Sobering thoughts on the Pakistani convert case
- Thread starter GeoffP
- Start date
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
GeoffP said:
I have gathered a list of quotes from Geoff which show is obvious bigotry and racism towards Islam and Muslim people. Among these include some false charges on Muslims. It is better to regard everthing from this known hater as false, and confirm with me if you have any questions.
Peace.
GeoffP:
And conquering non-islamic neighbours, and massacring them if they resist, and forcibly converting them, and stealing their possessions - oh, yes. "Justice and honour", indeed.
Well I grant you that no islamic society has no multiculturalism, since anyone behaving too 'multiculturally' is apparently some kind of threat to the islamic state (according to Diamond) and typically gets thrown in jail or shot. I don't see that as a very humanitarian solution, however.
That congressman was discussing the concept of retaliation, and it's a good one. If a islamic terrorist group were to nuke an American or Western city, I think I would also approve the destruction of Mecca - this is called detente.
Further still: if your idea of a perfect society is Iran, Afghanistan and bloody Pakistan, then it is clear that islam should be stopped in all nations, everywhere.
This is part and parcel of the ingrained concept of islamic supremacy running throught the ummah; any retaking of conquered islamic land, any conversion from islam to any other religion, any questioning of islam is seen as a loss, a backward movement in a vast war in the name of Mohammed.
She's a Nazi, basically, and she probably subscribes to the other old islamic notion that anywhere islam is impeded from spreading (defined, of course, however one likes presumably) that war must ensue.
I'm sure islam punishes paedophilia - but the actions of Mohammed and the writings of the Ayatollah also condone it.
I submit that it is Allah and islam that is a 'clear enemy'. It is certainly the clearest enemy I can see of wisdom, knowledge and freedom.
Diamond screams for tolerance and acceptance while accepting nothing, tolerating nothing.
"The Blood Libel", for those who've never heard of it, is the old islamic slander against Jewish people”
Wow - and Iran is the model for Diamond's realization of "real islam, real sharia".
I suspect her belief in the "peace" of islam there is founded on the supremacy of islam.
Your cite means that you should wash after touching a non-believer the same as if you stuck your hand in a jar of urine. Who would be offended by that?
The new trend when faced by facts about islam they don't like appears to be for islamofacists like Diamond to retreat into their shells and plead discrimination and bias.
I wonder how GeoffP will defend himself now..
I will start my defense against her slander with a direct complaint to the person responsible for the management of this topic area: your accusation of racism is utterly unfounded, libelous, small-minded and perverse. It is incorrect and insulting and it will not stand.
Second: I openly challenge you to indicate where in any of those statements my "racism" exists. Your list comprises statements of my distrust of islam, but nothing about muslims, so essentially your posting comprises cherry-picked, disconnected statements of opinion by myself. Your attempt to attach the label "racist" to them indicates that you have only a tenuous grip on the concept, and rather are willing to use "any attack necessary" to accomplish by intimidation what you cannot accomplish through rationality, or argumentation. Your use of the word leaves much to be desired.
And more to the point: if I had posted arguments against Christianity, would that then be evidence to accuse me of racism? Of course not. Christians are of no particular race. What 'race' are muslims meant to be then? Arabs only? Need any others apply?
My responses in the above are all dictated by direct contact with an islamic fascist hiding under the masquerade of "DiamondHearts": an apt name, as it describes her unremitting hard-heartedness and - in conjunction with her motto "By any means necessary" - describes her objectives on the forum, and her willingness to use any means to hand.
If they strike anyone - anyone - reading this as hateful, cruel or unjustified, recall that each and every one was generated in dutiful argument with an admitted oppressor, an islamofascist who would submit her own child for state-sanctioned murder for the "crime" of religious freedom of choice, to say nothing of her interpretation of homosexuality; a woman, I note, who despises homosexuals and Westerners jointly to the point that she once wished the West was composed of nothing but homosexuals, so that we would all "die out". A fine tolerant spectacle of a person. To wit then, she would also as easily have three fine, tolerant women that I knew personally killed - should they have been so unfortunate as to be in a muslim country - merely because they left islam. I wonder what my penalty would have been, seeing as I was partly instrumental in acting as a sounding board so that they could do so. The thought of Diamond and her ilk getting their hands on those good people is repulsive and nauseating.
Does she have any defense - indeed, has she ever had any - against the above facts?
Thus, contrary to DH's claims, I believe that all comments from her should be taken exactly as they are written - death to apostates, death to homosexuals, suppression of minority religions in islamic countries - and that, specifically, her refusal to respond to questions or criticisms of her "perfect religion" should be interpreted exactly as they appear: avoidance. So: she has an apology to make; or else she could prove her ridiculous hypothesis with argumentation and evidence - two tools which I note she has been loathe to use thus far.
It is the height of gall and ignorance for DiamondHearts to condemn me for her own religious bigotry but, well - hope springs eternal.
Geoff
Second: I openly challenge you to indicate where in any of those statements my "racism" exists. Your list comprises statements of my distrust of islam, but nothing about muslims, so essentially your posting comprises cherry-picked, disconnected statements of opinion by myself. Your attempt to attach the label "racist" to them indicates that you have only a tenuous grip on the concept, and rather are willing to use "any attack necessary" to accomplish by intimidation what you cannot accomplish through rationality, or argumentation. Your use of the word leaves much to be desired.
And more to the point: if I had posted arguments against Christianity, would that then be evidence to accuse me of racism? Of course not. Christians are of no particular race. What 'race' are muslims meant to be then? Arabs only? Need any others apply?
My responses in the above are all dictated by direct contact with an islamic fascist hiding under the masquerade of "DiamondHearts": an apt name, as it describes her unremitting hard-heartedness and - in conjunction with her motto "By any means necessary" - describes her objectives on the forum, and her willingness to use any means to hand.
If they strike anyone - anyone - reading this as hateful, cruel or unjustified, recall that each and every one was generated in dutiful argument with an admitted oppressor, an islamofascist who would submit her own child for state-sanctioned murder for the "crime" of religious freedom of choice, to say nothing of her interpretation of homosexuality; a woman, I note, who despises homosexuals and Westerners jointly to the point that she once wished the West was composed of nothing but homosexuals, so that we would all "die out". A fine tolerant spectacle of a person. To wit then, she would also as easily have three fine, tolerant women that I knew personally killed - should they have been so unfortunate as to be in a muslim country - merely because they left islam. I wonder what my penalty would have been, seeing as I was partly instrumental in acting as a sounding board so that they could do so. The thought of Diamond and her ilk getting their hands on those good people is repulsive and nauseating.
Does she have any defense - indeed, has she ever had any - against the above facts?
Thus, contrary to DH's claims, I believe that all comments from her should be taken exactly as they are written - death to apostates, death to homosexuals, suppression of minority religions in islamic countries - and that, specifically, her refusal to respond to questions or criticisms of her "perfect religion" should be interpreted exactly as they appear: avoidance. So: she has an apology to make; or else she could prove her ridiculous hypothesis with argumentation and evidence - two tools which I note she has been loathe to use thus far.
It is the height of gall and ignorance for DiamondHearts to condemn me for her own religious bigotry but, well - hope springs eternal.
Geoff
Bells
Staff member
As an atheist, I actually found this to be quite interesting. Diamond, you are quite correct that you do not have to make yourself and your religion and your laws acceptable to anyone else. This is something that many people seem to have a problem with. I am an atheist and that is acceptable to me and only me. I do not expect other people to follow my points of view or to stop believing in any God.DiamondHearts said:
To those of you who demand justice for an injustice you deem exists due to the fact that this religion exists and has it's own justice system.. Why do you demand answers to questions that cannot be answered? Why do you demand that people of differing belief systems and legal systems believe and act as you do? Are we in the West any less guilty than the Afghan Government in this case? Lets see shall we.
A person of the Muslim faith living in the West under Western laws has to undergo racial profiling because they are Muslim. Many face constant abuse against their rights in the "free West" because of their beliefs. Women of the Muslim faith living in the West face a constant barrage for wearing a hijab because it does not fit into the Western notion of what people should wear. Many children living in the free US attending certain public schools are forced to endure arguments about the schools forcing children to state the Lord's Prayer and being forced to learn about the Christian beliefs of how the world and we as humans came into existence. Muslims are constantly monitored and watched because they are Muslim. Muslims living in the West are repeatedly given the message that they will be treated differently by the law, government and society because they are Muslim, all while placing Christianity on a pedastal. Now they are free to be Muslim, but they just can't be free to be free Muslims and practice their faith and their belief as they so wish.
The only difference between Afghanistan and US (as an example of a Western country) in the way they treat people of other faiths is that Afghanistan is more open in their hate and disregard. The West does it in a more subtle and hypocritical way.
Bells said:
You're honestly comparing the US with Afghanistan? A nation where people have the right to refuse any or all religion and join or leave any with a nation which wants to kill people for leaving islam. Just for leaving it. Are you serious?
Holy hell. I'm a secularist too but let's ease up on the moral ambiguity, ok? No one's EVER threatened to decapitate me because I didn't sign up, and I have NEVER experienced any discrimination because of my religious beliefs. In fact, in the field I work, it's normally the other way around - that is, discrimination against Christians, and let me tell you, it's pretty damn near universal. Not muslims, funnily enough, although islam can undoubtedly be said to be more extreme.
I might also ask you: at what point did Americans suddenly get so suspicious of islam? It wouldn't be after some islamofascist lunatics crashed planes into a pair of Towers, or after the West started taking more of an interest in humanitarian issues in islamic countries, now would it?
Geoff
Bells
Staff member
The subtleties do exist. Yes you have a right to refuse any or all religions, but what then? You're saying that people who claim to be atheists aren't judged in the US? Right. I can tell you now that any politician that states he/she is an atheist will never ever be elected to office. You have a President who stated quite clearly that God told him it was right to attack Iraq. You have parents and State schools forcing children to learn intelligent design and bypassing evolution. You have a Government well supported and well funded by the right wing Christian movement. You have army generals showing images of shadows of helicopters in Iraq and claiming to their right wing christian audience that it was a muslim devil floating above the ground as an attempt to bolster support for the war. You have a country that states it exists as a democracy 'under God'. You have a government pushing for the High Court pushing for the Roe v Wade decision to be overturned because their religion views abortion as being evil. While the Muslim countries are open in their views, the US goes about it's Christian propoganda in a more subtle way.GeoffP said:
As I stated above and will state again. The discrimination is more subtle. The decapitation is not literal but social. Most people who are atheists do not tell others that they are atheist unless they know the person they are speaking to is also an atheist. No you won't be threatened with decapitation but you will be judged by those around you. Hell even half my family judges me for being an atheist and have told me quite plainly that I am evil, a heathen and will rot in hell. You're telling me that if someone running for office in your country states that they do not believe in God or any other sentient being, that your society would welcome them with open arms? They'd face a moral and social decapitation as they would not be elected and would probably receive no funding. Family members of right wing Christian nuts are at times threatened with death for leaving their religion and have to go into hiding out of fear. Others are ostracised and treated as outcasts.
In the scientific community, yes there is a universal discrimination against anyone who has a belief in a higher entity. And do not think that Islam is more extreme. Some Christians can make most Muslim extremists pale in comparison.
You're joking right? The US took a 'humanitarian' interest in Islamic countries? LOL! Lets look back at how well they've done so far with their 'humanitarian' interest... They have attempted several times to support and to put in place a Government that supports the American ideal, thereby ignoring what the people of those countries have wanted. And how well their attempts at 'humanitarian' intervention has gone so far. You're at war with 2 of the countries you've attempted to help through the guise of 'humanitarian' intervention and you're threatening war with a third.
Are you blind as to why they hate the West so much? The West's interference has not resulted in their countries and nations prospering as promised, but moving backwards. Your 'humanitarian' interest and interference appeared in the guise of putting in place and arming dictators that ran the countries into the ground, corruption, deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. And you think the people living in those countries should thank you and worship the ground your Government walks on? Your 'humanitarian' interest resulted in people learning to not trust the West because the West will attempt to enforce their ideals and their ways of living upon them, forcing them to go against their religious and cultural beliefs. Maybe it's time the West realised that people living in Islamic countries do not want to become like the West and wish to continue with their cultural and religious beliefs as they so choose. How do you think the US would feel if someone from an Asian, Islamic or African country attempted to dictate to the US about their humanitarian treatment of US citizens in the US?.. And believe me, the US should be taking an interest in their own humanitarian values and issues before attempting to dictate to others about their own because they US is not getting it right either.. again it's the pot calling the kettle black syndrome.. You would react in the same way as they are reacting to you.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
GeoffP said:
Your racism which you have shown is not only against Islam, but is much deeper as it reflects in your anti-Palestinian,Arab,Pakistani,Sudani feelings. You are not capable in discussing any topic which concerns Muslims or an ethnic group which is predominantly Muslim without engaging in hatred and bigotry against their culture, heritage, and religion. Your hatred of Islam is fed by your racist views.
GeoffP said:
And you have furthered a view that the Muslim Holy city of Makkah should be bombed, and engaged in constant bigotry against Palestinians denying their claim as a race, which is indeed a racist accusation.
GeoffP said:
I regard the supporting of the views of nuking Muslim city of Makkah and enagging in hatred and support of violence against Muslims generally, not just causes at all.
GeoffP said:
I would not personally engage in the killing of anyone, however if anyone in a state built to promote Islam pubicly declared conversion and engages in preaching, there should be a punishment (it depends on the situation, it does not have to be death). As far as homosexuals, I merely said they should be banned, I didn't say anyhting of killing them. Here you will say again that I IMPLIED something.
GeoffP said:
I was being sarcastic. Homosexuality is a danger to all people of all nations, but especially the West which is supporting and endorsing this. I am against the war-mongering power structure of the West (Bush, Blair, and their supporters), I do not have views of hatred toward the West, the majority of the Western people are not guilty for the crimes of their misguided leaders, unless they support them.
GeoffP said:
You are merely IMPLYING yet another thing. I would support the Islamic laws of an Islamic State if criminals wished to be lower public Islamic propagation among Muslims. This is the best argument he can come up with in his derfense. Christians, Jews, Hindus, I believe all have the right to practice their religion in an Islamic State and spread their religion among themselves, I also believe the Islamic State should allocate money to help them in this. I am however against allowing these people to convert people of the Islamic faith in an Islamic state to another religion. If a person decides to leave Islam, he should do so privately as not to disturb the public propagation of Islam in an Islamic State.
GeoffP said:
IMPLYING nonexistent facts is a consistent method of your deceptive strategy, this can be demonstrated by the fact that he has professed many times to know what I am thinking and I believe while I denied his statements. People interested in GeoffP's deceptions should visit the world events and politics forums and see how he argues with Mr. Brian Foley. He actually claimed that 'Blood Libel' against Jews is an old Islamic invention, while he later contradicted himself as he said it might be European in origin but Europeans have abandoned it. hahaha. How can a clown like this talk of facts?
GeoffP said:
I contradicted GeoffP's prophecy again as I have answered all these accusations above. I need not apologize, for I am correct in my views and it seems Geoff is getting pretty desperate.
GeoffP said:
Geoff here presents himself as some kind of guiltless angel, saying I condemn him because of my own views. I ask GeoffP, what makes him feel so much of his duty to condemn Islam, the Prophet (s), the Quran, Palestinians, Pakistanis, Sudanis, and basically anyhting or anyone that relates to Islam.
What makes Geoff so fearful of Islam and Muslims, why is he so frightened at the fact that anything good be said by Muslims without him offering commentary to try to prove that when they say something good, they are actually evil islamofascist.
If you want to know my real view, a general action would be to believe the exact opposite of what is presented by my stalker Geoff.
Also Geoff, I'm a man, not a woman. Seems Geoff is not as capable of reading minds as he makes others believe.
Also, to completely throw of Geoof in his argument,I will say I respect the religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Hindusism as religions which offer good teachings and respect for others.
Peace.
Bells said:
Until next election, maybe. Then it's back to lesbian midgets and cigar-orifice scandal.
Can't wait. Why do I vote Dem again? Why do I vote at all?
Err...huh?
Oh, unspecified-deity-to-whom-I-rhetorically appeal, it isn't that bad. Subtle? Maybe. Severe? No. Yes, there won't be a secular president for a while. Is that a bad thing? Maaaybe. There a body of people who are essentially religious, and they like their elected representatives to be religious too. They feel it has some moral advantage and for all I know they may be right. Do they shoot them if they're not religious? No. Do they send them to jail? No. Do their representatives have to be religious? No. But people prefer it if they are. Is that wrong? I don't know. Some people would say it's democracy in action.
Well I must admit, that's a new phrase on me. "Social decapitation". Tell you what; let 'em judge. Think I won't judge nutbars of whatever religion on their beliefs? Course I would. Doesn't mean I can't be friends with them. People are people and it strikes me as a pretty egalitarian field - if there are biases in opinion, they're randomly distributed. Equal opportunity. That's fair, or as close as fair will ever get.
Never been my experience; but, as you say.
And? Hell, my father used to judge me because I went Christian once; yelling, abuse at the old dinner table and all. And? Life goes on. Nothing's guaranteed fair, but here at least you have the right to believe what you bloody want, and even to prosetylize what you want, too. Does that mean you won't receive scorn? Of course you bloody will - any public expression of anything could be scorned too. If I ran around nude, I'd expect people to yell at me (and women to follow me
). Judging, scorn; all that is going to happen no matter what, so get used to it.It's a democracy, so it all depends. I don't think religious beliefs should be part of the equation, but at the same time religious nutbars are going to receive less support too from a variety of sectors. Is the local coalition of Mothers for the International Lesbian Front going to send checks to Pat Robertson? Nope. Is he going to solicit from them? Well, no. Are they going to solicit from the loonies who back him? Probably not. Maybe the entire system isn't just; but I'll still take that over Pakistan any day. There are inequalities in the system; but they're inequalities of reception, not of permission.*
But no one - no one - is legally entitled to kill them. That's the difference. They aren't going to jail for it. If people want to ostracize them - well, it's regrettable, and it shows lack of character and compassion and commitment, but it happens and it's hard to tell people not to react to things. It's the scope of the reaction that we can - and must - be allowed to control.
Better believe it. I know more than a few people who have to keep real quiet about their religion. It can impact a lot of things - who collaborates with you; what kind of preference you get in the department; even grant money can take a whack if the wrong people get wind of it. Dangerous, very dangerous.
Some Christian extremists might. But look at Diamond: she's an average member of her society. All kinds of people wanted that apostate put to death. There are riots in the street about cartoons. I'll take subtle with constitutionally protected rights over Pakistan or Afghanistan any day.
I am? People keep telling me I'm in some kind of war with someone. But I don't even own a gun! I seem to be unprepared.
First: stay on topic, please. First you're talking about the "subtle discrimination" of the West against muslims, then you're off on wars and destruction. We were talking about why Westerners regard islam with increasing suspicion, not about why islamic nations dislike Westerners.
Now, I'm not talking about the wars, which I don't support. I'm talking about the interest in humanitarian issues - like the killing of apostates and homosexuals, the overt oppression of religious minorities and women, and the complete separation of church and state in islamic nations, to say nothing of the apparent support for islamic supremacism and terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is a hero in all kinds of islamic nations. And he's a terrorist. That isn't good. There are imams all over Europe and the US preaching hate. What should we think about a religion like that?
No, not even a little: societal psychological impotence.
Hold it right there, Malcom X. Again, you're taking my statement on post 9/11 interest in humanitarian issues in islamic states and converting it so that you can use it against me on an entirely different subject.
Secondly: moving "backwards"?? How have these nations moved backwards as a result of any Western influence? Citizens of islamic nations today enjoy more rights because of civil rights influences from Western nations, not in spite of them.
Now, are they ruled by dictators? Many are. Wealth distribution in their nations is not at all equal; but those nations are also free to decide how they distribute wealth as they see fit. When Iranians overthrew the Shaw, things didn't suddenly take a turn for the better. If you want to assign some blame to the West for this, I would agree; but far from all of it.
OK, now we're back onto the actual ground. I have a phrase for this: too bad. They can either cease doing business with us altogether or accept that some of their cultural ideas are horribly, horribly wrong and must be stopped. You can call it cultural imperialism if you like; but murder is wrong. Period. I am not a relativist. Culture and glory and ummah and dhimmitude is all very well and good and glorious - unless you're the poor fucker at the bottom of the pack. Same goes for an earlier argument here on the haij - someone commented on how great it was, even when a few people got trampled. Well hey! sure it's great - as long as you're not the one underfoot. Lead dogs and trailing dogs, lead dogs and trailing dogs, mon ami.
This is akin to excusing the Holocaust on cultural grounds. "Well, everyone knows that Germans hate Jews, so we shouldn't stick our noses in. It's their belief system, after all." Come on. Moral relativism washes only so far. I'm not interested, nor would I support, the obliteration of anyone's religious practice - so long as they followed the Golden Rule. It's a good rule.
Well, they do. People everywhere exert political influence. It happens. Some of it is right: the poor deserve more protection, the capitalist system is a pile of dog barf, the environment is not right. Influence goes both ways, you know!: you just have to decide which is right and which is wrong.
True...but then again, the US is one of the only countries in the world where the poor own their own TV and get cable. Maybe that's economic luck, maybe good leadership, maybe exploitation. But - cold fact: murder in the name of religion is wrong. Sharia is wrong. There are those trying to export it here, and there, and everywhere. Exploitation of other nations can operate just as surely among islamic ones as non-islamic ones. Sharia is an extra negative.
Simply put, if it doesn't end, you're going to wake up one day - or your descendants will - and look wistfully back to the carefree days of the good old Bush administration.
Geoff
* above phrase trademarked of GeoffP Inc.
DiamondHearts said:
That is - and you'll have to excuse me here -
A FUCKING LIE.
You are a bloody slanderer. Where, precisely, you utter liar, have I expressed any racism whatever for "Palestinian,Arab,Pakistani,Sudani feelings"?? Specify, liar.
LIAR. That is complete slander and BS. Where is my bigotry against their culture? Where is this racism? I have very great reservations about islam, particularly when fascists like yourself come on a forum, openly tell me that you think apostates and homosexuals should be put to death, and then have the gall to whine about my intolerance of your bigoted, homophobic views. Pathetic.
My word, you are a dumb one, aren't you?
"Bigotry against Palestinians" = lie. Prove it, or shut up. (I liked the "constantly" you threw in there: a very cheap way of trying to score cheap points without meaning anything. Kudos.)
First: you mindlessly support Foley when he first spouts off that Jews are not a race, which was primarily a ridiculous side-argument directed at "genetic right-of-return", and now you characterise my opinion - which was strictly in line with the evidence that Palestinians are not genetically distinct from either Occidental or Askenasim Jews and nothing further - as racist, which illustrates to me and others that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I challenge you to illustrate your views, and how mine constitute racism, although I imagine it would be a waste of time for me. It's abundantly clear to me, frankly, that it's rather the illustrated genetic association between Jewish people and Palestinians that has you so upset: thus, it's you who are the racist, and not I.
So the engaging of violence against non-muslims is a just cause, then? My position was that I saw no reason why Mecca should not be held hostage against the potential use of WMD in the West by islamic terrorists, and it is an exceedingly justified viewpoint. This is called: "deterrence". You may not have heard of it before. Ought we then instead to nuke a city in the ummah, one packed with human lives?
You would merely turn them over to others that would; thank you, we understand.
Sigh. And so what would you do with them, if they refused to obey your orders and cease being homosexual? Your position is quite clear, frankly.
And lying underneath it - just a smidgen of hate. It's ok. I understand.
Oh, god. Next!
OK - now say something nice about the people of the West, as you enjoined me to say about islam and muslims. Go on. Your tongue won't fall out. I promise.
I confess that I have little understanding of what in the hell you are trying to slander me with now. I do see that you are applying criminality to free religious choice, which is monstrous and sick.
/sarc
And, of course, with these people forever in an inferior position, they can certainly be assured that these rights would be protected.
/sarc off
Your comment regard your putative son said nothing of private or unprivate. I suspect your honesty in this case, as I have long had cause to.
I imply nothing, and only a buffoon would imagine so. I have repeated your own positions back to you, merely clarified in the hopes of your finally understanding something. Alas, it has not worked. By "old islamic slander", I referred to the last ten years or so; something he never asked, but merely assumed to his advantage. I also note that while it might be of European origin, islamic countries seem to eating it up like blood-flavoured matzah.
Rather, you won't apologize, for you have no honour or sense of fair play, but rather advance your cause "By Any Means Necessary", including slander, it seems. However, I do accept your accolade of "Prophet"; and I thank you.
Hmm - I don't know; a sense of right, an appreciation of the value of human life, of respect, of fairness, of honour. Islam is not devoid of these things - merely the kind that Diamond practices and reveres. How common her views are is another matter.
You call the killing of innocent people "good". I rest my case.
Well, then - "Idle" must think a world more of you than he did five minutes ago, eh?
I adopted the term because Mountain used it.And which must be brutally suppressed to prevent them contaminating islam with their presence, which is scripturally akin to urine in islam.
Thanks for playing!
Prophet Geoff
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
GeoffP isn't the only one who thought you were a woman, on several posts you answered questions from a female point of perspective on the treatment of women in Islam, are you transgender? or do you make up the womans mind and speek for them? and ignore the true thoughts as you ignore so many other provable things?
Bells
Staff member
Ah yes, democracy in action. You forget that democracy is your system and not theirs. They do not wish to be a democracy. So it is hardly democratic of the West to force others to curb their systems to suit Western ideology. It is their law. You have your laws in your country, I have mine in my country and they have theirs in their country. Do I agree with their laws? The answer is no. But I know enough to respect it as I would expect them to respect the laws in my country.GeoffP said:
It's ironic that you argue that people should be allowed to believe what they wish but you demand that the people of Afghanistan believe as you wish and do what you and the rest of the West deem to be morally correct. You are judging those who judge. Their belief system and some sectors of their religion do not allow for people to convert to another belief. Personally I think it is wrong and you have made it clear that you do as well. But that is their beliefs, their system and their laws. The Pakistani who converted was aware of this when he entered their country to do aid work. As you say, nothing is guarranteed to be fair. You and I may disagree with how they judge people, but it is their law and their beliefs.
Yes. In your country no one is entitled to kill them or jail them. In your country. Other countries are not the same. In China believers of Falun Gong (spelling?) are jailed and possibly killed for their beliefs. I don't see the West trying to force China to change their practices, do you? It is not your right to control what another country does or to control the laws and religious beliefs and conventions of another country. I wish we could sometimes because then we could have stopped so many massacres and injustices that have and continue to occur to this day. But we cannot.
And that's you. But not everyone is like you or believes as you do. What makes your morals superior to the morals and values of others? Where would it end if we did demand and go in with force to stop them from executing this poor man? What would make us right to do so? What would make the US right to do so, especially when the US also has the death penalty? What makes the US right about how other countries treat and jail people without rights when the US is guilty of it herself?
In an ideal world, there would be no killing of people because of their religion and their sexual orientation, there would be no killing and discrimination of minorities and women, there would be a complete separation of church and state. In an ideal world there would be no Bin Laden and there would be no preaching of hate. But we do not live in an ideal world.
Do you honestly think that everyone living in Muslim countries believes as their leaders do? As the supposedly enlightened West, we should be supporting the people in those countries who are trying to change the laws and systems. However we should not interfere with what they are trying to do. The West cannot force other countries to kneel and force them to believe as we do. Doing so only breeds more resentment and the result is that we are putting at risk those in those countries who are attempting to slowly change how things are in those countries.
As to their religion, it is those who warp their beliefs to suit their own personal needs and wants who are preaching the hate. People of other religions do the same thing. What I am trying to say is to let the people find their way in their own time. Standing back here in the West and demanding that they stop believing as they do and to then attempt to interfere with their laws and politics will only ensure that change does not happen.
No the subject is not different. The manner of the West's interference has only ensured that the dictators and the religious right in those countries prospered. People do not like others to rule their countries through proxy governments. The backlash from said interference in the past is what we are seeing today. For example, Iran was close to democracy when the West interfered and tried for force their hand into becoming a democracy. People resented that and the result was a backward leap away from the notion of democracy. Citizens of Islamic nations today enjoy some of the aspects of democracy because the people living in those countries fought and died for it. You can't force your laws, morals and values down the throats of others.
It is this kind of attitude that results in some of these countries rebelling and hating the West. Murder is wrong, but your Government practices legalised murder in the form of capital punishment. Hmm now there's a term that applies here. This man broke a law that sadly could result in his facing capital punishment. Do I agree with capital punishment? No I do not. Nor do many living in those countries. Now should I start demanding that my country engage in war or sanctions with the US in a bid to overturn capital punishment? If I do, it will only result in capital punishment getting more support from your people and government as the resentment grows to the international interference being placed upon your government. I can't force your Government to stop killing it's prisoners, just as you cannot force the Islamic Governments to stop their practices and beliefs. Having people like you yelling at Islamic countries that their laws are wrong and must be stopped will only ensure that they will think it right and will hold fast.
You don't want to obliterate their religious practices. You just want them to curb it so it suits your ideals and beliefs and what you judge to be morally right.
There is a difference between influencing and forcing. You are attempting to force, not influence. And no one knows which side is truly right or wrong. The country you are trying to force will say you are wrong, while you will say they are wrong.
I agree, murder in the name of religion is wrong. But then again, I believe murder in any name is wrong. You may believe that Sharia law is wrong, but many Muslims think that it is right. Many Muslims also probably think that capital punishment is wrong. Now lets look at those Muslims shall we? They may agree with Sharia Law, just as you believe in the laws that Govern your country. But these Muslims are also against capital punishment, just as you might and just as many in your country might. Now how do you think those Muslims, against capital punishment but agree with and live with the other segments of Sharia Law, will feel if you demand that they stop believing in a law that is religiously tied to them because you think it is wrong as a whole? They'd probably react the same was as you would if someone told you your legal system was wrong. They'd probably tell you to stuff off and mind your own business. Don't you think Muslims are capable of deciding what is right or wrong? Don't you realise that demanding they believe as you do will only ensure that the move in the opposite direction?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Fundamentalism isn't the problem, it is still the extreamist who use their interpritation of any theology to futher their own gain, I'm a fundamentalist and my studies show that the gift of salvation should be given freely and accepted in the same manor, if you do not wish to accept this gift I wish you well as you go on your way, Jesus never gave permission to use force or coercion to convert nonbealievers, I don't want a bad christian from fear, I want a true believer through faith and love.
However part of their law, is to conquer.
As all religions aim to do, is conquer. Conquer by fear, force, and manipulate the law of the land. Haven't you noticed how The Brainless Right control our laws in the US? From drugs being illegal, to prostitution. Victimless crimes brought to you by the enforcement of religious ethics.
Godless
Bells said:
Really? How do we know, when DH and his ilk want to run around, hacking the heads off of people who convert from islam, let alone try to change the religio-political system. Why do so many people flee the ME to come to the West? Why do they say they're freer here?
It clearly bloody isn't - is it the law and belief of the Pakistani guy? Exactly how many people in islamic countries don't believe in the system either? Kind of hard to tell, if the penalty for apostacy is death. I don't think I'd be sponsoring any democracy movements either, if I were there. We go on and on about how the leaders of islamic countries are corrupt and all, but it seems that people want to excuse them of what they do all the same. This is madness.
But shouldn't they? They only don't because they can't, or because they want trade. Why in the hell shouldn't they, though? Would it also be okay for the West to become a totalitarian dictatorship and persecute muslims like islamic nations persecute Christians and Jews? Why not? It's "our country" and "our way" after all. The merest requirement then would be majority consensus. Would this be right?
It utterly and absolutely is my right. This is politics - another playing field in which the teams are not even, and not even in the same ways, but which all nations play in the same way. I, as a protestor, can march against seal hunts, and for the end of genocide in the Sudan, and for religious freedom in the ummah, and for an end to nuclear weapons, and my voice (although individual or at least 'lay'; i.e. civilian) counts. This is politics. Do I have or not have the right to try to end apartheid? Genocide in Cambodia? The Vietnam War?
But you hit on the right note - think how many deaths we could have prevented. Think how much needless stupidity we could have stopped. I'm not saying that people need to stop being muslim, or that we should pressure them to do so - but we have every right to pressure them into not discriminating on the basis of religion. This is human rights, and there is an international charter dealing with this very issue.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Because then he would not be killed.
This is tu tuoque, and if we're going to invoke it, we might as well never do anything at all. Let Hitler sieze Europe; let Iran have nuclear weapons; let the Killing Fields soak red again; let blacks in South Africa stay under the bootheel; let the people behind the Iron Curtain stay imprisoned; let the US exploit nations; let everyone do whatever they want. Because, after all, we're all guilty of something.
And why should we settle for less?
The first part of this conflicts with your statement that it's "their ways, their culture". Are there dissidents or not? If there are, is it not our imperative to help them?
Will it? Did it do so, with Germany? With the Soviet Union? We have the power; why should we not use it?
And what will those that warp their beliefs - who, incidentally, appear to be running all their countries and constitute the majority of their populations - be doing while we sit on our backsides. The comments of CAIR and the rest make their position clear: islam is not meant to be 'dominated', but to dominate. Shall we simply sit back, hope that they change (and be astonished when nothing happens) and wait for the axe to fall on us?
And all the while, the blood keeps running, the beliefs get stronger and the triumphalist message blares louder, and louder. The money keeps funneling in: influence, influence peddling, propaganda, and a media eager to eat it up. I agree whole-heartedly that influence is better than force; but in a civilizational war, every weapon to hand should be used, where there is moral precedent.
Correct. I would not kill for religion; nor, at the same time, would I force anyone. But why maintain contact with such nations? Why not simply cut them off from all influence until such time as they change their ways? That, too, is our right.
Geoff
No!! we can't do that. They got the freaking oil. Lets just nuke them and take their fucking oil. No! but we can't do that, wouldn't be prudent, wouldn't be civilized. But how long do you think these genocidalIslamophobes would wate to throw the freaking nuke at us? That's the issue! they wouldn't hesitate one iota, to nuke the west if they had the freaking means! And unfortunately it may come to that, if these assholes never change thier ways!.
Warning Signs...
*The upsurge of Islamic jihad around the world has inspired two diametrically opposed -- yet equally false -- interpretations regarding its "root causes," writes Middle East expert Efraim Karsh in Islamic Imperialism. In one view, modern jihad represents a backlash by a deeply frustrated civilization reluctant to come to terms with its long-standing decline. In the other, it is a response to America's arrogant foreign policy by fringe extremists whose violent interpretation of Islam has little to do with the religion's actual spirit or teachings. But, as Professor Karsh demonstrates conclusively in this myth-busting book, the real "root cause" of Islamic jihad is the teachings and traditions of Islam itself.*WorldNetDaily
So truly, these sob's must be stoped, with full force, nothing will stop these assholes from coming, nothing but a godamn nuke!
Godless
Last edited:
Bells said:
One problem though, Muslims who now reside in democratic countries are lobbying to make Sharia law part of the laws of that country. So no, they do not respect those laws, they want to change them.
True, but human rights violations have been taking precedence over religious beliefs, and those beliefs need to change or be abolished.
Yes, just park yourself around any Chinese embassy and you'll see almost daily protests. The governments themselves can lobby for change, but they must be careful not to instigate an international affair that might lead to conflict.
Interesting to note that the District of Columbia does NOT have the death penalty.
In an ideal world, there would be no religion.