UK Muslims ralling against counter-terrorism

[rand0m]

UK terror tactics 'create unease' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7088325.stm)

The government's approach to terrorism is creating an atmosphere of suspicion and unease, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain has said.

Muhammad Abdul Bari told the Daily Telegraph the amount of debate relating to Muslims was disproportionate.

He cited Nazi Germany in the 1930s as an example of how people's minds could be poisoned against a community.

The Home Office said it would not allow terrorists to undermine the UK's long history of strong community relations.

Scaring the community

Dr Bari's remarks follow recent comments from MI5 chief Jonathan Evans that there are 2,000 people living in the UK who pose a terrorism-related danger, and that youngsters aged 15 are being groomed to be suicide bombers.

Dr Bari told the paper: "There is a disproportionate amount of discussion surrounding us.

"The air is thick with suspicion and unease. It is not good for the Muslim community, it is not good for society.

He added: "I think it is creating a scare in the community and wider society. It probably helps some people who try to recruit the young to terrorism."

Inayat Bunglawala, the council's assistant general secretary, agreed - telling BBC Radio 4's Today programme there was a danger of the terror threat being magnified "out of all proportion".

"What you had in the 1930s was all sorts of popular fictions were spread about the Jewish community that they were responsible for all ills that were occurring to Germany.

"They were made into folk-devils, and I think there is a danger that the word Muslim in the UK is becoming synonymous with bad news."

Farmida Bi from the Progressive British Muslims organisation agreed that British society as a whole could benefit from adopting some of the teachings of Islam.

"A lot of what it says is relevant and important to our society today, but at the same time Muslims have to acknowledge that the West has an awful lot to teach the Muslim community as well," she said.

"The importance of democracy, the importance of the individual, I think it's very much a two way street."

This is fucking bollocks, Muslims in this country are not only treated just like everyone one else, they are given more rights and privalges and generally treated like been a muslims is better than been christian or jewish.

But hey, what you going to expect from the Muslim Council of Britain ...

Its not like they have anything to hide ...

[Dayve]

See, the situation can't really be compared to 1930's Nazi Germany at all. In 1930 the Germans were blaming everything on the Jews that they simply weren't responsible for. The loss of WW1, German economy being completely fucked, no jobs, all of this was blamed on the Jews even though none of it was their fault.

What is Britain blaming muslims for? terrorism. Who are the terrorists? muslims... It's not like anybody is blaming Muslims for something they aren't responsible for. They are responsible for terrorism, end of story. They're also responsible for trying their damned hardest to destroy western culture by forcing their barbaric beliefs, laws and teachings into our society.

The difference between Nazi Germany and Britain today is as follows: The Jews were a danger to no one, muslims are a danger to everyone around them. I wish Britain was comparable to 1930's Germany, perhaps then in 3 or 4 years we'd be throwing the barbarians into death camps, or at the absolute very least confiscating all their property and deporting them to sandland where they belong, then they won't have to get new laws passed to be able to beat the living shit out of their daughters if they get caught holding hands with non-muslims, or forgetting to wear their tent outside the house.

[j.elohim]

This guy can just straight out fuck off. The fact is, some Muslims are a threat to Britain, and if he doesn't want his community to be painted in a bad light, stamp the fucking extremists out instead of turning a blind eye. [

British society as a whole could benefit from adopting some of the teachings of Islam.

Barbarism? Otherwise I can't think of anything Islam has to offer to a secular democratic society.

And he said that while there was no justification for suicide bombing, suicide bombers were victims as well as aggressors.

That sounds like trying to find justification to me...

Children come to hate when they don't get enough care and love. They are probably bullied, it makes a young person angry and vulnerable... the people who become suicide bombers are really vulnerable.

:err: What.

[YorkshireMan]

fuckin tool comparing it too Nazi Germany.



grrrrrrr must control anger :banghead:

[Henkie]

Do you realise you're proving the guy right?

You start out by saying that they're treated equal and go on by claiming they're responsible for events on which most of them do not have any influence on. That generalization of the entire Muslim community based on the actions of a small part of it is something which hurts the larger part. The larger part is possibly willing, but probably not more able than you or me, to influence the minority on which they're being judged.

And for the comparison with the Jews in the '30's, you should realise a couple of things: Marx was Jewish, so there was a reason to link the Jews to Communism; Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg was Jewish and as chancellor during WW1 did carry some political responsibillity for the lost war; Hugo Preuss was Jewish and as writer of the constitution, he could be linked to the very unpopular Weimar Republic; and Jews were overrepresented amongst the German bankers and were both easily linked to the German economic troubles after the Krach and after the Crash of '29. And in this way the Jewish people were linked to some of the bigger things Nazi's felt hostile towards (communism, bankers, democracy and the bad economic situation). The point is that most Jews did not have any control over either the bankers, the politicians or Marx and their being Jewish did not technically have anything to do with what they wrote or how they acted, despite popular opinion on the essence of the Jewish faith. I think that it is by all means a reasonable comparison which is only hard to swallow because of what happened to the Jews after the '30's.

[Dayve]

Do you realise you're proving the guy right?

Do you realize that 9/11 and the London and Madrid bombings proved that muslims ARE actually a problem?

The situation is in no way comparable to Nazi Germany, not by a longshot, but muslims are a problem (they're terrorists and terrorist supporters) and this man (also a closet terrorist supporter) is defending them.

As for WW1, if Jews (and by that i mean the handful of politicians, not 6 million innocent Jews who had nothing to do with anything) did infact have something to do with it, then they only saved millions of lives by their actions. Germany's position was hopeless, however much the army thought they could still win. France and Britain still had many years of fight left in them and America had just joined the allies giving practically limitless supplies of soldiers and funds, as well as navy. If the war had continued after 1918 it would have just added a few more million to the already 20 million dead in a stupid and utterly pointless war fought over an Austrian king assassinated by Serbian terrorists.

[OMFG FORUM RAGE]

Do you realize that 9/11 and the London and Madrid bombings proved that muslims ARE actually a problem?

agreedthe are the source if the problem

[mtspace]

Do you realize that 9/11 and the London and Madrid bombings proved that some Muslims ARE actually a problem?

The situation is in no way comparable to Nazi Germany, not by a longshot, but some Muslims are a problem (some of them are terrorists and terrorist supporters) and this man (also a closet terrorist supporter) is defending them.


Fixed it for you.

[Henkie]

Do you realize that 9/11 and the London and Madrid bombings proved that muslims ARE actually a problem?

We have here a group of maybe 50 muslims (just guessing, but it can't be much more) on a total population of over 1 billion Muslims. And while these 50 people were actually a problem, it doesn't necessarily say anything about the other 1.000.000.000+ Muslims the world has. On the other hand, we've got three individuals and the group of Jewish Bankers in Germany alone that were considered a problem, on a global population of 15 to 16 million Jews in 1939. Do you want to compare ratios?

The situation is in no way comparable to Nazi Germany, not by a longshot, but muslims are a problem (they're terrorists and terrorist supporters) and this man (also a closet terrorist supporter) is defending them.

With these kind of long shots, you ought to be a basketballer! (See what I did there?) Firstly, there's the assumption that they're all terrorists and terrorist supporters. Let's start looking at the numbers. I'm seriously doubting that if we started counting the number of Muslim terrorists we can come up to half a percent of the total population. And there is no reason to believe that a mayority of the Muslim population is supporting terrorism, that's what you believe without even looking for facts. In the same way it was easy to say all Jews were Communists. Then there's the question of a problem. Does it matter if anybody ideologically supports terrorism (especially if he's not public about it, or a 'closet terrorist supporter' as you put it)? Isn't that a clear-cut case of freedom of conscience? And the people he is defending are people he believes are not terrorists.

As for WW1, if Jews (and by that i mean the handful of politicians, not 6 million innocent Jews who had nothing to do with anything) did infact have something to do with it, then they only saved millions of lives by their actions. Germany's position was hopeless, however much the army thought they could still win. France and Britain still had many years of fight left in them and America had just joined the allies giving practically limitless supplies of soldiers and funds, as well as navy. If the war had continued after 1918 it would have just added a few more million to the already 20 million dead in a stupid and utterly pointless war fought over an Austrian king assassinated by Serbian terrorists.

It's funny how you do see a difference between the guilty few and the larger group of innocent people here. And you do have to realise there's a huge difference between what people believed about WW1 in the 30's and what we know now. For instance, it was a popular opinion that the war was far from lost untill a group of Communist soldiers rebelled and that the new governement could've repressed them and fought on. Especially since the war at the East front was already won by the Germans and at the west front they had been making headway and were pretty close to Paris. We know now that the progress in the West had just stagnated, while the Americans had just started ariving and a German victory was far from likely, even if there hadn't been a revolt. And the Austrian prince was assasinated, not the victim of a terrorist attack, there's a difference, you know (but that's kind of irrelevant to this discussion). So there was a lot of frustration over that war, and a lot of people truely believed they had been stabbed in the back by Communists and their new governement, both of which were linked to the Jews, with or without any good reason.

But all in all, my point is that in both cases there's enough reason for people to irrationally link the religions and the frustrations, but there's not enough reason to accept it as a logical and reasonable link.

[Deamatix]

Henkie has a point. Though Muslims don't have it quite as bad as the Jews in the 1930's, it is a similar tactic of gaining public support against a large group of people, based on the actions of a few radicals. There are over a million Muslims living in the U.S and about 20 from Saudi Arabia were responsible for 9/11. You can't take action against the other million, you're just going to create bigger problems than they ever could.

[Dayve]

We have here a group of maybe 50 muslims (just guessing, but it can't be much more) on a total population of over 1 billion Muslims. And while these 50 people were actually a problem, it doesn't necessarily say anything about the other 1.000.000.000+ Muslims the world has. On the other hand, we've got three individuals and the group of Jewish Bankers in Germany alone that were considered a problem, on a global population of 15 to 16 million Jews in 1939. Do you want to compare ratios?

Typical European political correctness obsessed apologist muslim sympathizer. Nearly ALL muslims support terrorists and an even greater number would love nothing more than to see Sharia law in Europe.



With these kind of long shots, you ought to be a basketballer! (See what I did there?) Firstly, there's the assumption that they're all terrorists and terrorist supporters.

Most of them are. As i said, most of them support these pathetic Jihads, even if it isn't physically they still support them and agree with what they do because they are muslims and they want their religion and barbaric culture enforced in every part of the world. The Koran even says Islam should be dominant everywhere, not in those exact words but it does. Imagine that eh? A religious person disagreeing with their most sacred and holy book.

So, since these snakes won't admit if they're a supporter of terrorism or not, and won't show any signs of it until they blow themselves up along with a few hundred innocent people in a train or a bus, the best thing to do would be to rid the country of ALL of them. Since they love their religion and their culture so much, it would be better for them to live in sandland where they can chop off someones' hands for stealing and have their daughters beheaded for masturbating.

But all in all, my point is that in both cases there's enough reason for people to irrationally link the religions and the frustrations, but there's not enough reason to accept it as a logical and reasonable link.

There IS enough reason to accept it. What don't you understand? Apart from the 3 main attacks on America, Britain and Madrid, there are the hundreds of thousands who have already died and hundreds more everyday in other parts of the world being blown up by terrorists. MUSLIM terrorists.

The people who blow themselves and innocent people up are MUSLIMS. I know you don't understand this because you keep coming back with bullshit about how there aren't enough terrorists to link it. How many more explosions and innocent deaths need there be before you realize that Islam and all its followers are a problem? A few hundreds thousand have died already, maybe another 100 thousand would convince you?

[Daucus Karota]

Barbarism?


The Concentration camp is an English invention :bigwink:

[Dayve]

The Concentration camp is an English invention :bigwink:

It was a bloody good invention too, perfected by the Nazis but used on the wrong people altogether.

[j.elohim]

The Concentration camp is an English invention :bigwink:

Yes but we probably provided tea and scones.:D

[Henkie]

Dayve, you don't seem to be getting what this specific thread is about, so I'll explain it to you again. Try to leave your (pre-conceived) notions of Islam behind for a second and just read and try to understand.

There is this religion. It's called Islam. It has between 1.100.000.000 and 1.800.000.000 followers. Of this group, over the last 10 years a certain amount of people have done terrible things: terrorist attacks. Let's say, just to appease all the bigots in here, that it's possibly up to 100.000.000 of them. That number is so unrealisticly high that I don't think anybody can think this is even near the truth. But let's assume just for a second that we're talking about 100 million terrorists. And we all believe that what they've done is terrible. That still leaves at least one billion people who did not do that. Those people are not terrorists and they say that they'ld appreciate it if you didn't lump them together with what those other guys did. And that's the point, with any number of Muslim terrorists you can reasonably name, there's always so much more of them that are innocent that judging them all is just stupid.

I'm not even discussing that in a lot of the cases of what we call terrorism, it's a) possibly not terrorism, but things like assasinations or attacks on military targets or a civil war and b) possibly religion is not the most usefull explaination of the motivations. I'm not telling you that untill ten years ago Muslims were not the predominant terrorists, but Communists, Seperatists and Anarchists were the big bombers and there hasn't changed that much in Islamic dogma or Islamic culture in those ten years, so as to explain the increased violence. I'm not explaining that when interpreting the Qu'ran it's important to see the difference between what it says happened, what it says should happen and what it says believers should go and do, just like it is in the Bible. I'm not making any of those excuses, how reasonable they may be, I'm just sticking to plain and obvious facts about the numbers: even if the number of terrorists was as unrealisticly high as 100 million people, it still would leave over one billion people who are innocent and who you would blatantly ignore for the sake of easier judgement.

[Rapex]

When I read the thread title I immediately knew the OP was going to be Rand0m.

[Quick_Draw21]

good points

There is just too much sense in this argument...

[GALLIENVS AVG]

yeah, well... you are suck a genious... you deserve a prize


lol, stupid idiot...

Are you 10 years old or something?

Also, Muslims are becoming a problem. It's difficult because of the whole "Only SOME like to blow themselves up and kill thousands of people," but something has to be done.

[GenralisimoHanz]

There is just too much sense in this argument...

yeah.. especially when the "you can't blame the whole for the actions of a few" argument is incredibly hard to make.

[Dayve]

Dayve, you don't seem to be getting what this specific thread is about, so I'll explain it to you again. Try to leave your (pre-conceived) notions of Islam behind for a second and just read and try to understand.

There is this religion. It's called Islam. It has between 1.100.000.000 and 1.800.000.000 followers. Of this group, over the last 10 years a certain amount of people have done terrible things: terrorist attacks. Let's say, just to appease all the bigots in here, that it's possibly up to 100.000.000 of them. That number is so unrealisticly high that I don't think anybody can think this is even near the truth. But let's assume just for a second that we're talking about 100 million terrorists. And we all believe that what they've done is terrible. That still leaves at least one billion people who did not do that. Those people are not terrorists and they say that they'ld appreciate it if you didn't lump them together with what those other guys did. And that's the point, with any number of Muslim terrorists you can reasonably name, there's always so much more of them that are innocent that judging them all is just stupid.

I'm not even discussing that in a lot of the cases of what we call terrorism, it's a) possibly not terrorism, but things like assasinations or attacks on military targets or a civil war and b) possibly religion is not the most usefull explaination of the motivations. I'm not telling you that untill ten years ago Muslims were not the predominant terrorists, but Communists, Seperatists and Anarchists were the big bombers and there hasn't changed that much in Islamic dogma or Islamic culture in those ten years, so as to explain the increased violence. I'm not explaining that when interpreting the Qu'ran it's important to see the difference between what it says happened, what it says should happen and what it says believers should go and do, just like it is in the Bible. I'm not making any of those excuses, how reasonable they may be, I'm just sticking to plain and obvious facts about the numbers: even if the number of terrorists was as unrealisticly high as 100 million people, it still would leave over one billion people who are innocent and who you would blatantly ignore for the sake of easier judgement.

Just as i said before, typical European apologist muslim sympathizer right here. You're Dutch so it's no surprise, you people are having your own culture replaced by islamic culture quicker than the rest of Europe put together and you love it. Lets see if you still love it in 20 years time when all of a sudden the only place you can buy alcohol is on the black market and your daughter has to go to the grocery store wearing a tent.

Say what you want to say, but muslims don't belong in the west. They're opposed to alcohol, bacon, sex before marriage, dressing in anything but a tent and a million other things we enjoy here in the west. Oh and most of all, they're opposed to us not bowing down to worship ALLAH. So i ask the question, what the fuck are they doing in countries that drink, eat bacon, have sex before marriage and worship 'other' gods making them infidels who, the Koran says, need to be killed in any way.

Henkie, you're as bad as Gordon Brown. "We musn't associate muslims with terrorism".

.................................................. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Ok, then i guess we musn't associate Nazism with Auschwitz or Stalinism with the Gulag. :lmao:

[MelL]

Just as i said before, typical European apologist muslim sympathizer right here. You're Dutch so it's no surprise, you people are having your own culture replaced by islamic culture quicker than the rest of Europe put together and you love it. Lets see if you still love it in 20 years time when all of a sudden the only place you can buy alcohol is on the black market and your daughter has to go to the grocery store wearing a tent.

Say what you want to say, but muslims don't belong in the west. They're opposed to alcohol, bacon, sex before marriage, dressing in anything but a tent and a million other things we enjoy here in the west. Oh and most of all, they're opposed to us not bowing down to worship ALLAH. So i ask the question, what the fuck are they doing in countries that drink, eat bacon, have sex before marriage and worship 'other' gods making them infidels who, the Koran says, need to be killed in any way.


I'm going to have to assume you've never been in a Muslim country to make such sweeping generalizations as to what Muslims do or don't do. You make it sound as if every Muslim follows every rule put forth in the Quran, which simply is not true. Just as you have people who say they're Christian here in the West who say one thing and do another, you have the same in the East with Muslims.

[Dayve]

No i've never been in a muslim country because i'd be beheaded with a rusty bread knife for being an Atheist quicker than you can say muslims are terrorists.

I also know through the internet a Saudi Arabian muslim the same age as me who was beaten to a pulp by the family of a girl he asked out on a date, and on a seperate occasion was beaten to a pulp and thrown in jail for saying he supported the American war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not to mention the hundreds of people who are blown up everyday by muslim terrorists for such terrible things as not being Sunni, not being Shi'ite, decapitated or stoned to death for stealing a loaf of bread, not wearing their tent when they leave the house, having a relationship with someone from another sect of Islam, etc. etc.

Muslims are barbarians, plain and simple. Sympathize with the genuinly innocent ones all you like but the fact is they don't belong in any civilized western nation and there are more guilty muslims than innocent. In this situation the only solution to the problem is to deport them all home where they can live happily ever after, the women as cattle and the men as suicide bombers.

[MelL]

No i've never been in a muslim country because i'd be beheaded with a rusty bread knife for being an Atheist quicker than you can say muslims are terrorists.


Wow, paranoid much? Trust me, most Muslims couldn't care less what you are.


Muslims are barbarians, plain and simple. Sympathize with the genuinly innocent ones all you like but the fact is they don't belong in any civilized western nation and there are more guilty muslims than innocent. In this situation the only solution to the problem is to deport them all home where they can live happily ever after, the women as cattle and the men as suicide bombers.

I'm kind of curious as to what that means, 'there are more guilty than innocent.' Guilty of what?

[Dayve]

Wow, paranoid much? Trust me, most Muslims couldn't care less what you are.



I'm kind of curious as to what that means, 'there are more guilty than innocent.' Guilty of what?

Crimes against humanity and civilization.

[Henkie]

Dayve, I hate to say this, but you're being a bit paranoid. Most of the Muslims (and I know what I'm talking about, my high school had a great deal of Morrocans and Turks) indeed do not eat pork and don't drink that much alcohol (though it is interesting to see that a Muslim country like Turkey has a succesfull beer brand and it's own national liquor). On the whole they don't do drugs and some (and we're talking a minority here) prefer to wear the traditional dress/tent. And yes, for as far as they haven't become atheists, they still occasionally like to go to a mosque and pray to Allah. And in itself this is all perfectly ok. What you seem to be afraid of is them taking over. And I can tell you, it doesn't seem to be happening. In all my exposure to the Muslim faith, nobody has ever tried to convert me (I cannot say this about Christians, I'm afraid), I have yet to meet a single non-Muslim who gave up pork or alcohol for Islam, while I have met a whole group of Muslims who started drinking alcohol and doing drugs, who basically got "westernized". When somebody founded a Muslim party in Holland, he got less votes from the Muslim community than our Christian Democratic party. Following attempts at starting a Muslim party have failed. And I'm sure there's a few who are not content with just having their own values, but like us to share them. And yes, I'm sure they might have announced this and the occasional person might seem willing to consider to budge. But on the whole, they're not succeeding. Mainly because they make up too small a group even within their own faith, but also because we don't let ourselves be forced in that direction. So far, "Nichts neues im Westen".

Edit: Dayve, I just saw your last post just above this one. Care to elaborate? Not just on the crimes, but mainly on how most of them are guilty of them. That's a point I'ld like to see you argue, as it requires you to back it up with things like numbers and facts.

[MelL]

Crimes against humanity and civilization.

So you're saying more than half a billion people have committed "Crimes against humanity and civilization." Please, feel free to explain.

[Boomer]

I remember a few months ago Dayve said he couldn't find a job because Muslims in UK took the jobs away from him. I am guessing that's the source of his xenophobia towards Muslims. If you can't find jobs, that is because you have no suitable skills employers are seeking. I had no problem finding jobs since I started working at 17.

As my relatives in China runs a small contruction business, they often contract workers to the Middle East for short term labour. Most of the Chinese workers are non-religious/athiests/buddhists, and yet none of them have ever been bothered by the authorities. I personally have two co-workers that are Muslim here in Seattle, and they behave the same way as everybody else except they don't eat pork or drink alcohol. In fact, they have a deep dislike towards radical sect of Islam.

The fact of the matter is most Muslims aren't "terrorists" or even related to them. The image is caused by the constant media reports combined with people like Dayve. Western nations were just as barbaric if not more at one point, and those barbaric pratices were only stopped for about 2 centuries. The moderate Muslims aren't heard because they do not normally raise their voices. It is the radicals who chant the loudest, and they usually represents the least number of people.

Am I looking to defend those who actually killed to get their message across? No. I, however, have a problem with people generalizing and smearing a certain group out of illogical fear.

[Jenovah]

I remember a few months ago Dayve said he couldn't find a job because Muslims in UK took the jobs away from him. I am guessing that's the source of his xenophobia towards Muslims. If you can't find jobs, that is because you have no suitable skills employers are seeking. I had no problem finding jobs since I started working at 17.

As my relatives in China runs a small contruction business, they often contract workers to the Middle East for short term labour. Most of the Chinese workers are non-religious/athiests/buddhists, and yet none of them have ever been bothered by the authorities. I personally have two co-workers that are Muslim here in Seattle, and they behave the same way as everybody else except they don't eat pork or drink alcohol. In fact, they have a deep dislike towards radical sect of Islam.

The fact of the matter is most Muslims aren't "terrorists" or even related to them. The image is caused by the constant media reports combined with people like Dayve. Western nations were just as barbaric if not more at one point, and those barbaric pratices were only stopped for about 2 centuries. The moderate Muslims aren't heard because they do not normally raise their voices. It is the radicals who chant the loudest, and they usually represents the least number of people.

Am I looking to defend those who actually killed to get their message across? No. I, however, have a problem with people generalizing and smearing a certain group out of illogical fear.

QFT

I sincerely thank both you and Henkie for bringing some common sense into this thread.

[rand0m]

Henkie ... jesus do you even read the news? Or has your country been dragged so backwards they block the sensitive shit out?

New Muslim-Christian violence in Pakistan (http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=1129)

Another attack on the giant Buddha of Swat (http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=10761&size)

An illegal immigrant who came to Britain on a false passport and tried to join the Army to become a terrorist "on the inside" admitted being the fifth July 21 bomber yesterday. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=492722&in_page_id=1770)

'UK will become Nazi Germany' if it's not careful when tackling terrorism, says Muslim leader (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=492814&in_page_id=1770)

CAIR Targets Another Conservative Talk Show Host (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071109b.html)

DC Imam wants to establish an "Islamic State of North America no later than 2050" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018733.php)

FBI: Al Qaeda May Be Planning Attacks on Malls (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=nation_world&id=5750538)

Egypt: Women and Christians cannot be president, say Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=1.0.1529063024)

The owner of an "alternative" London hair salon is being sued for religious discrimination after refusing to give a job to a Muslim woman who wanted to wear a headscarf at work. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23420030-details/Hairdresser+sued+for+religious+discrimination/article.do)

Danish Party Threatened by Palestinian Militants (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,515668,00.html)

LAHORE: Muslim scientists have made all discoveries of the current age, said University of Columbia’s Arabic and Islamic Studies prof George Saliba at a seminar at the Government College University (GCU) on Monday. (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C06%5Cstory_6-11-2007_pg13_4)

Just one week before 9/11, one of our local terror apologists, Mahmoud El-Yousseph, a regular columnist for the Marion Star and the Newark Advocate, had a letter to the editor published by the Columbus Dispatch defending suicide bombings targeting civilians, saying that they were "a reasonable way to defend their freedom, honor and integrity". Just eight days later, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists applied that same logic in murdering almost 3,000 Americans in the worst terrorist attack in our country's history. (http://ohioagainstterror.blogspot.com/2007/11/mahmoud-el-yousseph-suicide-bombings.html)

MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=RISVYTCKDXQZ5QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans105.xml)

Bhutto suspects 'child suicide bomber' was used to kill her (http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=516492)

US fears Hamas, Hizballah setting up shop in Mexico (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=14470)

The world watched in horror when Taliban forces destroyed the monumental Buddha statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan in 2001. Political and cultural leaders from around the globe condemned the attacks. Offers of help poured in. Everyone asked: will the world be ready next time? Alas, the answer is a resounding “no.” (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C05%5Cstory_5-11-2007_pg3_6)

Saudi Marriage 'Expert' Advises Men in 'Right Way' to Beat Their Wives (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307680,00.html)


Now explain how in October 1252 people where murdered by Islamic terrorists, 2287 critically injured ... or how there are now almost ten thousand terrorist attacks done in the name of islam since 9/11?

you can't, you just bullshit and hide behind your petty ignorance

[Thomson]

Henkie ... jesus do you even read the news? Or has your country been dragged so backwards they block the sensitive shit out?

New Muslim-Christian violence in Pakistan (http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=1129)

Another attack on the giant Buddha of Swat (http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=10761&size)

An illegal immigrant who came to Britain on a false passport and tried to join the Army to become a terrorist "on the inside" admitted being the fifth July 21 bomber yesterday. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=492722&in_page_id=1770)

'UK will become Nazi Germany' if it's not careful when tackling terrorism, says Muslim leader (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=492814&in_page_id=1770)

CAIR Targets Another Conservative Talk Show Host (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071109b.html)

DC Imam wants to establish an "Islamic State of North America no later than 2050" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018733.php)

FBI: Al Qaeda May Be Planning Attacks on Malls (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=nation_world&id=5750538)

Egypt: Women and Christians cannot be president, say Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=1.0.1529063024)

The owner of an "alternative" London hair salon is being sued for religious discrimination after refusing to give a job to a Muslim woman who wanted to wear a headscarf at work. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23420030-details/Hairdresser+sued+for+religious+discrimination/article.do)

Danish Party Threatened by Palestinian Militants (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,515668,00.html)

LAHORE: Muslim scientists have made all discoveries of the current age, said University of Columbia’s Arabic and Islamic Studies prof George Saliba at a seminar at the Government College University (GCU) on Monday. (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C06%5Cstory_6-11-2007_pg13_4)

Just one week before 9/11, one of our local terror apologists, Mahmoud El-Yousseph, a regular columnist for the Marion Star and the Newark Advocate, had a letter to the editor published by the Columbus Dispatch defending suicide bombings targeting civilians, saying that they were "a reasonable way to defend their freedom, honor and integrity". Just eight days later, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists applied that same logic in murdering almost 3,000 Americans in the worst terrorist attack in our country's history. (http://ohioagainstterror.blogspot.com/2007/11/mahmoud-el-yousseph-suicide-bombings.html)

MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=RISVYTCKDXQZ5QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans105.xml)

Bhutto suspects 'child suicide bomber' was used to kill her (http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=516492)

US fears Hamas, Hizballah setting up shop in Mexico (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=14470)

The world watched in horror when Taliban forces destroyed the monumental Buddha statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan in 2001. Political and cultural leaders from around the globe condemned the attacks. Offers of help poured in. Everyone asked: will the world be ready next time? Alas, the answer is a resounding “no.” (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C05%5Cstory_5-11-2007_pg3_6)

Saudi Marriage 'Expert' Advises Men in 'Right Way' to Beat Their Wives (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307680,00.html)


Now explain how in October 1252 people where murdered by Islamic terrorists, 2287 critically injured ... or how there are now almost ten thousand terrorist attacks done in the name of islam since 9/11?

you can't, you just bullshit and hide behind your petty ignorance

people actually believe this sensationalist bullshit? :lmao::lmao:

i cant believe you openly admit to reading AND believing British tabloids:lmao::lmao:

you two need to get a fucking clue.

EDIT: the next person who calls someone a "liberal" or a "Muslim Apologists" lose the argument. thats just fucking pathetic.

[Dayve]

I remember a few months ago Dayve said he couldn't find a job because Muslims in UK took the jobs away from him. I am guessing that's the source of his xenophobia towards Muslims.

Actually it's not. My problem with Islam is their disgusting behaviour in western nations. They do not want everyone to accept them, they want everyone to change. They commit a crime, which is not a crime to them but to us it is, and then get away with it because when they are prosecuted millions of muslims worldwide scream that muslims aren't being treated fairly.

British people are now not allowed to eat their lunch in the office if a muslim is working there and is fasting for whatever reason they do it, and god help them if their lunch is a bacon sandwich.

Muslims now have the right to refuse to sell alcohol if they work in a supermarket that sells alcohol. They already have the right to refuse to sell alcohol and pork products in the 10 zillion shops they own in Britain. In Germany muslim men are allowed as many wives as they like, only muslims though. In Italy the law has been bent to allow them to beat the living shit out of their daughters if they do something 'wrong', like refuse to wear their tent or hold hands with a boy.

This is EUROPE. If muslims want barbaric Sharia law then they should go back to wherever they came from, like i said earlier, so the women can live as cattle to be beaten and slaughtered at will and the men and the men can openly fund terrorist organizations without having to worry about law enforcement dragging them off to Guantanamo Bay.

If you can't find jobs, that is because you have no suitable skills employers are seeking. I had no problem finding jobs since I started working at 17.

Right, because standing behind a cash register scanning a loaf of bread requires skill. It also requires you be muslim in this country apparently, because they own all the fucking shops.

As my relatives in China runs a small contruction business, they often contract workers to the Middle East for short term labour. Most of the Chinese workers are non-religious/athiests/buddhists, and yet none of them have ever been bothered by the authorities. I personally have two co-workers that are Muslim here in Seattle, and they behave the same way as everybody else except they don't eat pork or drink alcohol. In fact, they have a deep dislike towards radical sect of Islam.

Because they're protected by their governments back home. Anybody under the jurisdiction of the government in the muslim country who decides he/she no longer wants to be a muslim and wants to be an Atheist or a Christian and they'll be hanging from the nearest tree before sunset.

The fact of the matter is most Muslims aren't "terrorists" or even related to them. The image is caused by the constant media reports combined with people like Dayve.

Right, and i suppose the fact that all terrorists are muslims has nothing to do with it eh? :lmao:

Western nations were just as barbaric

Right, so why should we allow the barbarians of today to drag western nations back down into a dark age such as the one Christianity gave us?

Am I looking to defend those who actually killed to get their message across?

Yes you are, you're not doing a very good job of it though.

[blackwingGER]

Well, in some points, is Dayve right.

Muslims in Germany have taken a strong position and i´m afraid, that they will get more political power here in the next few years. (Please, don´t scream now somithing like "Nazi-Asshole" - i´m not)

Fact is, that our politicians rather agree on discriminational problems (on cost of any price, whatsoever), than to risk it, to be called a racist (which is equal to a political death in our country).

[Leesin]

All i have to say on this, if he doesnt like it why doesnt he fuck off back to his own country, im sick and tired of muslims and god knows who else trying to turn the UK into there own country, its fucking sickening. Look at our damned country, we used to be so much better than this, now our government keeps handing more and more of it to outsiders. Im not racist and have nothing against muslims ( got some gd muslim friends, who we both agreed we'd shoot eachother if we had to in a war lmao ) Im just sick and tired of the ones who are trying to turn this country into a replica of there own, with a far better economy and technology.

[Henkie]

And again I return to the root of the problem. We pin our problems with the opinions and actions of a few people on the whole group of them.

What the guy in the OP is asking for, isn't introduction of the Sharia in the UK. He isn't asking for a nation-wide ban on alcohol. He isn't asking for the state to allow him to bomb things. He's asking to be granted his right to freedom of religion and to not be discriminated against. Not all Muslims are fundamentalist, not all of them want to found a Muslim nation, they just want to get the freedom they were promised by fleeing the dictatorships they came from and becoming UK citizens. Most of them aren't the problem and would like to be treated as such. And ofcourse any tabloid will be shouting when some Nutjob does want to do those things, and ofcourse they'll be surprised why the entire Muslim community doesn't drop whatever it's doing just to go demonstrate in front of his house to show they don't agree, but in the end, most of them are not the problem you seem to think they should be, based on what religion they have.

[Thomson]

British people are now not allowed to eat their lunch in the office if a muslim is working there and is fasting for whatever reason they do it, and god help them if their lunch is a bacon sandwich.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

this guy lives in a fucking fantasy land

[Dayve]

He's asking to be granted his right to freedom of religion and to not be discriminated against.

They already had that. They are free to worship any god they want in this green and not very pleasant anymore thanks to the barbarian invasion land. Not to be discriminated against, however, is like asking the sky to stop being above us and be below us instead. It won't happen. Discrimination is a non-removable part of human nature. Whether it be age discrimination, race, weight, gender, hair colour, whatever, people will always be discriminated against.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

this guy lives in a fucking fantasy land

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Guess where the biggest mosque in Europe, funded by the Saudi Barbarabians, is being built? England! I'm sorry but Britain simply isn't the right place for Muslims. We don't have Sharia law, which means that muslims have to live among infidels who are sinning like there is no tomorrow, so why oh why are they here?

I say sinning, i mean drinking alcohol, having sex out of marriage, not wearing tents in public and eating pork.

[rand0m]

And again I return to the root of the problem. We pin our problems with the opinions and actions of a few people on the whole group of them.

Are you seriously mentally handicapped? Did you even read the fucking article, i wouldn't put it past you, seeing 'muslims something something' or 'something muslims something' immediately puts you into ass kissing mode.

Eather lighten the fuck up or get out these threads.

Head of the Muslim Council of Britain

Yeah I guess the Head of the Muslim Council of Britain isn't the voice of all the Muslism then ... jesus christ ...


What the guy in the OP is asking for, isn't introduction of the Sharia in the UK. He isn't asking for a nation-wide ban on alcohol. He isn't asking for the state to allow him to bomb things.

Hes bitching about how we 'constantly discriminate and label' Muslims, we don't.

Hes bitching about how police are actively targeting Muslims without reason, we don't.

Hes bitching about how there is a nasty smell of 'suspicion and unease' around Muslims, that isn't coming from the police its coming from the Muslims. Its harsh to say however all they do is bitch about this country, its policies and its people.

He's asking to be granted his right to freedom of religion and to not be discriminated against. Not all Muslims are fundamentalist, not all of them want to found a Muslim nation, they just want to get the freedom they were promised by fleeing the dictatorships they came from and becoming UK citizens.

Yeah because I've really been missing every fucking muslims in this country, but hey i guess locking them all up has made us safer ... oh wait they are not locking up, interogating and charging every fucking muslim.


Most of them aren't the problem and would like to be treated as such. And ofcourse any tabloid will be shouting when some Nutjob does want to do those things, and ofcourse they'll be surprised why the entire Muslim community doesn't drop whatever it's doing just to go demonstrate in front of his house to show they don't agree, but in the end, most of them are not the problem you seem to think they should be, based on what religion they have.

1. Blaming poor journalism ... poor journalism from every news source out there ...
2. Pointing out the people that don't do anything while ignoring the load that do.
3. Victimising people that have nothing to do with this to increase your sympathy rating.

Fancy bullshitting some more? Or could you go spam some other thread with your pointless empty arguments ....

Point is this guy wants the Police to stop arresting Terrorists because they are Muslims ... end of argument.

[Henkie]

Discrimination is a non-removable part of human nature. Whether it be age discrimination, race, weight, gender, hair colour, whatever, people will always be discriminated against.

Bullshit. People might always have racist feelings, I'll acknowledge that. But a large part of being human is becoming aware of what you feel and overcoming those feelings by rational thought. For instance, when I see a woman in the tent/dress-thingy walking down the street, I sometimes fear she might have a bomb under there. That's fear based on a stereotype, which I then realize and I don't go on thinking that all dress/tent-thingies should be outlawed and all people not agreeing should be deported. Do you see the difference?

And I would like to point out again that this thread is about people who don't care if other people sin and who accept that not everybody is a muslim and doesn't behave like one. Those people (and they do exist, in large numbers) are asking if you would mind treating them as the people they are and not as the people you think all Muslims ought to be.

And the remark about you living in a fantasy world was probably specifically directed at your "not being allowed to eat bacon"-remark, which I'm guessing is not true.

[j.elohim]

He's asking to be granted his right to freedom of religion and to not be discriminated against. .

They already have that. What he, as far as I can tell, is asking for is not this, but that UK intelligence services "back off" on Muslims because it's making them feel persecuted. That is a stupid thing to ask because if within group A a handful of people are trying to mess your shit up, you going looking in group A for those people. Of course MI5 shouldn't just go after all Muslims because they aren't all bad, but the fact that some of them, quite a lot according to reports, have bad intentions then the community can't be surprised if they are getting a bad rap.

Most of them aren't the problem and would like to be treated as such.

I don't think anyone intelligent thinks every single Muslim is a terrorist but there is no pussyfooting around when it comes to rooting them out, if that ruffles some feathers tough shit. Of course Muslims don't want the stigma attached to them because some of them are terrorists, but that should be motivation for them to come out and denounce those amongst their community that are terrorists. Some do this, but not nearly enough. If the Muslim community wants to show itself as completely distinct from the insane terrorist nutjob section within it, it needs to actively try harder to make this distinction obvious to onlookers.

[Dayve]

And I would like to point out again that this thread is about people who don't care if other people sin and who accept that not everybody is a muslim and doesn't behave like one. Those people (and they do exist, in large numbers) are asking if you would mind treating them as the people they are and not as the people you think all Muslims ought to be.

No, i won't accept them because i'm culturally intolerant. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. This is Europe, we have culture. They are muslims, it's different to ours. They don't like ours because they won't change, and we don't like theirs because we won't change either.

Solution? GO HOME!

[Deamatix]

No, i won't accept them because i'm culturally intolerant. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. This is Europe, we have culture. They are muslims, it's different to ours. They don't like ours because they won't change, and we don't like theirs because we won't change either.

Solution? GO HOME!

Thankfully you aren't King of England.

[Boomer]

Actually it's not. My problem with Islam is their disgusting behaviour in western nations. They do not want everyone to accept them, they want everyone to change. They commit a crime, which is not a crime to them but to us it is, and then get away with it because when they are prosecuted millions of muslims worldwide scream that muslims aren't being treated fairly.

British people are now not allowed to eat their lunch in the office if a muslim is working there and is fasting for whatever reason they do it, and god help them if their lunch is a bacon sandwich.

Muslims now have the right to refuse to sell alcohol if they work in a supermarket that sells alcohol. They already have the right to refuse to sell alcohol and pork products in the 10 zillion shops they own in Britain. In Germany muslim men are allowed as many wives as they like, only muslims though. In Italy the law has been bent to allow them to beat the living shit out of their daughters if they do something 'wrong', like refuse to wear their tent or hold hands with a boy.
If Muslims want to follow their religious beliefs, they can. So far all you have done is exposing your own fear about them, and none of those fears have yet to happen. The Sharia law isn't in effect in UK, and that bit about people not allowed to eat lunch in the presence of Muslims is completely bullshit.

WOW! Muslims don't want to sell alcohols in a shop they OWN, and that is suppose to be a crime? If I own a shop and I don't want to sell certain products, it's in my freedom and right to do so. As for the laws in Germany allowing polygamy and beat daughters in Italy, you show me the actual legislation. The onus is on you to provide proof when you make the argument.

This is EUROPE. If muslims want barbaric Sharia law then they should go back to wherever they came from, like i said earlier, so the women can live as cattle to be beaten and slaughtered at will and the men and the men can openly fund terrorist organizations without having to worry about law enforcement dragging them off to Guantanamo Bay.
Has Sharia law been implemented? No. Muslims in the UK represents less than 3.5% of the total population. Even if they all support the Sharia law for your flawed argument's sake, they will never get it.

Right, because standing behind a cash register scanning a loaf of bread requires skill. It also requires you be muslim in this country apparently, because they own all the fucking shops.
Like I said, if you can't find a job as a cashier, go find another. I was rejected by a paint shop when I started working so I went to a supermarket instead. Stop looking for excuses for your own failure to land a job.

Because they're protected by their governments back home. Anybody under the jurisdiction of the government in the muslim country who decides he/she no longer wants to be a muslim and wants to be an Atheist or a Christian and they'll be hanging from the nearest tree before sunset.
That's funny. My boss is an ethnic Malay and he's not religious. A Pakistani girl working as a clerk on the 5th floor is a catholic as well as her family. The more you talk, the dumber you sound.

Right, and i suppose the fact that all terrorists are muslims has nothing to do with it eh? :lmao:
All terrorists are Muslims? and that's a fact? Do the world a favour, go read up on the State Department's terrorist list to see how many Christian, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu terrorists groups are in there, not to mention extremists nationalists and anarchist. Please stop filling the forum with your ignorant chant.

Right, so why should we allow the barbarians of today to drag western nations back down into a dark age such as the one Christianity gave us?
You kindly tell me how a group composed of less than 3.5% of total population in UK is going to drag you back to the dark ages. Go on, I love to be entertained.

Yes you are, you're not doing a very good job of it though.
That only seem so to you because you are ignorant, scared and illogical.

[Zantutsuken]

If Muslims want to follow their religious beliefs, they can. So far all you have done is exposing your own fear about them, and none of those fears have yet to happen. The Sharia law isn't in effect in UK, and that bit about people not allowed to eat lunch in the presence of Muslims is completely bullshit.


There was a thread on it some time ago, they weren't banned but were told to try not eating at their desks to avoid offending those following Ramadan.

Here you go:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2258664.ece

[david_slupper]

Dayve, you don't seem to be getting what this specific thread is about, so I'll explain it to you again. Try to leave your (pre-conceived) notions of Islam behind for a second and just read and try to understand.

There is this religion. It's called Islam. It has between 1.100.000.000 and 1.800.000.000 followers. Of this group, over the last 10 years a certain amount of people have done terrible things: terrorist attacks. Let's say, just to appease all the bigots in here, that it's possibly up to 100.000.000 of them. That number is so unrealisticly high that I don't think anybody can think this is even near the truth. But let's assume just for a second that we're talking about 100 million terrorists. And we all believe that what they've done is terrible. That still leaves at least one billion people who did not do that. Those people are not terrorists and they say that they'ld appreciate it if you didn't lump them together with what those other guys did. And that's the point, with any number of Muslim terrorists you can reasonably name, there's always so much more of them that are innocent that judging them all is just stupid.

I'm not even discussing that in a lot of the cases of what we call terrorism, it's a) possibly not terrorism, but things like assasinations or attacks on military targets or a civil war and b) possibly religion is not the most usefull explaination of the motivations. I'm not telling you that untill ten years ago Muslims were not the predominant terrorists, but Communists, Seperatists and Anarchists were the big bombers and there hasn't changed that much in Islamic dogma or Islamic culture in those ten years, so as to explain the increased violence. I'm not explaining that when interpreting the Qu'ran it's important to see the difference between what it says happened, what it says should happen and what it says believers should go and do, just like it is in the Bible. I'm not making any of those excuses, how reasonable they may be, I'm just sticking to plain and obvious facts about the numbers: even if the number of terrorists was as unrealisticly high as 100 million people, it still would leave over one billion people who are innocent and who you would blatantly ignore for the sake of easier judgement.

All that goes out the window when you learn how barbaric their culture is and how a high percentage of them support the ideals that terrorists stand for.

[Face Plant]

How to stop immigration to the UK without sounding like a racist, here's how you sell it. Everyone is in agreement that China is a crowded country, or is it compared to the UK

People's Republic of China - 137 people per sq km
United Kingdom - 246 people per sq km

Germany - 232 people per sq km
Netherlands - 392 people per sq km

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

[Boomer]

There was a thread on it some time ago, they weren't banned but were told to try not eating at their desks to avoid offending those following Ramadan.

Here you go:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2258664.ece
He said they weren't allowed, which is worlds apart from being adviced not to do so. Not being allowed implies you are banned from doing so. I wouldn't eat pork or drink alcohol in front of a Muslim, but does not mean I can't because of a law. I do it because I respect their tradition.

The problem I have with him is that he tries to exaggerate and generalize everything about Muslims. If there is a story about a Muslim leader saying they are being discriminated against, Dayve jumps up and yell "OMGWTFBBQ! They are trying to take away our freedom ZOMG!". If people were adviced not to eat in front of Muslims during Ramadan, he goes "OH SHIT! Now we're banned from eating". Finally when there is a terrorist attack, he suggest that all Muslims are terrorists and should be deported.

If he doesn't like Muslim, that's absolutely fine since I don't like some groups either. However when he tries to make up his so called "facts", I will challenge him on it. Not because I like Islam in particular, but because I have problem with bullshit.

[Dayve]

Except i wasn't making it up. It's no less than a hate crime in this country if you eat in front of muslims in Ramadan, or there was that guy in school who was suspended for eating pork in front of a muslim. The fact he did it to insult the muslims is irrelevant, this is Britain. If we want to cover ourselves in bacon and eat it in front of muslim students at lunch time we should be able to, because it's Britain.

[MelL]

Except i wasn't making it up. It's no less than a hate crime in this country if you eat in front of muslims in Ramadan, or there was that guy in school who was suspended for eating pork in front of a muslim. The fact he did it to insult the muslims is irrelevant, this is Britain. If we want to cover ourselves in bacon and eat it in front of muslim students at lunch time we should be able to, because it's Britain.

So you're saying people people should get away with harassment as long as the target is a Muslim?

[whocares]

All that goes out the window when you learn how barbaric their culture is and how a high percentage of them support the ideals that terrorists stand for.

and yes, you are also an idiot...

[Henkie]

How to stop immigration to the UK without sounding like a racist, here's how you sell it. Everyone is in agreement that China is a crowded country, or is it compared to the UK

People's Republic of China - 137 people per sq km
United Kingdom - 246 people per sq km

Germany - 232 people per sq km
Netherlands - 392 people per sq km

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

Heh, nice one. The problem is that if you watch a map of China, you'll notice that most of China's cities are crowded on one-fifth to one quarter of their territory, which means that there it's seriously overcrowded, while the west of China is almost empty. In the UK (and to a lesser extent Holland) the cities are much more spread out, which means regional population density never reaches the peaks it does in China.

[Bergs]

So you're saying people people should get away with harassment as long as the target is a Muslim?

Oh for fuck's sake. Here is the wiki page for harassment.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
Explain how eating pork in front of somebody qualifies as harassment under a single one of those definitions. It doesnt, not even stretching it as far as you can. Harassment requires an affirmative action with intent. Normal behavior, such as eating a fucking pig, is not harassment, regardless of how the "victim" feels about pork.

[Zardozus]

All that goes out the window when you learn how barbaric their culture is and how a high percentage of them support the ideals that terrorists stand for.

It's really the majority of Muslims who support terrorism and for example Im going to take 911 for example.
I would easily guesstimate that over 50% of Muslims in the world loved it and saw it as 'scoring one'.
You get a sort of 'soft support' percentage after that.. probably another 30% of Muslims.
The 20% left who do NOT support or in this case 'cheer' or 'like' the 911 attack in some way are from Muslim denominations that have some of their shit together or they are Western Muslims.

There is no official survey on this kind of thing but Id say Im pretty much about close enough.

[MelL]

Oh for fuck's sake. Here is the wiki page for harassment.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
Explain how eating pork in front of somebody qualifies as harassment under a single one of those definitions. It doesnt, not even stretching it as far as you can. Harassment requires an affirmative action with intent. Normal behavior, such as eating a fucking pig, is not harassment, regardless of how the "victim" feels about pork.


harass
1 a: exhaust, fatigue b (1): to annoy persistently (2): to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct2: to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>

So now that we have the definition of the word, we can go to what was discussed: eating pork in front of a Muslim with the intent to harass. Not an accidental occurrence, but intentionally.

[Dayve]

harass
1 a: exhaust, fatigue b (1): to annoy persistently (2): to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct2: to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>

So now that we have the definition of the word, we can go to what was discussed: eating pork in front of a Muslim with the intent to harass. Not an accidental occurrence, but intentionally.

If muslims come to our country and complain about being offended when someone eats pork near them then they deserve to be harrassed.

It would be like if i were homeless and a stranger invited me to his home, let me stay there indefinately, gave me money and a job and then i started complaining about him leaving the cap off the tooth-paste. If somebody (in this case, a nation) is good to you and gives you a decent quality of life and civilization and jobs you simply can't expect them to change their ways to suit your old culture because eating pork offends you.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Imagine emigrating to Saudi Arabia (nobody sane ever would emigrate to that barbaric land, but lets just say they did) and sitting on your porch in the sun next to your girlfriend who is wearing shorts and a short-sleeved t-shirt (big fucking crime right there, a woman showing skin) enjoying a glass of beer. Do you honestly think the locals would just ignore it? No... You and your girlfriend would be having your windpipes cut with a bayonet quicker than you can say HUMAN RIGHTS!

They wouldn't afford us the same courtesies we afford them so we shouldn't afford them anything. If i had my way they'd all be sent back to the barbaric lands from which they came.

[Zardozus]

It boggles the mind that Brits, Canadians and other Western Countries do this. Here is the most incredible part... just like Dayve was talking about, can you even BEGIN to IMAGINE if for some bizarre reason a Million Brits decided to emigrate to Saudi Arabia (now thats not the thing) but then decided that they want their own schools, want language considerations, want their customs, want to be PAID FOR IT and want Saudi Laws to reflect their values and religious upbringings etc?

Saudi Arabia would say "are you fucking crazy. NO" and simply would not even allow this.
India wouldn't.

So WHY IN THE HELL Canadians, Brits, Americans not only do this but actually fight with themselves over it like its some sort of 'human rights' and some wierd fucking 'left-wing idealogy' that we MUST create some multi-cultural states....
... seriously, it just boggles the mind and other countries must just laugh at us.

I actually worked with this East Indian guy just ask me one day "why is the Canadian government SO stupid.... every week another plane load of these bad people fly in from India and THEY LET THEM IN AND STAY HERE!?!?"
He was just STUNNED that we did this!

[Deamatix]

there was that guy in school who was suspended for eating pork in front of a muslim. The fact he did it to insult the muslims is irrelevant, this is Britain.

:eek: zomg! Suspended from school for insulting someone's religion!? What a huge violation of human rights! The next step might be a talking to from his parents, then it's going to hit the fan!

It's really the majority of Muslims who support terrorism and for example Im going to take 911 for example.
I would easily guesstimate that over 50% of Muslims in the world loved it and saw it as 'scoring one'.
You get a sort of 'soft support' percentage after that.. probably another 30% of Muslims.
The 20% left who do NOT support or in this case 'cheer' or 'like' the 911 attack in some way are from Muslim denominations that have some of their shit together or they are Western Muslims.

There is no official survey on this kind of thing but Id say Im pretty much about close enough.

There is also no official survey on your I.Q, but I'll put it somewhere between 57 and 63. That's just smart enough to know how to use a keyboard, but just dumb enough to make posts like this. You probably also watch FOX news and believe it. All you are doing is stereotyping a billion and a half people based on nothing.

I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of Muslims who support terrorism, or that political correctness hasn't put some stupid rules on people. But saying that Muslims should be deported or sent to concentration camps is ridiculous. If you don't like them, then work on getting rid of that pesky thing called "freedom".

[Meio]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/23/npoll23.xml

[Dayve]

:eek: zomg! Suspended from school for insulting someone's religion!? What a huge violation of human rights! The next step might be a talking to from his parents, then it's going to hit the fan!

He was eating pork. His intent is irrelevant, we are in a country that allows pork to be eaten.



There is also no official survey on your I.Q, but I'll put it somewhere between 57 and 63. That's just smart enough to know how to use a keyboard, but just dumb enough to make posts like this. You probably also watch FOX news and believe it. All you are doing is stereotyping a billion and a half people based on nothing.

I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of Muslims who support terrorism, or that political correctness hasn't put some stupid rules on people. But saying that Muslims should be deported or sent to concentration camps is ridiculous. If you don't like them, then work on getting rid of that pesky thing called "freedom".

As unusual as this is, i must defend Zard's comment. A country is a country with culture. You can't go to that country as a minority and expect everybody else to change their ways to suit you.

[YorkshireMan]

This thread is depressing.



Mostly because its nearly all true.

[quicksliver]

The problem is that people have problems distinguishing between political movement and religion. Islam is primarily a political movement. Yet here in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, Islam and national socialism are treated differently.

(I had written more before, but i am too lazy to repeat this...)

[Henkie]

Islam is primarily a political movement.

This is going to require a little more backing up, I think.

[quicksliver]

So you think that the political movement of Islam and the religion can be torn apart ? Then you don't understand Islam (not that I do, but understanding this is necessary).

[Dayve]

This is going to require a little more backing up, I think.

Not really. Wherever they go they are constantly trying to change the culture of their hosts. They want the world to bow down to Islam, not accept it.

[chalupa]

Not really. Wherever they go they are constantly trying to change the culture of their hosts. They want the world to bow down to Islam, not accept it.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.



...what I would give for 15 minutes on the holodeck with 7 of 9.

[jn_powell]

...what I would give for 15 minutes on the holodeck with 7 of 9.
15 minutes? A little overconfident on ourselves are we. :p

[chalupa]

15 minutes? A little overconfident on ourselves are we. :p

I'd prime the pump twice before I ever even got to the Enterprise, and then once again there for good measure. 15 minutes would be guaranteed. 7 of 9 wouldn't know what hit her.


(yes I know she is on voyager, I'm just saying I'd want to use the holodeck on the enterprise. Seems more sanitary.)

[Gooser]

And again I return to the root of the problem. We pin our problems with the opinions and actions of a few people on the whole group of them.

What the guy in the OP is asking for, isn't introduction of the Sharia in the UK. He isn't asking for a nation-wide ban on alcohol. He isn't asking for the state to allow him to bomb things. He's asking to be granted his right to freedom of religion and to not be discriminated against. Not all Muslims are fundamentalist, not all of them want to found a Muslim nation, they just want to get the freedom they were promised by fleeing the dictatorships they came from and becoming UK citizens. Most of them aren't the problem and would like to be treated as such. And ofcourse any tabloid will be shouting when some Nutjob does want to do those things, and ofcourse they'll be surprised why the entire Muslim community doesn't drop whatever it's doing just to go demonstrate in front of his house to show they don't agree, but in the end, most of them are not the problem you seem to think they should be, based on what religion they have.



A Muslim doctor that worked in the hospital down the road from me..A doctor...got arrested for discussing a terrorism act or something...What the hell?

To find a solution, surely you just pit the good against the bad here?

Do something of the muslim problem in britain(im not saying kick em all out) OR Change nothing, and let doctors/police/the army conspire against us, in our own ranks.

Just my 2 cents.

I know which one i'd choose.

[j.elohim]

I'd prime the pump twice before I ever even got to the Enterprise, and then once again there for good measure. 15 minutes would be guaranteed. 7 of 9 wouldn't know what hit her.


(yes I know she is on voyager, I'm just saying I'd want to use the holodeck on the enterprise. Seems more sanitary.)

She was a virgin too lets not forget. She'd definitely not know what had hit her...:bigwink:

[MelL]

If muslims come to our country and complain about being offended when someone eats pork near them then they deserve to be harrassed.


Good Lord, I would have thought you of all people would have understood since you were the person who brought up the person being harassed. Yup, I said it again, 'harassed.'

But I shall explain once more to help you understand.

If a Muslim comes to our country and someone has a ham sammich next to them, not knowing they are a Muslim or having no idea what it means to them, or even just being in a hurry to eat, it may offend, but any sane mind would not label it as harassing said Muslim. And if the Muslim says it is, they're being dumb. Dumb, I say!

But, as you pointed out in your example, if the guy with the ham sammich knowingly gobbles it up in front of the Muslim knowing full well what it means and seeks to offend, that my friend is harassment.

It's all about the motives.


And I have to add that I am very shocked, SHOCKED, that you left Lieutenant junior grade Saavik (from STII, not the later one. Ick!) out of the holodeck. At least get the green chick from the original series. Dude, she's green!

[Henkie]

So you think that the political movement of Islam and the religion can be torn apart ? Then you don't understand Islam (not that I do, but understanding this is necessary).

The thing I object to mostly is the 'primarily'-part. It's a religion with a connected moral code and there are people who want to press their moral code on others. As such Muslims can have a political position based on their religion. But if you were to ask me if Islam in itself (independent of it's followers) is more or less of a political thing, I honestly wouldn't know.

For instance, Bush is strongly against abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research for religious reasons and this has a strong effect on his political opinions. In a similar way a Muslim might want to ban alcohol and more fundamentalist Muslims might want to take that further, as there are more fundamentalist Christians, who want to go further than Bush. As I am neither Christian or Muslim, I agree with neither of them, but I do acknowledge that other people agree with them and might disagree with me.

And I do think that Muslims do not necessarilly all have the same political values, not unlike Christians. I think I've given this example before, but when a Muslim party was founded in Holland, it got significantly less Muslim votes than our Christian Democratic Party.

[Spanish_Muslim]

Except i wasn't making it up. It's no less than a hate crime in this country if you eat in front of muslims in Ramadan, or there was that guy in school who was suspended for eating pork in front of a muslim. The fact he did it to insult the muslims is irrelevant, this is Britain. If we want to cover ourselves in bacon and eat it in front of muslim students at lunch time we should be able to, because it's Britain.

Go do it.

Every 5-times-a-day-praying, daily Quran reciting (which you have to do anyway in the prayer) Muslim I've met or talked to couldn't care less if you ate pork in front of them. Also, if you look into, you'd realise that no Muslims pushed for the "don't eat in front of us" rule that was introduced into hospitals only.

[OMFG FORUM RAGE]

mmmm, pork sounds good right now

[Zardozus]

There is also no official survey on your I.Q, but I'll put it somewhere between 57 and 63. That's just smart enough to know how to use a keyboard, but just dumb enough to make posts like this. You probably also watch FOX news and believe it. All you are doing is stereotyping a billion and a half people based on nothing.

I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of Muslims who support terrorism, or that political correctness hasn't put some stupid rules on people. But saying that Muslims should be deported or sent to concentration camps is ridiculous. If you don't like them, then work on getting rid of that pesky thing called "freedom".

Lets see who is the real moron...

Unlike you, I have not only grown up with Muslims, went to school with Muslims but I work with Muslims 5 days a week.
In fact, my IQ doesn't even enter into this whenever you will realise that this is information FROM MUSLIMS (and most of these are 'moderates') and worse yet is REFLECTED in the 'moderate' Muslims I know.
About half of them (sometimes in a sort of 'secret') way really do support and even cheer Bin Laden whenever he 'scores a hit'.
I have actually been in the room when some of them break out cheering a news report (as if it were a soccer goal) and actually forgot I was not one of them.
Then the very awkward moments afterwards when they realised what they just did.

Now to further prove your stupidity I then emboldened the idiotic 'rebuttal' you make in which somehow the option is to choose 'concentration camps' and 'deporting people'.
Wow.
So we either pretend like half the Muslim world does NOT support Bin Ladens attacks or we are for Concentration Camps.
Just wow.

btw.. the very fact you think 'IQ' has anything to do with acknowledging current events and popular opinion then this alone demonstrates your a moron.
Never mind the other moron things you came up with.

[Face Plant]

Heh, nice one. The problem is that if you watch a map of China, you'll notice that most of China's cities are crowded on one-fifth to one quarter of their territory, which means that there it's seriously overcrowded, while the west of China is almost empty. In the UK (and to a lesser extent Holland) the cities are much more spread out, which means regional population density never reaches the peaks it does in China.

Well I'm just pointing out how to sell it, the fact is the UK is more densely populated than China. The fact that China's population is packed mostly in cities is irrelevant since that applies to every country, It applies to the UK as well. Metropolitan London has a population between 12-14 million which means 20 to 23 % of the United Kingdoms population lives in one city.

Beijing - 888 people per sq km
London - 4,761 people per sq km

[Deamatix]

Here is another one of my mindless posts

Oh forgive me! If I knew that all 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world were your co-workers, I would not have rushed to judge you. :rollseyes

I've known a lot of blacks who fit every "gangsta" stereotype in the book, and I know that there is a large fraction of the black American population who act that way. But it's still not enough to say they all act like that, or even most, unless I can find the evidence to back it up. You said you don't know any survey that proves most Muslims support terrorism, you're only forming an opinion of over a billion people based on the ones you know from McDonalds, or wherever it is you work.

And if you thought I was pulling the concentration camp comment out of nowhere, I was responding to this:

I wish Britain was comparable to 1930's Germany, perhaps then in 3 or 4 years we'd be throwing the barbarians into death camps, or at the absolute very least confiscating all their property and deporting them

It helps to read threads before posting.

I give Henkie a lot of credit for putting in an effort to respond to you idiots. His posts just go to show how smart he is. There should be more people in the world like Henkie. And I know he's going to put this in his sig.

[Bergs]

harass
1 a: exhaust, fatigue b (1): to annoy persistently (2): to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct2: to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>

So now that we have the definition of the word, we can go to what was discussed: eating pork in front of a Muslim with the intent to harass. Not an accidental occurrence, but intentionally.

That definition was not found in the wiki article, you clearly pulled it out of a dictionary, since you couldnt find jack to support the absurd assertion that eating pork, regardless of the circumstances, is harrassment within the article.

Furthermore, your dictionary definition falls flat on its face. It is invalid and inapplicable to the current case. The definition requires three things concurrently:
1) Create a hostile or unpleasant situation;
2) Through verbal or physical conduct;
3) That is unwelcome or uninvited

The act of eating a sandwich, even with an intent to annoy, does not create a hostile or unpleasant situation. Hostile or unpleasant inherently requires two actors. An act cannot be considered hostile or unpleasant unless it is viewed that way by the other party. As does the unwelcome or uninvited nature of the conduct. The entire definition is therefore subjective. It relies almost solely on the second parties interpretation of the first's action. The action itself is what needs to be judged and eating a sandwich, regardless of the circumstances, is not harassment! If eating a sandwich during a lunch period is harassment, then any reasonable action can be considered harassment solely on the interpretation of the harassed party. Thats a real efficient way to manage a society.

Also, I direct you to Spanish Muslim's post. The Muslims didnt claim that it was harassment. The dopes in charge of the hospital and you did. Its not offensive, and its certainly not fucking harassment. Its political correctness gone absolutely nuts.

[Dayve]

There should be more people in the world like Henkie.

There are a lot more people in the world like Henkie, that's why barbaric islamic culture is slowly starting to establish itself in Europe, because theyre apologist muslim sympathizers who are way too fucking obsessed with political correctness and culture sensetivity.

Give it 50 years and Europe will be a muslim majority and part of the nation of Islam, and Henkies children (if he has any) can enjoy a life of wearing tents and having their heads chopped off for holding hands with their girlfriend/boyfriend in the street.

:)

[Spanish_Muslim]

Good Lord, I would have thought you of all people would have understood since you were the person who brought up the person being harassed. Yup, I said it again, 'harassed.'

But I shall explain once more to help you understand.

If a Muslim comes to our country and someone has a ham sammich next to them, not knowing they are a Muslim or having no idea what it means to them, or even just being in a hurry to eat, it may offend, but any sane mind would not label it as harassing said Muslim. And if the Muslim says it is, they're being dumb. Dumb, I say!

But, as you pointed out in your example, if the guy with the ham sammich knowingly gobbles it up in front of the Muslim knowing full well what it means and seeks to offend, that my friend is harassment.

It's all about the motives.


And I have to add that I am very shocked, SHOCKED, that you left Lieutenant junior grade Saavik (from STII, not the later one. Ick!) out of the holodeck. At least get the green chick from the original series. Dude, she's green!

I guess you are just using that as an example - your point that "it's about motives" is definitely correct. But the actual eating of pig meat around a Muslim couldn't affect me any less - pig meat is just considered dirty and forbidden (as God, according to us, has stated in the Quran) in all cases except in extreme lack of access to any other food.

But yeah, if someone throws a sandwich or something (I couldn't think of any other examples) with the intention to irritate etc, then yes that's harassment, but it'd be just as annoying if it were a chicken sandwich. Lol.

Basically, in this post I just wanted to repeat again that these stupid, silly "don't eat ham" and "behead the masturbating daugther" nonsense has no part in Islam. But the point you made was valid.



Give it 50 years and Europe will be a muslim majority and part of the nation of Islam, and Henkies children (if he has any) can enjoy a life of wearing tents and having their heads chopped off for holding hands with their girlfriend/boyfriend in the street.

:)

And where did you get your PHD on Islamic laws? Fox News?
More seriously though, definitely from non-Muslim commentators on the Quran. Similarly, when you want to know how a Muslim woman wearing hijab in the West how she feels, you prefer to take the opinions of everyone but her. The funniest thing with most Anti-Muslim people is that they cannot choose between i) feeling sorry the women because she is being 'forced to wear the hijab' and she is oppressed and ii) hating the women who wears hijab at the same time for practicing her faith.

[Dayve]

Basically, in this post I just wanted to repeat again that these stupid, silly "don't eat ham" and "behead the masturbating daugther" nonsense has no part in Islam. But the point you made was valid.

If they have no part in Islam then why do people get beheaded for it infront of a huge crowd of barbarians, or muslims as some people like to call them, chanting ALLAHU AKBAR!?

[Henkie]

There are a lot more people in the world like Henkie,

If only...

No, what am I saying, I'ld hate me, it would annoy the crap out of me, another person around who's damn near always right and so bloody smug about it. Meh, the world would probably be a better place, as long as I could get me to cooperate with myself instead of bashing my own head in with the first blunt object I could get hold of. ;)

I give Henkie a lot of credit for putting in an effort to respond to you idiots. His posts just go to show how smart he is. There should be more people in the world like Henkie. And I know he's going to put this in his sig.

You know me, you really do...

[Dayve]

If only...

No, what am I saying, I'ld hate me, it would annoy the crap out of me, another person around who's damn near always right and so bloody smug about it. Meh, the world would probably be a better place, as long as I could get me to cooperate with myself instead of bashing my own head in with the first blunt object I could get hold of. ;)

You won't need to look far. Most Europeans are muslim sympathizer apologists who ignore the fact that 9/10 muslims want to bring down our culture and establish Sharia law in Europe.

Seriously, 99% of the population of Denmark are just like you... That's why Denmark is the most Islamized nation in Europe so far. Give it one more year and muslim men will be able to have multiple wives just like in Germany. European men can't do it of course, that law is just there to make the muslim barbarian terrorist supporters happy.

[Henkie]

You won't need to look far. Most Europeans are muslim sympathizer apologists who ignore the fact that 9/10 muslims want to bring down our culture and establish Sharia law in Europe.

Seriously, 99% of the population of Denmark are just like you... That's why Denmark is the most Islamized nation in Europe so far. Give it one more year and muslim men will be able to have multiple wives just like in Germany. European men can't do it of course, that law is just there to make the muslim barbarian terrorist supporters happy.

I'll see that bet and raise you a "In twenty years time polygamy will have dissapeared all together except from the Mormon community in the USA".

Really, what you see as an Islamization of the western world, is in my opinion a coming together of different world views, where eventually we all learn to tolerate eachother and find a good modus vivendi. It's already happening, if you know where to look. Take for instance Iran, they have (and this will look very controversial, so read carefully) based their constitution (not in the sense of a written document, per se, but in the broader sense the set of principals on which a nation is governed) on the fusion of enlightened Western political thought and more or less traditional Islamic ethics. They have a pretty sharp seperation of powers (the Trias Politica was thought up by Montesqieu), with a popularly elected head-executive, a law-making (or in practice more of a law-interpreting) parlaiment (which isn't elected) and a seperate (though not too independent) judicial body. They rely strongly on a nationalistic ideology (a typical modern European concept), connected with their Islamic background.

And that's truely interesting, because since 1979 (when the Ayatollah's took over) there has been no attempt to Islamize their constitution, no attempt to make anybody a Califf, no active enforced claim of wanting to rule anything more than the Iranian people. They have taken over the Western way of ruling, to enforce their own ethical principles, on their own Muslim population. The other interesting fact is that amongst others the Iranian Christian minority is given quite a bit of liberties in this, as long as they didn't publicly clash with Islamic tradition, they are, for instance, allowed to have and drink alcohol in their own house, unlike Iranian Muslims. Make of it what you will, but it is not all a one-way-street.

[Jenovah]

I'll see that bet and raise you a "In twenty years time polygamy will have dissapeared all together except from the Mormon community in the USA".

Really, what you see as an Islamization of the western world, is in my opinion a coming together of different world views, where eventually we all learn to tolerate eachother and find a good modus vivendi. It's already happening, if you know where to look. Take for instance Iran, they have (and this will look very controversial, so read carefully) based their constitution (not in the sense of a written document, per se, but in the broader sense the set of principals on which a nation is governed) on the fusion of enlightened Western political thought and more or less traditional Islamic ethics. They have a pretty sharp seperation of powers (the Trias Politica was thought up by Montesqieu), with a popularly elected head-executive, a law-making (or in practice more of a law-interpreting) parlaiment (which isn't elected) and a seperate (though not too independent) judicial body. They rely strongly on a nationalistic ideology (a typical modern European concept), connected with their Islamic background.

And that's truely interesting, because since 1979 (when the Ayatollah's took over) there has been no attempt to Islamize their constitution, no attempt to make anybody a Califf, no active enforced claim of wanting to rule anything more than the Iranian people. They have taken over the Western way of ruling, to enforce their own ethical principles, on their own Muslim population. The other interesting fact is that amongst others the Iranian Christian minority is given quite a bit of liberties in this, as long as they didn't publicly clash with Islamic tradition, they are, for instance, allowed to have and drink alcohol in their own house, unlike Iranian Muslims. Make of it what you will, but it is not all a one-way-street.

I'll have to agree with Deamatix, the world needs more people like you.


I have to agree that some muslims in certain countries can be a nuisance, but that doesn't negate the fact that most muslims just want to get rid of the "barbarian" stereo-type, but as long as the media has this "negative-news-sells" outlook that won't change.

[MelL]

That definition was not found in the wiki article, you clearly pulled it out of a dictionary, since you couldnt find jack to support the absurd assertion that eating pork, regardless of the circumstances, is harrassment within the article.


You'll have to excuse me if I go to a solid source for the definition of a word, like an actual Dictionary, as opposed to an article that anyone can edit, rightly or wrongly. :rolleyes:


Furthermore, your dictionary definition falls flat on its face. It is invalid and inapplicable to the current case. The definition requires three things concurrently:
1) Create a hostile or unpleasant situation;
2) Through verbal or physical conduct;
3) That is unwelcome or uninvited


Sorry, but I have to disagree. All three were criteria were met, though not necessarily from the point of view of the second party. Though the second party may not have been offended by the pork itself, the attempt at offending can fulfill the third element which you so nicely outlined above.


The act of eating a sandwich, even with an intent to annoy, does not create a hostile or unpleasant situation. Hostile or unpleasant inherently requires two actors. An act cannot be considered hostile or unpleasant unless it is viewed that way by the other party. As does the unwelcome or uninvited nature of the conduct. The entire definition is therefore subjective. It relies almost solely on the second parties interpretation of the first's action. The action itself is what needs to be judged and eating a sandwich, regardless of the circumstances, is not harassment! If eating a sandwich during a lunch period is harassment, then any reasonable action can be considered harassment solely on the interpretation of the harassed party. Thats a real efficient way to manage a society.


It has the potential to create a hostile or unpleasant situation. And the intent is what is necessary for an act to be considered hostile or unpleasant as is the belief that it was cause offense. So you have the intent and the goal. Whether or not the first party is successful is pretty much irrelevant.


Also, I direct you to Spanish Muslim's post. The Muslims didnt claim that it was harassment. The dopes in charge of the hospital and you did. Its not offensive, and its certainly not fucking harassment. Its political correctness gone absolutely nuts.

Simply because someone does not acknowledge an act does not mean it fails to be harassment. And I was not referring to the hospital, as nowhere in the article that mentioned the hospital was harassment ever brought up. I was referring to this:

"...or there was that guy in school who was suspended for eating pork in front of a muslim. The fact he did it to insult the muslims is irrelevant, this is Britain."

[Henkie]

I'll have to agree with Deamatix, the world needs more people like you.

I'm already getting complaints that my sig is too long... :wah:

[Dayve]

I'll see that bet and raise you a "In twenty years time polygamy will have dissapeared all together except from the Mormon community in the USA".

Really, what you see as an Islamization of the western world, is in my opinion a coming together of different world views, where eventually we all learn to tolerate eachother and find a good modus vivendi. It's already happening, if you know where to look. Take for instance Iran, they have (and this will look very controversial, so read carefully) based their constitution (not in the sense of a written document, per se, but in the broader sense the set of principals on which a nation is governed) on the fusion of enlightened Western political thought and more or less traditional Islamic ethics. They have a pretty sharp seperation of powers (the Trias Politica was thought up by Montesqieu), with a popularly elected head-executive, a law-making (or in practice more of a law-interpreting) parlaiment (which isn't elected) and a seperate (though not too independent) judicial body. They rely strongly on a nationalistic ideology (a typical modern European concept), connected with their Islamic background.

And that's truely interesting, because since 1979 (when the Ayatollah's took over) there has been no attempt to Islamize their constitution, no attempt to make anybody a Califf, no active enforced claim of wanting to rule anything more than the Iranian people. They have taken over the Western way of ruling, to enforce their own ethical principles, on their own Muslim population. The other interesting fact is that amongst others the Iranian Christian minority is given quite a bit of liberties in this, as long as they didn't publicly clash with Islamic tradition, they are, for instance, allowed to have and drink alcohol in their own house, unlike Iranian Muslims. Make of it what you will, but it is not all a one-way-street.

Stopped reading when you said Iran. I watched a video earlier where they hanged 5 suspected homosexuals.

Don't utter the world Iran in the same sentence as something about coming together and learning from good morals.

[Henkie]

Stopped reading when you said Iran.

Read the damn post, it's a good one.

[Dayve]

Read the damn post, it's a good one.

No. I see now that you're a stones throw away from being a closet terrorist supporter yourself. First you're defending muslims who want our laws changed to suit their religion, now you're claiming Iran is some sort of decent nation we could learn a thing or two from.

Won't be long before you're pay-palling donations to terrorist organizations.

[Henkie]

No. I see now that you're a stones throw away from being a closet terrorist supporter yourself. First you're defending muslims who want our laws changed to suit their religion, now you're claiming Iran is some sort of decent nation we could learn a thing or two from.

Won't be long before you're pay-palling donations to terrorist organizations.

Well, I've sent a cheque for 500 euros to Hamas and I would sent even more to Al Qaeda, if only I could find a postal adress...

And either you didn't read what I posted, or you didn't understand it. I was not in any way passing judgement on Iran's ethical code. I was saying that their constitution is based largely on Western ideas and that they seem to recognise limits to the reach of their ethical code. Limits you seem to suggest they do not have.

[j.elohim]

iran part...

Iran is a very interesting country, and I don't know enough about it to really comment on your claims, so I will just accept prima facie you are correct. A point I would raise though is that the example of letting Christians drink so long as they don't publicly offend the sensibilities of the Muslim populace seems only to show that Iran has made a concession rather than a compromise.

The point really I'm trying to raise is that Islam and Islamic law doesn't offer itself to synthesis with Western ideals. Let us imagine hypothetical country in which there is no one majority group (but that it contains Muslims who believe in the truth of all the teachings of Islam) and let us further imagine that this country is based on a western democratic structure: In this country abortion is legally permissible, but morally impermissible for Muslims, sex outside of marriage is legally permissible, but morally impermissible for Muslims, it seems that either the legal permissibility of these actions would have to change or the moral status for Muslims, otherwise this fusion country would not be a fair society. Let us imagine that both those things are, and should be, legally and morally permissible ( contentious I know, but fuck it). Either we adjust the laws that were thus far religiously neutral (in that they don't give a shit who your god is or what he says) to accommodate a belief that a portion of the society has (they are morally impermissible and furthermore wrong), but another equally large portion doesn't, or we ask the Muslims to reject their belief these actions are impermissible and wrong. Neither of those options seems to make this a genuine fusion of ideologies only that western ideals require that Muslims reject central aspects of their moral belief system.

I would elaborate more (because there is a lot to say) but I have class, for now I think that is enough to illustrate my point and give you enough to respond to it and/or offer an alternative I have missed. But that is why I think Islam and the West are incompatible and why I don't even think they could come to some arrangement where they "agreed to disagree" whatever that means. I might stress before I leave that it should be assumed if I didn't make it clear that in my hypothetical the Muslims are all ardent believers in the literally truth of every aspect of Islam. Also that they aren't intent on forcing it on the rest of the hypothetical, before anyone tries to say they'd blow the rest of the hypothetical people up. :p

edit:
I was saying that their constitution is based largely on Western ideas and that they seem to recognise limits to the reach of their ethical code.

Can you elaborate more on this with regards to what limits they see, limits in it's applicability to all cases or limits in that they do not have enough to say? So either they have things to say but they see they are limited in application to all cases, or they are limited in not having things to say for all cases.

[Dayve]

I wonder which part of the western constitution they got banning western hairstyles and hanging homosexuals from.

[Henkie]

Iran is a very interesting country, and I don't know enough about it to really comment on your claims, so I will just accept prima facie you are correct. A point I would raise though is that the example of letting Christians drink so long as they don't publicly offend the sensibilities of the Muslim populace seems only to show that Iran has made a concession rather than a compromise.

The point really I'm trying to raise is that Islam and Islamic law doesn't offer itself to synthesis with Western ideals. Let us imagine hypothetical country in which there is no one majority group (but that it contains Muslims who believe in the truth of all the teachings of Islam) and let us further imagine that this country is based on a western democratic structure: In this country abortion is legally permissible, but morally impermissible for Muslims, sex outside of marriage is legally permissible, but morally impermissible for Muslims, it seems that either the legal permissibility of these actions would have to change or the moral status for Muslims, otherwise this fusion country would not be a fair society. Let us imagine that both those things are, and should be, legally and morally permissible ( contentious I know, but fuck it). Either we adjust the laws that were thus far religiously neutral (in that they don't give a shit who your god is or what he says) to accommodate a belief that a portion of the society has (they are morally impermissible and furthermore wrong), but another equally large portion doesn't, or we ask the Muslims to reject their belief these actions are impermissible and wrong. Neither of those options seems to make this a genuine fusion of ideologies only that western ideals require that Muslims reject central aspects of their moral belief system.

I would elaborate more (because there is a lot to say) but I have class, for now I think that is enough to illustrate my point and give you enough to respond to it and/or offer an alternative I have missed. But that is why I think Islam and the West are incompatible and why I don't even think they could come to some arrangement where they "agreed to disagree" whatever that means. I might stress before I leave that it should be assumed if I didn't make it clear that in my hypothetical the Muslims are all ardent believers in the literally truth of every aspect of Islam. Also that they aren't intent on forcing it on the rest of the hypothetical, before anyone tries to say they'd blow the rest of the hypothetical people up. :p

edit:

Can you elaborate more on this with regards to what limits they see, limits in it's applicability to all cases or limits in that they do not have enough to say? So either they have things to say but they see they are limited in application to all cases, or they are limited in not having things to say for all cases.

What's in my opinion most preferable is a situation were both the law and the people of a country don't try to press their ethical choices on anybody, but where generally people do have the freedom to make their own choices. This means that for instance, people who do not agree with Gay Marriage, can choose not to marry a person of the same sex, but cannot apply that principle on a person who does not agree. This is technically incompatible with Sharia law, but not with people living according to an Islamic ethical code. This is not an ideal that is put in practice in Iran, but neither is it in the US and even not (although we're closer, Imo) in Holland. But my point was that although in Iran this specific ethical code is pressed on the Muslim population, it is not pressed (technically not true, we're talking pressed in a lesser extent, but to show the principle I'm assuming the "not at all"-option for a second) on the Christian population. This shows both the assumption that the Ayatollah's claim they have a final say in what is and is not part of the Islamic ethical code, and you can choose either for it or against it (although conversion from Islam to any other religion is probably not allowed in atleast the legal sense) and either choice is a complete choice, but non-Muslims are not expected to live according to Muslim laws, even not according to the Ayatollahs.

This would suggest that the real difference of opinion between me and the Ayatollah's is about the posibillity of different interpretations of Islamic law. I say it is and people should be allowed to have their own, while they say there isn't and they know what the right one is.

[Dayve]

I see what you're saying. You want a world where certain crimes are legal to those who don't see it as a crime... I knew you were a closet muslim.

[Spanish_Muslim]

If they have no part in Islam then why do people get beheaded for it infront of a huge crowd of barbarians, or muslims as some people like to call them, chanting ALLAHU AKBAR!?

They don't. Post some proof. For masturbating? Either you are very ignorant or you are lying out of any hole you can. Other non-Muslim members might not see it, but your post has helped me gain a lot of insight as to what type of person you are.

Anyways, I've heard of some behadings in a crowd of Muslims chanting Allahu Akbar, but the people getting their heads chopped off have usually been men that have murdered, raped or commited adultery. (Yes, to you adultery might not seem like that big a sin, and perhaps you are the type that would gladly cheat on his wife, or the type of person that not many people trust, but to Muslims it is - and it's happening in a few Muslim countries, not in your back yard). I've also heard on some deaths resulting from unfair judgements and these need to be fixed up and and the number of cases reduced.

You won't be able to find me one single Quran verse or Hadith that suggests one should behead their daughter, or anyone in fact, for masturbating (don't get me wrorng, it's forbidden - Propohet (pbuh) said "Who ever weds his/her hand is cursed" - but that curse is in the hereafter) - and if it's not in the Quran and not in a valid Hadith approved by the Scholars, then it has no part in Islam.

[Spanish_Muslim]

You won't need to look far. Most Europeans are muslim sympathizer apologists who ignore the fact that 9/10 muslims want to bring down our culture and