of balance? Please. Islamists are fighting just about everyone they brush up against around the world and you blame everyone but Islamists. That's not balanced, that's biased".
Perhaps you could explain how my stating in this thread:
1. I agree with Mr Slater that Islam has not gone through a similar phase as Christianity did in the Renaissance and in many of the countries where Muslims live in Asia, there is little or no government, life is harsh and brutal and religion is all that they have got to get them through in the same way as it was for peasants in England centuries ago.
2. Because Muslims are not a homogenous grouping. And the same with imams. Some of them make mediaeval preachers look progressive whilst others are much more balanced and condemn the attacks in the UK wholeheartedly.
3 What I am saying in the interest of balance as opposed to blanket generalisations, that the Muslims are sometimes the aggressor and on other occasions, different Asian religious groups such as Hindus and Buddhists are. [/quote]
That's easy. I sometimes click on links which lead me to conversations and debates you have with others. Sometimes I do not. In future, if you want to put across a point to me, I suggest you do it directly, as I don't have the time -nor sometimes the inclination- to read every post you submit on these forums. Sorry.
[quote]"You then went on to list all conflicts, wars and interferences the US had been involved in in Islamic lands for the last 50 years. Without expressing your feelings about the Woolwich murder, I respect you enough to know that that long list of US fighting and bombing was in no way an attempt to excuse that murder."
Do you really think I should start every single post in this thread with "the Woolwich crime was a vile and despicable act?"[/quote]
No, no no....you miss my point. I'm saying you DON'T have to do it because I respect you enough to guess you're in no way attempting to justify murder of innocent people. I want the same courtesy returned, that's all.
[quote]Obviously my list of US interventions is to counterbalance your opening post in this thread which appears to imply that the concept of Islam as a peaceful religion is a joke because Islamists are involved in all these wars.[/quote]
I know what it was, but I wasn't pitting Islam against US foreign policy. I was merely expressing my disbelief in an all-too-common utterance regarding the peacefulness of Islam. If I'd submitted a post being sarcastic about US foreign policy, I doubt you'd have felt the need to produce a rebuttal which included every Islamic massacre and wrongdoing of the last 50 years, all in the name of 'balance'. You're biased.
[quote]"Balance is only the right goal when things are in fact equally true/false/right/wrong.........."
This is utter nonsense. You seem to have the same fundamentalist attitude towards Islam as the more brainwashed followers of Islam have about other religions. This is an issue which is not black and white.[/quote]
The nonsense is all coming from you, David. How is my view of Islam 'fundamentalist? I have already stated that I think there is both good and bad in Islam, yet for me, the bad outweighs the good and I cannot bend and mould it to fit in with my principles regarding equality of women, homosexuals, my sense of justice nor attitudes to 'outsiders'. That's not being fundamentalist because I'm willing to change my mind if someone could persuade me to believe treating non-Muslims as secondary citizens, women as chattel, and making homosexuals legitimate targets of hatred and death are somehow good and make the world a better place. I'm sure you believe the same things I do regarding these matters, but you feel the protection of Islam is more important than feminism and other forms of equality. I think you've lost your way and let race cloud your judgement. I think that if Islam was born in Oslo and 90% of it's followers were white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryans who were fighting with Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, secularists and anyone else that didn't act subservient to their philosophy on life, you'd see them for what they really were within seconds.
And, as I say, some things don't need 'balance'. I'm sure you wouldn't think giving race-hatred and multiculturalism classes in schools and universities is an ideal way to educate the next generation for the sake of 'balance'. It has it's place, but is not the be all and end all of every discussion.
[quote]What I suggest you need to consider is
1. If this concept of Islam as a peaceful religion is so nonsensical as you imply in your opening post why is it that it is only in the last 20 or 30 years we have been inundated with stories about radical Islam, terrorism etc etc. Why did we not hear about them in say the period before 1970s?
2. Could a key factor in the growth of militant, radical Islam in the west be down to the endless interventions in the Muslim world undertaken by America and its allies?
[/quote]
No. That's completely and utterly obvious: Because pre 1970 we'd be hard-pressed to meet a Muslim in the West. And, we had a policy of, 'if the ragheads want to lock up their women and kill each other let them get on with it'. It is more to do with having more contact with Muslims via immigration, the fact Islam hasn't gone through the same process as Christianity and is almost indistinguishable from the Islam of 800 years ago, and frustration that their perfect, unalterable religion hasn't made them into the world leaders the infidels are at the moment. I'm not saying our meddling in Islamic countries is insignificant, but for a British kid of Nigerian roots to kill a fellow Brit in retaliation of a country he's never been to, who's only link is religious-based, who calls Afghanistan 'his lands' and is fellow Brits 'you people' he's doing so based purely on religious grounds. Like I said, he didn't behead an oriental-looking guy to send a message to the Chinese about Tibet.
Do your really think the Fatwa on Salmon Rushdie in 1989 was retaliation for US or 'western' interfering in the Middle East? Do you think that Islamic nutters only burned Danish embassies and killed Danish-looking people in various spots because we ousted Saddam Hussain? That if we'd left the Al Qaeda free to murder or disfigure schoolgirls for daring to get an education that they'd have let those blasphemous cartoons go? I don't think so.
This obsession by some to lay all the blame on themselves for everything that's wrong with the world is unhealthy and sadistic. I'm sure Orwell wrote an essay on this exact phenomena and I will try to seek it out for you for I remember it a good read.
Tara.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Woolich Attack
The EDL don't help matters. They only give Imams the chance to show a few broken windows of a few Mosques so the Guardian can highlight this as 'retaliatory strikes on Muslims'. It only gives the Islamists what they want but the EDL are too thick and bigoted to see this.
You have the Islamists on one side, placated and protected by the faux leftists, and the EDL and other racists backed up by right-wing nutjobs on the other side. Meanwhile us people in the middle are the ones that are left picking up the pieces.
You have the Islamists on one side, placated and protected by the faux leftists, and the EDL and other racists backed up by right-wing nutjobs on the other side. Meanwhile us people in the middle are the ones that are left picking up the pieces.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Woolich Attack
Has anybody commented on the fact that these criminal murdering scum are not "real" muslims ie they are converts. They are London born of Nigerian ancestry. I bet their parents were christians like many African and Carribean immigrants. Their embracing of Islam is just an escuse to hate white western society and gives them some warped sense that their murderous antics are in some way part of a "cause". They have no more right to claim to be part of any muslim cause than an Eskimo would have to join the IRA. No cultural or historical ties with the cause. Do they have family in any muslim country? I think not. Its just an excuse to chop up a white guy.
If they had not latched onto the Islam thing they would have no doubt got involved in some other gang and chopped someone else up. Its just murder for murders sake. Like I said above I would pay little attention to an eskimo in Greenland saying he felt the pain of oppressed Irish and therefor joined the IRA.
What do these two murderers family histories have to do with any Islamic matters or any nation attacked by the west? Nothing. If they had seen their people killed by Western soldiers I might understand it but they are Nigerian not Iraqi or Afgahni.
Bandwagon jumping nutters looking for some "crew" to fight for.
If they had not latched onto the Islam thing they would have no doubt got involved in some other gang and chopped someone else up. Its just murder for murders sake. Like I said above I would pay little attention to an eskimo in Greenland saying he felt the pain of oppressed Irish and therefor joined the IRA.
What do these two murderers family histories have to do with any Islamic matters or any nation attacked by the west? Nothing. If they had seen their people killed by Western soldiers I might understand it but they are Nigerian not Iraqi or Afgahni.
Bandwagon jumping nutters looking for some "crew" to fight for.
Re: Mr Slater
Cue well deserved standing ovation.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Woolich Attack
[quote]Has anybody commented on the fact that these criminal murdering scum are not "real" muslims ie they are converts.[/quote]
You don't have to be born a Muslim to be a real Muslim. But I know what you mean and it backs up my views on Islam: it's not the people but the religion itself.
You don't have to be born a Muslim to be a real Muslim. But I know what you mean and it backs up my views on Islam: it's not the people but the religion itself.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Mr Slater
I was a bit pissed when I wrote that last night. I, of course, mixed up 'sadistic' and 'masochistic' near the end.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Mr Slater
Don't worry there fella its always about the message not the words, unless you want to feel less of a little man so attack others grammar or spelling.
Re: Mr Slater
Sam Slater wrote:
> How can my post be any more meaningless than yours? That's
> rather arrogant if you're suggesting your post has more meaning
> or significance than mine, don't you think?
Never mind suggests he always believes that his posts are more significant or more valid or have more meaning than anyone else's. I thought you wold have twigged that by now...
> How can my post be any more meaningless than yours? That's
> rather arrogant if you're suggesting your post has more meaning
> or significance than mine, don't you think?
Never mind suggests he always believes that his posts are more significant or more valid or have more meaning than anyone else's. I thought you wold have twigged that by now...
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gentleman
Okay. You can answer my other posts in the thread as I have answered yours, but you can't answer that one.
Fair enough. Why not just say, "I don't know the answer".
Fair enough. Why not just say, "I don't know the answer".