Some interesting viewpoints here...
some of which I can understand, some not.
Here in the UK there is a growing trend to sacrifice rules and beliefs of the denizens of this land to the all powerful god of PC. This is particularily the case (or so it sometimes seems in the press) where 'minorities' are concerned rofl -reality check- who are the minorities in say, Birmingham or Bradford? not the muslims or pakistanis anymore that's for sure... not that this really matters much to me either way, it's just a point of clarification.
However, there is one thing which really pisses me off, allow me to explain: When I lived if a foreign country (Bahrain) it was my choice to respect local laws and customs of the land- when in rome, and all that. If you behaved appropriately you could stay and enjoy the hospitality of that land for as long as you wished; rock the boat and they'd deport you as soon as look at you, which in my estimation is a fair way to do business. I cannot imagine being allowed to publicly demand with plackards, for the death of the Emir of Bahrain, in the same way some here cry for the death of Blair, without some serious repercussions.
Question: why does this attitude no longer exish in the UK? how is it that any old tom, dick, or akhbar can come to my country and use to their advantage the laws protecting its citizens right to freedom of speech and expression, to promote hatred and to undermine the local status quo, and when anybody shouts STFU! they call the race card or hide under some leftie liberal mantle of political correctness?
This makes no sense. Indeed such aggressive people only see our freedom to say and do more or less as we please as weakness to be exploited to their own ends- how typical of those who live under the yoke of oppression (in whatever form, be it religious fundamentalism, or political extremism) to view something they have not, as something to look down on and to be taken advantage of.
How is any of this relevent?
Well, for a long time I have been serously reserved in my judjment of others and their actions, after all what right do I have to say how they should live their lives? This is changing- given the current world climate and trouble with radical islam, this is hardly supprising. Neal says who among the muslim community is going to clean their own house of those who give them a bad name? For sure this is not something we in the 'west' can advocate or promote overtly lest it be deemed as some kind of anti muslim sentiment to be resisted by 'our muslim brothers accross the world to stand against the infadel oppressors'. Yet as time goes on, I am tired of tip-toeing around people who would (to all intents and purposes) pass a sharp blade accross my throat in the name of islam, without a second thought.
Why should I, when walking through my home town of Leicester minding my own business, accept abuse and racist comments from a bunch of 'local' muslim lads calling me "white fu**er" and "christian dog" in leicestershire accents and listen the the vitreolic statements from so called 'muslim leaders' about how the faithful masses are going to rise up and overthrow the established rule of law and institute a 'muslim nation' in my country? what is so wrong here that this is deemed acceptable? Were it the other way round with me spouting the abuse, there would be an outcry about hatred and rights, but because it's a 'minority voice' we have to put up with their despite in the name of fairness- this is no minority anymore, it's a large proportion of the community here in the UK, one in which we should take steps to curb fannatical and offensive statments, just like any other section of the peoples of this country.
Is it really so supprising that the majority of moderate, civilised muslim devotees are being tarred with the same brush as the nutters? Afterall, is doing nothing to halt or prevent outbursts of such hatred and violence a tacit agreement to the overall cause? certainly there are plenty of people here who, rightly or wrongly, are starting to come around to this point of view.
There's always plenty of shouting when the question of race or antisemitism is envolved to the point where if an oppinion which differs or is controversial is aired, the speaker is accused of being a nazi or a fascist "wo*-hater" (I don't use this language to offend or infer my own personal feelings, it's yet another 'comment' I was on the recieving end of from those 'local lads' from my above paragraph. It could be said that I find such comments directed to wards me as racist and antisocial as anything to come out of the BNP recently).
All of this is symptomatic of the breakdown in relations between communities and within communities. Maybe I'm using the wrong words here, but where is the public jihad, in the muslim world at large, against radical, extremist islam? I cannot see it. Nor do I believe it will be forthcoming in the near future from the leaders who can really have an impact on the situation. Such sabre rattling as has come out of Iran recently is a clear indicatior of this.
I don't hate muslims, I don't really hate anybody (except perhaps and ex girlfriend of mine who lied and cheated on me :roll: but that's another story), but I can't see any real end or solution in appeasment of radicals (be they muslim, christian, jew, or other) in the hope that they'll be satisfied when the get what they want... *newsflash* they'll never be satisfied. Until we stamp them out the world will never be safe from bloodletting and suffering- whatever way I look at it, I don't like either choice; do nothing and suffer or take action and suffer. pfft I'm all for educating the ignorant, but some people are ignorant by choice and there is no changing them or enlightening their thoughts towards others and their beliefs.
As Superintendant Chalmers says: "Religion has no place within these walls!"
It's my position that the world should start taking notice and do something about sorting itself out, and soon, starting with the arab world first- wakeup and smell the coffe boys, you don't live in the dark-ages any more (I might add the same sentiment to anyone who is overly zealous in their religious duties or moves countries to 'support' their brethren in any religious endeavour or land dispute).


lol Damo, but remember, we packed all of our miscreants of to ZO where they belong centuries ago, :lol: surely that has to count for something? :rotfl: :rotfl:

You are one big contradiction. Here's what I received from you in my PM inbox several weeks ago. Maybe it will refresh your memory:

GO CRY TO THE AMERICANS...............U JEWS ARE PATHETIC........WE GAVE U A CHANCE, US ROMAN CATHOLICS.........WE ALSO NOTICED YOU TRY TO SHRINK OUR WRITING...............GIVE YOU ANOTHER BUT ................

Not only is it anti-Semitic, it shows your positive affiliation with your own religion, while you've just claimed here that you "hate religion full stop".
Rhetoric.
Indeed, the term Palestine was give by Rome's brutal general, Titus, to the land of Judea and Samaria when the Romans wanted to obliterate a Jewish connection to their homeland. He turned to his historians and asked the worst enemy of the Jews. When Titus learned the worst enemy was the Philistines, he renamed the area Palestine or Philistine.

Regarding the original topic:

I like how Chirac called the Iranian statement "totally irresponsible". First rule of "diplomacy", don't talk about your actual goal. Second rule of "diplomacy", don't talk about your actual goal. The only irresponsible act the President of Iran made was to talk about their actual goal. By French reckoning, it seems you can do whatever you want just as long as it never makes the newspapers.

And then there's the spin-off:

On Friday the Iranian Embassy in Moscow tried to soften the impact of Ahmadinejad's comment.
"Mr. Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak in sharp terms and engage in a conflict," the embassy said in a statement following the international criticism.
It added that Ahmadinejad "underlined the key position of
Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories."

It's like when the Mullahs are giving a speech to their own people, inside of a Tehran mosque, and they say "it's our right to persue nuclear weapons". If it accidently hits the satellite and that broadcast is beamed to every other nation on the planet, they shut down the broadcast station responsible for actually filming the sermon. Then they have their ambassadors spin it as out-of-context "peaceful power production".


Use our democracy against our democracy. I guess you can't really fight democracy with democracy.

[quote="jumpy"]Is it really so supprising that the majority of moderate, civilised muslim devotees are being tarred with the same brush as the nutters? Afterall, is doing nothing to halt or prevent outbursts of such hatred and violence a tacit agreement to the overall cause? [/quote="jumpy"]

Thanks for sharing your story and your opinion, Jumpy. In answer to your rethorical question: No, it is no surprise. I am beginning to allow myself to firmly believe that the so called moderates are having the best of both worlds: Enjoy our high economical standards and thinking: "Heh, I am doing okay like this. And if my muslim brothers in the HOLY-ME are one day taking over world power, my good muslim family will welcome it. We will have paved the way so to speak. Either way we win. Allah Akhbar !"

Disclaimer: Like my sig states: I am a k.i.s.s. apostle and one could write volumes on this issue. I am not interested in a debate with Konovalov and Damo. Only people who have both a rational and intuitive understanding of the issue, and are liberated from PC, can grasp this. I am happy to see the Un-PCness is spreading throughout the West. Maybe it's not too late to collectively clean up the mess as much as possible or at least limit the virus to spread further...

[quote="jumpy"]
All of this is symptomatic of the breakdown in relations between communities and within communities. [/quote="jumpy"]

Yep, and I personally dont think we natives are primarily to blame for the apartheid between natives and immigrants. However I do blame our hippy-politicans from the 60-ies onward for being grossly naive. Also the Iron Curtain has an extra negative dimension for me, for without it Europe would have obviously developed better. The massive need for an islamic labor force would no doubt have been much smaller.

In the core the problem we are having in the West with primarily 'our' muslims is:
For a muslim there is basically only one distinction in life: Allah's/Mohammed's set of rules and the infidel's 'living in sin' unapproved of by Allah (jews, christians, atheists etc.). Guess in which camp we natives are projected ? Now who is generalizing ? We can not fully trust the muslim communities. Our governments are finally making harsher policy. And let me tell Konovalov, that's not because Sixpack told the PM he should do something about the hate preaching imams who are abusing our basic rights to forward radical intolerant crap straight from Iran, SA, Marrocco and what have you.

And on a final note, that moron in my class: As a teacher I would not have him in my class after his gross insult which expressed volumes about his deeper feelings and disrespect toward non-muslims (this teacher is not doing this to make money). Maybe he'll make the headlines a few years from now, after obtaining his navigation certificate: "Terrorist cell hijacks oil tanker on the North Sea and blows it up in industrial "Europoort" Rotterdam".

Okay, that's enough from me for now. Have a nice day :sunny:

I fail to see how this is any different from what anyone else is doing. Christians believe you go to hell if you don't accept Christ as your saviour, but that doesn't mean they bear this in mind when socializing with non-Christians. The same applies to Muslims: it's not like they look down on their non-Muslim neighbours and think, "you're gonna FRY, wretch". They are people, just like us. Sure, there are Muslims who have a disdain for non-Muslims, just as there are Christians who have a disdain for non-Christians. But I wager they're in a minority in both camps.

I still don't see what he said that was so insulting. His statement was in reaction to something he did not think possible, and in that light I find it perfectly reasonable. How would you react if a Satanist told you he had dinner with the Pope dressed in full goth attire?

Furthermore, it is a teacher's job to educate, not discriminate. Prejudice in a teacher is the worst kind, and as a teacher let me say that you won't last long if you bruise easy. I cannot sympathize with your decision to refuse to teach anyone based on your personal feelings of toward an individual. If you are unable to establish positive contact, fine - give him another teacher. But to exclude someone because of ego is not something a good teacher would do. Shouldn't you rather feel all the more motivated to teach him? What is a teacher if he doesn't improve people?

"People like me"? I thought you were the champion of civil discussion here, I guess you don't practice what you preach. FYI you have no clue what or who i'd tolerate or welcome in my country so don't try to act like you do.

Probably a lot more than you are willing to believe. Heck we won't even target people that look middle eastern at our airport security because racial profiling is against the law.

That was true at one time but if you're willing to look back far enough you could also find examples of Christians burning accused witches at the stake. That doesn't make it valid in the modern sense though.

Define "they" Mister Expert. Are you talking about the Muslim terrorist or Muslim businessman, Muslim college student attending western universities, Muslim breadmaker or Muslim Politician/member of their nobility?

Nothing, not a McDonalds, rerun of the Simpsons or a single bottle of Coca Cola makes it into those countries without the blessing of their rulers. If anyone is imposing "our" (another overgeneralization) way of life on "them" it's their own people, not "us".

I apologize, the sentence was ill-phrased. I honestly didn't mean to offend, but there's not many ways to write "people like you" without it sounding offensive. Please allow me to rephrase myself: There are plenty of people who, like you, only tolerate them as far as you're bound by law. And you have to admit, you have said plenty in this thread alone to demonstrate your lack of tolerance for Islam and its followers.

EDIT: I'm terribly sorry, I just checked and realized that it was SixPack, not you, who started this thread. Because of your post-counts your avatars are the same, and I'm used to recognizing forumites by their avatars. My bad.

I get the feeling from your words here that if it was up to you, there would be. And I know there are many who would welcome it. Governments tend to be more level-headed than the people they govern, though. I remember immediately after 911, anyone with a turban was a murderer, and some (I grant you, not many to my knowledge) mosques were attacked. But Bush had to make a public statement almost immediately telling America that such retribution was not tolerated.


Didn't say it was, mate. But on the same token, the "infidel" cliché isn't valid for all Muslims, either.

By "they" I naturally mean those who want to - or feel the need to - fight back. That bill fits eg. the Al Qaeda, the Iranian government and anyone who believes their propaganda.

When it comes to those examples, then yes. But Iraq was, for example, subject to a debilitating embargo which caused a humanitarian crisis, plus they had little alternative but to trade its oil with the West. Sure you may argue that "Saddam started it", but the average Iraqi citizen just knew where the embargo came from.

No problem i've nearly done the same thing myself more than once.

Well you're wrong. Racial profiling is a bad thing because of its potential for abuse. On the other hand in our zeal to avoid any appearance of such impropriety our airport security wastes valuable time and resources strip searching little old ladies, members of Congress and detaining octegenarian retired Airforce general, medal of honor winners from Texas. All i'd want is to see is some common sense applied when selecting which airline passengers should be scrutinized more closely.

Here in Providence, on 9-11, a couple of hours after the attack, the cops detained a Sikh for a short time, reportedly because of the ceremonial knife he was carrying, but more likely because of his appearance, primarily the turban he was wearing, so there is some truth in that. However, some over reactions on the part of individuals is just human nature and is to be expected in any emergency situation. The true test is how the government and people as a whole deal and discourage such things.

On the whole I thought the US did a good job of respecting the rights of Muslims throughout that entire period. Contrast that with an unsubstanciated report of disrespecting a Koran by a Guantanamo guard that results in mass riots and demonstrations by 10s of thousands across the middle east, resulting in the death and injury of westerners who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Unfortunately it's valid for enough of them that organizations like al quaeda and others are tolerated and recieve fairly large amounts of support, right up to and including at the governmental level.

I disagree. Saddam did more than start it, he deliberately created that humanitarian crisis in order to put pressure on the west, by redirecting and withholding the humanitarian aid the west was rendering to ease the suffering of the Iraq people. Far from blaming the coalition, I think Iraqi citizens like the Kurds and the Shiites knew exactly who was the real cause of their misery.

I think that this discussion is missing an important point: Not all the muslims are the same. You can't say that automatically all muslims do this or that just because the Iranian president said that nonesense, or because Al Qaeda commited the horrible terrorism acts they did. Even if the muslim doctrine (And I must remember here that there are several different interpretations of Quran) said this all, you should at least distinguish between those who follow it strictly and those who don't.

Come on guys, one of the most terrible errors one can commit is to put a large group of people in the same bag and label them independently of their daily behaviour. :nope: The fact that the Iranian president is an as***ole doesn't mean that literally thousands of muslims who live among us here in Europe are potential terrorists.....

Be more reasonable. The first thing the radicals want you all to do is see an enemy in every muslim. That way they can recruit more terrorists, grown up by that hate. Do not follow that game!! :stare:

Neal Stevens wrote:

If Vietnam and Korea wars did not trigger a nuclear war between US and USSR, this will not do. Unlike in that cold war era, China and US are mutually dependant and will not enter a direct conflict easily. And in any case, nuclear weapons are always last resource for the looser in case his homeland is theratened. But the US would never dare think about invading China. It would be impossibel to control that country....

I believe we are nowadays safer from the nuclear danger than ever since Hiroshima & Nagasaki :yep: .

I think you hit the nail on the head here my friend....maybe sooner...


Matthew 24
[21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
[22] And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Where's my animated nuclear xplosion gif? >>>
http://www.aracing.tmfweb.nl/design/...xtremeNuke.gif

Here's my reason.

I'm sick and fed up quite frankly with this voice of reason that says what you say. Oh, not all muslims are the same, etc. Okey dokey, but they chose not to do anything about their radical 'collegues'. Well **** that. They are all the same than. Muslims, arabs (the ones that live 'over there in middle east') are probably the most racist nations there are. They used to be all about math and sciences thousands years ago, but now it's all about holy jihad against the Infidels.

And if they aren't waging jihad - they are quetly supporting it!!! Ok, on individual level people are different, unique and nice. But guess what - overall they give an impression of a nasty group of people who are anti christian, anti european, anti white, anti capitalist.. eh, of course, anti-jew. I'm sick of this political correctness bullsh*t when all we do is afraid to name the problem - muslim religion - and put the blame on people and countries that follow it - certain arab countries and arabs. It is a cultural clash. It is. Why do the arabs and muslims feel they are so important that they can come here to Europe for jobs that aren't there, dictate their laws, and get offended if they aren't allowed to pray in mosques. Go back to Arabia and do all you like, but if you go to European country - have some damn respect for the laws of that country, its religion, and its people. Afterall, they are that way in arab coutries. My friend worked there for Porsche dealership for a few months, and in general, it was like this "If you do this - you are screwed, If you look at woman - you are screwd, if you do that - you go to jail, and so on and on' (Dubai). So it beggs the question - why does a foreigner has to follow rules when coming to arabia, but they arabs when coming to Europe want to live in their own way anyway.

Sorry, pack the camels and get the hell out if you can't accept local laws. If someone doesn't take a stand against this 'cultural' clash, there will be an all muslim world, no israel, and my kids will be writing right to left. Racist, anti-semitic, disrespectful to women, and inciting violence - that's Muslim religion in 2005. And I don't care what Koran says in the first part, because apparently, noone's reading it! Why is fascism not ok, but these bastards mullahs in UK are ok? Ship them all out to where they've come from.

That's concerning the lack of any inability to shut up this towelhead from Iran. Oh let's be politically correct and 'issue a diplomatic nota'. Bleh. They are laughing their arses off right now at all this 'international outrage'. We are so much in the pre WW2 state where everyone was afraid to say anything to Hitler. The one that was bluffing like hell.

PS> I lived among arbas and muslims. And I interracted with many. So I'm not JUST using some 'common' stereotype before you brand me as racist. I'm not. I base my view on real life experienes.

Finally, wihtout ever getting into history, OMG what has the TINY Israel done to piss off so many arab nations that they want it gone!!! Ok, the US is big and got armies all over the world, sponsoring governtment revolutions, overthrowing dictators, interferering pretty much into every countries policies, but for the life of me, why the tiny Israel causes so much hatred! They haven't nuked anyone, haven't killed 1000000million people in death camps.... All the seemingly have done is (arguably) displaced a small tiny nation, and kicked some ass in the 60s. And they are sponsored by US. And they like to eat Kosher food. I've never heard a single logic reason behind why Israel is so bad. All I see is unshaven, dirty men, screaming out of their lungs and burning flags, but how can such small nation cause so much hatred is beyond my understanding. Surely something theat happened 2000 years ago isn't a reason for it.

So in conclusion - they are all idiots. They have tons of natural resources, yet they live in mud houses. That's gotta be our fault. :nope:

PS: I have nothing against you, Konovalov.

[quote="Type941"]I'm sick and fed up quite frankly with this voice of reason that says what you say. Oh, not all muslims are the same, etc. Okey dokey, but they chose not to do anything about their radical 'collegues'.[quote]

What do you expect them to do? What can they do? After a bombing caused by Muslim radicals, the Muslims are always the first to denounce it. I have noticed this gets very little media coverage, though, and takes up even less space in people's memories. I've heard people say, "if they don't approve of these suicide bombers, why don't they speak up against it?" Then I point to various news articles demonstrating that they do just that, and the argument becomes, "well, of course they say they're against it," implying that "that's what any guilty person would do". No matter what the law-abiding Muslims do, they can't win, because the media invariably focuses on the Muslims that hate the West. You'll never see a headline about Muslims who never do anything wrong. That wouldn't sell papers, and it's not news. So people are given the false impression that we're infested with terrorists. People can't see the forest for bare trees.

What more than denounce the atrocities can Muslims do, anyway? The ones living in the west have no power of any kind in Muslim countries, and even those living in Muslim countries can do little to weed out terrorist organizations and aggressive nations like Iran. How can the Algerian people stop the Iranian government?

"Anyone who runs is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC." :roll:

And whose fault is that? The media. Individually, none of us have enough first-hand experience to form an educated opinion on Muslims as a whole.

Certain things are illegal here, certain things are illegal there. And particularly considering the totalitarian regimes of such countries as Iran, are you surprised? And maybe that's why they're here in the first place, to escape oppression?

There is no basis for blaming it squarely on religion. All over the world, religious practice is influenced greatly by culture. And not all things associated with Islam has anything to do with religion, either. The burka, for instance. The Qaran does not tell women to cover up, that's purely a cultural thing. I've asked about the reason, and was given this reply: "We cover up our women because as everybody knows, the man is weak to the pleasures of the flesh. Showing too much is just inviting men to temptation."

And why shouldn't they be allowed to pray in mosques, anyway? Christians can pray in churches. There's supposed to be religious freedom in the West, so it is their right.

You just argued my point, there. "I don't care what the Koran says in the first part, because apparently, noone's reading it!" Then how can you blame it on Islam, if Islam is not being followed? Those negative things you mention are all culturally dependant, and are created by custom - not religion. Culture dictates religion, not the other way around, which is observed in Christian practice as well. Here in Norway, we traditionally place a bowl of porridge in the barn on Xmas eve for Santa (a pre-Christian ritual where we would sacrifice to the family's ancestral spirit). In Japan they crucify Santa. If religion was such a uniform thing, we would see uniform behaviour all over Europe and all over the US as a result, but we don't. It's not Christianity's fault if its teachings are not being followed, so why blame Islam when people are not following Islam?


That's the problem, you base your views on your experiences. But I've had different experiences than you have, so how can you use yours to generalize? Londoners are Englishmen, but are all Englishmen like Londoners? If one has only been to London, that's the impression one would get, but it's not accurate.

There you have it, right there. First of all, naturally Muslim nations are going to side with Palestine. Then they see the mighty US supporting Israel. Not to mention the way modern Israel was founded. I can understand why Muslims would be upset, especially because of the US support.

Re: New president IRAN: Wipe Israel of face of the earth !
 

Wise words, Avon Lady!

We might understand the relation between the three religions involved a little bit better when we generalize a little bit and consider this:

The Jewish religion has strict rules and commands for everydays life. It is not a missionary religion.
The Christian religion was in the very beginning not much more but the Jewish religion, accepting Christ as the Messiah and adapted for non-Jews.
It dropped the rules (Love fullfils the Law) of Judaism. Because of its target group it is a missionary religion. It was a minority religion in a vast state; the Roman Empire.
The Islam came about 600 years later. It was the religion of a small Arab tribe in a stateless desert. It much from the other two religions, like a strict set of rules and commands from Judaism and the missionary character from Christianity.

Furthermore we should realise that mankind tends to fight between themselves and that it is an interesting but unsolved question whether religion promotes fighting or limits fighting that would have happened anyway...

Judaism had no interest of spreading all over the glode and converting others. It basicly says: Let us alone and we won't bother you. Under that condition religious Jews are quite capable to integrate in other and modern societies. In their own country, Israel, they fight of course fierce battles about the relation between State and Religion.

Christianity could spread over much of the globe without too many problems and violence (some mostly state-induced, but still surprisingly little) because one could convert in one's soul and continue living as an integrated part of one's historic society. Just stick to the Ten Commands and accept the authority of the state, as long as it gives you the basic freedoms that Christianity needs. This finally led to the modern concept on separation between State and Church, to the benefit of both.

Islam is missionary but imposes a strict set of rules upon others, the Sharia, the strict Quranic law. Since Islam was conceived in a stateless society it has some state-like features itself: the Sharia supersedes all local legal systems, the Islam is foreign to the principle of separation between State and Church (=religion). All this leads to a rather violent religion, violent in it's missionary drive and violent towards people with other believes and convictions.

Islam as such just does not fit into the modern world as we in the West know it. This causes frictions. Our basic attitude: "They can be here and believe whatever they want as long as they leave us alone" does not work. Islam is fundamental in it's strive towards a Caliphate where ever Muslims live. Modern Islam theologists and scolars have great difficulty with integrating the philosophy of Islam into Western society in a non-violent way and are not even sure that their concepts will be succesful. And modern Islamic scolars are a tiny, tiny minority in Islam.

There are only two solutions: Islam has to change drasticly to fit into our modern society, or our modern society has to change drasticly to fit into Islam.

Islam is NOT a missionary religion. The huge conquests into Africa and Europe were political, not religious. Strict rules were enforced, yes, but they would prefer people did not convert. It was easier to control them that way, because as non-Muslims they had fewer rights, and were not allowed to carry arms among other things. There was also the benefit of increased revenue from non-Muslims.

Of course, because Muslims enjoyed more rights than others, people did convert - but no one was by any means forced.