Protect the UK, please sign.

Or we can disagree in agreement

The refugees are fleeing ISIS. The same idiots and bullies who wanted to close borders for 'economic' reasons of being paranoid bigots will now want to close them for 'security' reasons of being paranoid bigots.

Now, this post is a case in point:

sukmytoe wrote: To me it boils down to a numbers game. If 2 million people enter Europe as refugees and as little as 1 in a hundred of those people is a plant then I end up with 20000 potential terrorists in Europe. That is horrific when you think of the potential danger to us people loving, peace loving, love your brother. help your brother individuals. When Western children are murdered, Western homes are torched and Western ideology is made irrelevant then who will we all blame? Further than that - not now but in 50 years time - our grandchildren could well be living in an Islam dominated Europe because they will and do procreate more children than the typical Western family does. If I can have more than 1 wife because my culture tells me that I can then I will have more children than you will. My question in that possible future scenario is where is Israel then and because of that where is everything that I have held dear and believed in then? The refugees couldn't have been taken in by other Moslem dominated countries? Ask yourselves some serious questions and you may arrive at some serious answers perhaps.

One in a hundred refugees being terrorists is an extraordinary statistic to pull out of your arse. I see your loving semantics are couched in how the good people are 'Western'. I know a lot of British c**ts. Some of them are in parliament.

The breeding rates argument is peculiar as anything. Bigamy is still illegal in the UK, so that doesn't hold up. The same arguments about bigger families apply to the British working class (and have usually been used to justify eugenics programs of one sort or another historically) and are continually used to strip away the rights and privileges of British citizens.

The Europe and in particular the Britain I'm proud of is the one that's opened itself up and is multicultural and has wonderful people from all over. f**k people like you who want to destroy that every bit as much as ISIS do (and incidentally, who have a far better chance of doing so).


Edited by TGM: Orb - November 19 2015 at 16:57

The T wrote: RayRo wrote: Absolutely, and I will pay more attention to the Maher show to get a better insight to his views on Islam, as it seems that I may be mistaken.  I'm not going to say he loves Islam. And a quick watch of a program might give one the idea that he is an islamophobe,. I just think he is a religion-phobe in general and Islam is the current (of the last few years I mean, not just recently) target because of, well, obvious reasons.

I  would like to add that Maher has shown little tolerance for religions as a whole. It is the right of an American citizen to hold religious beliefs and to practice them. Even though I am a staunch atheist, I defend any citizen's right to hold these beliefs.

Dean wrote: RayRo wrote: The T wrote: RayRo wrote: Absolutely, and I will pay more attention to the Maher show to get a better insight to his views on Islam, as it seems that I may be mistaken.  I'm not going to say he loves Islam. And a quick watch of a program might give one the idea that he is an islamophobe,. I just think he is a religion-phobe in general and Islam is the current (of the last few years I mean, not just recently) target because of, well, obvious reasons.  I  would like to add that Maher has shown little tolerance for religions as a whole. It is the right of an American citizen to hold religious beliefs and to practice them. Even though I am a staunch atheist, I defend any citizen's right to hold these beliefs. Hmm. You don't need to have tolerance for someone's beliefs to defend their right to hold said beliefs; conversely you don't have to defend anyone's right to hold religious beliefs to have tolerance for those beliefs. Similarly, you don't have to respect those beliefs to have tolerance of them or to defend anyone's right to hold them. Also, tolerance of someone's beliefs does not validate their beliefs. Tolerance simply means non-interference in someone's right to hold a belief, it does not mean you cannot be critical of them.

To get off the PC train for a moment, religions do have, and have had, socially redeemable values. Mr. Maher, for all his enlightened views, fails to even acknowledge that. His dislike of religions strays too far into fanaticism at times and it's religious fanaticism that Maher constantly attacks.

Dean wrote: RayRo wrote: To get off the PC train for a moment, religions do have, and have had, socially redeemable values. Mr. Maher, for all his enlightened views, fails to even acknowledge that. His dislike of religions strays too far into fanaticism at times and it's religious fanaticism that Maher constantly attacks. On these grounds, I feel that my criticism of Mr. Maher is justified. You don't have to acknowledge a things good points to attack its bad points. When a set of beliefs interferes with someone else's beliefs (i.e., it show intolerance) then being critical of that intolerance can in turn look like intolerance.

I agree with you. However, if someone's views are not challenged, then how does one enact change?

TGM: Orb wrote: The refugees are fleeing ISIS. The same idiots and bullies who wanted to close borders for 'economic' reasons of being paranoid bigots will now want to close them for 'security' reasons of being paranoid bigots. Now, this post is a case in point: sukmytoe wrote: To me it boils down to a numbers game. If 2 million people enter Europe as refugees and as little as 1 in a hundred of those people is a plant then I end up with 20000 potential terrorists in Europe. That is horrific when you think of the potential danger to us people loving, peace loving, love your brother. help your brother individuals. When Western children are murdered, Western homes are torched and Western ideology is made irrelevant then who will we all blame? Further than that - not now but in 50 years time - our grandchildren could well be living in an Islam dominated Europe because they will and do procreate more children than the typical Western family does. If I can have more than 1 wife because my culture tells me that I can then I will have more children than you will. My question in that possible future scenario is where is Israel then and because of that where is everything that I have held dear and believed in then? The refugees couldn't have been taken in by other Moslem dominated countries? Ask yourselves some serious questions and you may arrive at some serious answers perhaps.    One in a hundred refugees being terrorists is an extraordinary statistic to pull out of your arse. I see your loving semantics are couched in how the good people are 'Western'. I know a lot of British c**ts. Some of them are in parliament. The breeding rates argument is peculiar as anything. Bigamy is still illegal in the UK, so that doesn't hold up. The same arguments about bigger families apply to the British working class (and have usually been used to justify eugenics programs of one sort or another historically) and are continually used to strip away the rights and privileges of British citizens. The Europe and in particular the Britain I'm proud of is the one that's opened itself up and is multicultural and has wonderful people from all over. f**k people like you who want to destroy that every bit as much as ISIS do (and incidentally, who have a far better chance of doing so). (Where's Israel? You know that Israel was founded by extremists, its political leaders had a long history of being drawn from former terrorist groups and it still has a national day of celebration for a terrorist bombing in which British, Arab and Jewish civilians were murdered... I may not be a fan but I don't feel the need to lash out at people who aren't part of that political state)

Mate - you are a little acid in your comments to what was essentially a thought pattern from me. I will though for your "benefit" go a little further because you seem to be a bit of a moron using the kind of language that you do and the kind of slights that you do.
I have a very good friend who is Muslim who very pointedly warned me that I must not ever believe that I have friends among the Muslim community because I am seen to be beneath them as I do not believe in the same God that they do. It is all smoke and mirrors. All of it. Look at Slavery today - do you know that it is alive and well and do you know where it is alive and well? Probably not because of where you keep your head. Look at the woman and children trafficking problem. Look at the fact that young girls are stoned to death by their own families for the crime of adultery simply because they were raped. Look at men who have their hands chopped off for stealing a loaf of bread purely to feed their children. You enjoy that and you obviously condone it as you condone the fact that Christianity is being eroded by people who believe that saying morning prayers in school to a Christian God offends Muslims. Wearing a crucifix visibly while working for an airline that is visible is proven to be offensive to "other" religions" that wear their own religious regalia as they please. Kind of wake up - oh and stop using the kind of verbal garbage insults that you do - it proves who and what you are without me having to make judgement.

For you - http://qpolitical.com/someone-said-muslims-bad-woman-delivers-amazing-response/



Edited by sukmytoe - November 20 2015 at 16:56

sukmytoe wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: The refugees are fleeing ISIS. The same idiots and bullies who wanted to close borders for 'economic' reasons of being paranoid bigots will now want to close them for 'security' reasons of being paranoid bigots. Now, this post is a case in point: sukmytoe wrote: To me it boils down to a numbers game. If 2 million people enter Europe as refugees and as little as 1 in a hundred of those people is a plant then I end up with 20000 potential terrorists in Europe. That is horrific when you think of the potential danger to us people loving, peace loving, love your brother. help your brother individuals. When Western children are murdered, Western homes are torched and Western ideology is made irrelevant then who will we all blame? Further than that - not now but in 50 years time - our grandchildren could well be living in an Islam dominated Europe because they will and do procreate more children than the typical Western family does. If I can have more than 1 wife because my culture tells me that I can then I will have more children than you will. My question in that possible future scenario is where is Israel then and because of that where is everything that I have held dear and believed in then? The refugees couldn't have been taken in by other Moslem dominated countries? Ask yourselves some serious questions and you may arrive at some serious answers perhaps.    One in a hundred refugees being terrorists is an extraordinary statistic to pull out of your arse. I see your loving semantics are couched in how the good people are 'Western'. I know a lot of British c**ts. Some of them are in parliament. The breeding rates argument is peculiar as anything. Bigamy is still illegal in the UK, so that doesn't hold up. The same arguments about bigger families apply to the British working class (and have usually been used to justify eugenics programs of one sort or another historically) and are continually used to strip away the rights and privileges of British citizens. The Europe and in particular the Britain I'm proud of is the one that's opened itself up and is multicultural and has wonderful people from all over. f**k people like you who want to destroy that every bit as much as ISIS do (and incidentally, who have a far better chance of doing so). (Where's Israel? You know that Israel was founded by extremists, its political leaders had a long history of being drawn from former terrorist groups and it still has a national day of celebration for a terrorist bombing in which British, Arab and Jewish civilians were murdered... I may not be a fan but I don't feel the need to lash out at people who aren't part of that political state) Mate - you are a little acid in your comments to what was essentially a thought pattern from me. I will though for your "benefit" go a little further because you seem to be a bit of a moron using the kind of language that you do and the kind of slights that you do. I have a very good friend who is Muslim who very pointedly warned me that I must not ever believe that I have friends among the Muslim community because I am seen to be beneath them as I do not believe in the same God that they do. It is all smoke and mirrors. All of it. Look at Slavery today - do you know that it is alive and well and do you know where it is alive and well? Probably not because of where you keep your head. Look at the woman and children trafficking problem. Look at the fact that young girls are stoned to death by their own families for the crime of adultery simply because they were raped. Look at men who have their hands chopped off for stealing a loaf of bread purely to feed their children. You enjoy that and you obviously condone it as you condone the fact that Christianity is being eroded by people who believe that saying morning prayers in school to a Christian God offends Muslims. Wearing a crucifix visibly while working for an airline that is visible is proven to be offensive to "other" religions" that wear their own religious regalia as they please. Kind of wake up - oh and stop using the kind of verbal garbage insults that you do - it proves who and what you are without me having to make judgement. For you - http://qpolitical.com/someone-said-muslims-bad-woman-delivers-amazing-response/

In 1933, which side do you think you'd have been on?

You sit there on your high horse about language and insults and then dare to suggest I 'enjoy' the existence of rape and corporal punishment. I'm aware of our own abysmal prosecution rates for sexual offences and that the British public would bring back hanging if it could, so I condemn the evil and the perpetrators rather than becoming a dribbling xenophobic c**t.

Now, still unanswered from your original post:

Your implication that one in a hundred refugees are terrorists is strange and unsubstantiated, your arguments about breeding rates are more or less the same ones that Yeats leveled at the working class back in the 20s. They're the same ones Keith Joseph used to advocate eugenics on the working class which ended his chances of leading the Conservatives.

Do you care to defend either of these assertions?

And your new notions:

I clearly have very different experiences of British Muslims to you.

Slavery is absolutely evil, as are all forms of exploitation and should be opposed wherever it's found. The de facto slavery of many (Muslim) Rohingya by Buddhists in southern Thailand is also something you should be concerned about, as are the continual attempts to erode workers' rights in the UK and across Europe.

Trafficking problems are absolutely not exclusive to Islamic countries - look at Mexico, for instance. Yes, many Islamic countries have horrendous, unacceptable laws and extralegal practices but the laws and practices are absolutely not uniform across the Muslim world (and not unique to it, either, I'm afraid). Treat states on their own merits.

Now, on your 'erosion of Christian culture' bit. I don't believe anyone is genuinely offended by crucifixes - the airline case you refer to was entirely a matter of corporate idiocy (not of anti-Christian complaints by Muslims) and the lady in question was vindicated by the ECHR. By contrast, the ECHR upheld France's ban on the burqa. You'd (luckily for you) have to be a complete idiot to interpret that as some kind of systematic discrimination against Christians.

The thing that really gets me about people arguing about the 'erosion' of Christian culture is that the people who say that generally don't *know* anything about Christian culture. This is purely anecdotal, based on every t**t I've ever known to say anything like that but they don't know the folksongs, they don't tell or listen to stories, they generally aren't anything to do with the church, they've not read the Iliad, the Mabinogion or even Chaucer unless they were made to at school; they've usually not even read the Bible. In short, they don't have any part in the culture that's happening now or the long and beautiful history of that culture and they ask why 'Christian' culture is receding?

RayRo wrote: Dean wrote: RayRo wrote: To get off the PC train for a moment, religions do have, and have had, socially redeemable values. Mr. Maher, for all his enlightened views, fails to even acknowledge that. His dislike of religions strays too far into fanaticism at times and it's religious fanaticism that Maher constantly attacks. On these grounds, I feel that my criticism of Mr. Maher is justified. You don't have to acknowledge a things good points to attack its bad points. When a set of beliefs interferes with someone else's beliefs (i.e., it show intolerance) then being critical of that intolerance can in turn look like intolerance. I agree with you. However, if someone's views are not challenged, then how does one enact change?   There are two ways Maher can go with his views. He either see that his views are extreme and change them, or he can simply continue to hold and express them.   Questioning someone's views is not fanaticism if based on the actions of that individual. Fanaticism would only manifest itself in censoring Mr. Maher. Mr. Maher has the right to say what he wants. Just as I have the right to question what he says.    This is not fanaticism. This is the cornerstone of the rights of individuals to act in a free society.

Edited by Dean - November 21 2015 at 03:55

Exactly, all this prattling on about what IS really stands for is like banging your head against the wall. Well, maybe it's useful in keeping moderates from crossing over to the other side of the fence.