Mi5: Al Queda Planning "Mass Casualty" Terror Attacks Against Britain

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

#2 "Radical Islam" is a redundant phrase. The radicalism is already implied, and should be assumed, whenever the word "Islam" is brought up.

Mind-blowing.

Wow.

*double takes*

For a moment there, I thought I had been redirected to Conservapedia.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

So that's your argument, is it? Forced assimilation is okay because of a semantic difference?

I'm using the word assimilation in the normative sense, i.e. adoption of and respect for the norms and values of the country kind enough to take you in (something the actual far-Right is vehemently against in case you feel like painting me with that brush). You're the one who linked it to forced removal of children on racial grounds.

CJB wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

So that's your argument, is it? Forced assimilation is okay because of a semantic difference?

I'm using the word assimilation in the normative sense, i.e. adoption of and respect for the norms and values of the country kind enough to take you in (something the actual far-Right is vehemently against in case you feel like painting me with that brush). You're the one who linked it to forced removal of children on racial grounds.

These things used to be less to do with assimilation and more a matter of basic courtesy. 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do' was generally regarded as simple good manners and it's only in the last 40 years or so that the tail has begun to wag the dog.

Balancing the wishes of the majority with minority rights is proving challenging to say the least.

CJB wrote:

I'm using the word assimilation in the normative sense, i.e. adoption of and respect for the norms and values of the country kind enough to take you in (something the actual far-Right is vehemently against in case you feel like painting me with that brush).

What brush am I supposed to use, then, considering that Islam shares many values with the West?

Your entire argument is based on the idea that Islam and the West are diametrically opposed. And while the radicals certainly are, the moderate majority share the same values as the West.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Your entire argument is based on the idea that Islam and the West are diametrically opposed. And while the radicals certainly are, the moderate majority share the same values as the West.  

Oh really? Do women in muslim countries get the same privileges as those in the west?

According to Islamic law Sharia, women have a limited right to inheritance. For example after the death of the father of a family, a sister receives half of what a brother receives. According to Nisa, verse 11 of the Qur'an, God says that men should take “what is equal to the share of two females”. We see the same situation in courts. The testimony of one man is equal to the testimony of two women. In Islamic law, two women are equal to one man (Baqarah, verse 282). This is a fact of the Qur'an, and it is unquestionable in Islam.

In Islamic literature from across the centuries, one can find hundreds of arguments that Islam sees women as second class humans. Rules stated in the Qur'an and some sayings attributed to the Prophet Mohammed are interpreted to teach that women are like the devil and should be controlled by men by any means necessary.

An independent muslim woman in the western world can actually own and drive a car without a man's permission. I cannot drive one in Saudi Arabia unless I'm subjected to a bunch of rules that necessitate a man's presence, or permission. Is that the same values as the west?

This is why quite a number of my female muslim friends REBEL against their religions when their families don't know. They know what they are subjected to in their own world, and hate it.

The firm alliance between the liberal-left and Muslims against Jews is one of the more disturbing political developments of the last 25 years. Here's an extract from the BBC's live coverage of the weekend's march in Paris:



And Nick Cohen's somewhat grim reading of it:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2015/01/the-bbc-blaming-the-jews-for-attacks-on-jews/

And not only in the UK:

http://leargas.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/oireachtas-recognises-palestinian-state.html

Wilcox made a terrible mistake playing devil's advocate there, but I think this paragraph in Cohen's Spectator piece is problematic.

Nick Cohen wrote:

Wilcox like so many others does not understand that anti-Semitism is not a rational, if regrettably bloody, critique of Israeli foreign policy but an insane conspiracy theory that has captured the minds of millions of fanatics, moved whole nations and led to uncountable deaths.

Unfortunately, anti-semitism and criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestinians are not mutually exclusive. The two often feed each other in the minds of Islamists and their apologists.

Staugust wrote:

And not only in the UK:

http://leargas.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/oireachtas-recognises-palestinian-state.html

Although I'm probably the last person to support Sinn Féin on any action, I don't think recognising Palestine as a state is equivalent to defending Hamas, and nor is it a slippery road to legitimising the Islamic State.

Such a tricky merky subject. Palestine, Hamas etc.

Reading Vasily Grossman's Life and Fate I was struck by his paragraph on anti-Semitism and: "Tell me what you accuse the Jews of -I'll tell you what you're guilty of."

Though not surprising the BBC weighing in as they have done via Wilcox.

I doubt it's relevant much or how to relate to this thread but the local newspaper carried this article today:

Quote :

Some victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack 'were not innocent', Wycombe restaurant owner tells the BBC

5:35pm Monday 12th January 2015

By Kathryn Snowdon

The owner of a Pakistani restaurant in High Wycombe said some of those murdered in the Charlie Hebdo attacks “were not innocent” during an interview with a national radio programme.

Reporter, Sima Kotecha, visited the town centre to speak to British Muslims about the attacks in Paris, which left 12 dead at the satirical magazine’s offices and further scenes of violence on Friday.

The Today show, titled “British Muslims react to Charlie Hebdo attack”, aired on Friday.

In the programme, the restaurant owner said: “It is painful that people have to die in this way.”

He added: “I love my prophet more than my mum, more than my dad, more than my children and if the people make his cartoons or something else they’re hurting my heart.”

When the BBC reporter retorted that “we live in a democracy”, he replied: “No no you can insult the peoples, you can insult me, you can insult anybody else but not the god, not the prophet Muhammad; we are not allowing that.

“If they are doing that, that will happen again and again.”

Ms Kotecha said he was the only person to go on the record with the view that those who were killed were not “blameless”.

He said: “Why the people they are hating our faith, our prophet?”

He added: “It (the Paris attack) is wrong. But they have to stop. The people who are insulting Islam. Islam is very, very peaceful.”

The restaurant owner said he “understand(s)” why some of the victims were killed, adding: “Some of them were not innocent.”

In particular he identifies Charlie Hebdo’s editor who “had no right to make cartoons of the prophet Muhammad”.

Another man Ms Kotecha spoke with said a democracy “doesn’t mean you can go and insult anybody”.

In response to the question “so are you justifying this mass murder?” he said: “Of course not but these people what are they achieving to put the cartoon and put those comments... What is the point?”

Councillor Maz Hussain said: “We haven’t got a right to take someone’s life. We no judge who’s right or wrong.”

The interview aired the same day that the mayor of High Wycombe released a statement condemning the attacks, while adding that “insulting a person’s fundamental beliefs was likely to lead to unrest”.

fairly indictative of what turns up nowadays locally. And such comment, as this on the article, are discouraged [by many]:

Quote :

Did "councilor Maz hussain" say that because if so they need to understand high Wycombe is a town in England so learn to speak clear English

another good day in the Home Counties.

Quote :

When the BBC reporter retorted that “we live in a democracy”, he replied: “No no you can insult the peoples, you can insult me, you can insult anybody else but not the god, not the prophet Muhammad; we are not allowing that.

Think someone needs to tell Mr. Restaurant Owner what a democracy is.

Exactly. Someone suggested he was named so he could be peacefully boycotted. Such is the town High Wycombe is. It's complicated in the town I feel, but then I overthink such things.
I work with such people as well.

Erica Ambler wrote:

The firm alliance between the liberal-left and Muslims against Jews is one of the more disturbing political developments of the last 25 years.

Ah, yes. The "liberals are to blame" argument, the last resort of any conservative who has run out of ideas. It has the added benefits of being completely unprovable, easily reduced to a sound byte, and automatically casts the conservatives as being right because all liberals are automatically and absolutely opposed to conservative values.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

The firm alliance between the liberal-left and Muslims against Jews is one of the more disturbing political developments of the last 25 years.

Ah, yes. The "liberals are to blame" argument, the last resort of any conservative who has run out of ideas. It has the added benefits of being completely unprovable, easily reduced to a sound byte, and automatically casts the conservatives as being right because all liberals are automatically and absolutely opposed to conservative values.

It's hardly the argument I'm making. More of an observation. And you're wrong to define me as a conservative.

True, I believe in a smaller state and the rights of the individual, but that's not how I'd define conservative. I'm a libertarian if anything, which means I'm opposed to most traditional conservative values.

However, these days repressive laws and attitudes are as likely to come from the so-called liberal left as the establishment right - they have more in common than they realise. In fact, I see Islamists and the liberal left as fascists bedfellows.

I was just commenting on the idea of a liberal-Zionist conspiracy in general. I quoted your post because several had been made in the time since.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Your entire argument is based on the idea that Islam and the West are diametrically opposed. And while the radicals certainly are, the moderate majority share the same values as the West.  

Moderate majority? I suggest you look into some opinion polling done across the Islamic world.

If a Christian was homophobic, sexist and anti-Semitic I doubt you'd call him moderate. Apparently all it takes for Muslims to be "moderate" is to not personally engage in murderous activities.

There you go with the generalisations again. You assume that what is true for one is true for all, and since you're so obviously biased, you naturally choose the most cynical interpretation you can think of. I know several Muslims who are no more homophobic, sexist or anti-Semetic than your average non-Muslim, which is to say not very. But you clearly feel threatened by the idea that there might be merit in somebody else's way of thinking, and so - as you have proven time and time again - you are naturally suspicious of anyone who thinks differently as a matter of course, and justify it as "preserving Western progress". You're nothing more than a cynic with a father-knows-best attitude, and you expect everyone to be grateful for it.

So that's it. I'm out. I came in here to have a thought-provoking debate, but more fool me for thinking as much after your first post in this thread. The fact that you thought that was appropriate at all demonstrates your complete lack of respect for anyone who doesn't think like you, and colours every single argument you have made since.

CJB wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Your entire argument is based on the idea that Islam and the West are diametrically opposed. And while the radicals certainly are, the moderate majority share the same values as the West.  

Moderate majority? I suggest you look into some opinion polling done across the Islamic world.

If a Christian was homophobic, sexist and anti-Semitic I doubt you'd call him moderate. Apparently all it takes for Muslims to be "moderate" is to not personally engage in murderous activities.

Absolutely correct. Which is why I said in a previous post that the intellectual journey from "moderate Muslim" to "radical extremist" is a very short trip. It doesn't take much, or take long, to go from moderate, mainstream Islam to violent Jihadist; the seeds have already been sown for this sort of mindless violence and spiritual corruption just based on the basic teachings that all Muslims seem to agree on.

We're all in strung out shape, but stay frosty, and alert. We can't afford to let one of those bastards into The West or it's game over. I say we take off and nuke the entire Middle East from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.

D
N
I
W

Is that an acronym?

Say what you see.