• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Paris

As I've said all along, less about terrorism, more about what happens to Muslims in the name of Islam. What are the Christian equivalents to the honour killings? To acid being thrown in the faces of young girls for wishing to go to school? To female genital mutilation? To punishment rapes? To institutionalized discrimination through sharia? There are barbaric practices and I don't see them in any real frequencies from Christians.

'Tar and feather' acts in Northern Ireland when you just associate 'too closely' with those on the 'other side'. Not to mention kneecapping. Have you seen the furore about women priests? Have you seen the anti-abortion militancy and the bias against women that can entail? Do you think sexism is quite common in many parts of Christianity, Mormonism for example? We could go on; many would claim these to be barbaric too; but arguments about who is 'more barbaric' are pointless imo as they feed the crusade beast.

You said I wasn't a good source, you said that BBC, CNN and Fox were not good sources and accused me of only using them. I pointed you towards a source that I think is about as impeccable as a source can get on this issue. And your answer is "I don't know who this person is or care" before going down the same path you were already on. But I'm biased. I'm only looking at mainFirewood-gatherer western sources? I'm feeding into the intended mindstate? You won't even take the time to quickly examine the views of a named source for an opinion contrary to yours. Because you don't ****ing care! But I'm the one only exposing myself to biased sources?

Now that, my friend, is harsh. For someone who accuses to vehemently about sources and biases... That's real weak.

I said BBC et al were often biased sources who have grown out of the Christian monolithic mindset and often feed the crusade beast from a Christian biased perspective imo. For example, would they highlight 'Christian atrocities' that may occur and highlight them as such using those words (in the same way the term 'Islamic atrocities' would be used).
So you chose another source, one woman who you believe is 'impeccable' because she is an individual who has criticized Islam based on her individual experiences. Ok fine.
But shall I choose another person with an opposite mindstate - perhaps a person who is say British and who has converted to Islam and says Christianity is 'barbaric' - and 'trade blows'? If I can find that single person would that make it valid for somebody to say 'Christianity is a more barbaric religion'?

In fact if I select some people who say how fulfilling and happy they are with their Islamic faith would that help as well?
 
Last edited:
Im sorry to be blunt here EZE bit i think you're a good example of the wider problem at hand - until people stop trying to rationalize/sympathise with Islamic Extremists and we are all (muslim and non muslim alike) united in standing against it then the problem is only going to get worse, for EVERYONE.
 
It's funny isn't it. On the Ched Evans thread you have people saying they would stop supporting Spurs if we signed a rapist.

Yet you don't see many Muslims turning in their badges when **** like this goes down.
 
It's funny isn't it. On the Ched Evans thread you have people saying they would stop supporting Spurs if we signed a rapist.

Yet you don't see many Muslims turning in their badges when **** like this goes down.

This is precisely the problem.

Imagine the massive uproar if a main-line Christian (say Catholic or Church of England) Bishop came out and said women shouldn't work and should be segregated from men and that their education should be limited, that it is forbidden for a muslim woman to marry a non-muslim, that it is forbidden for a muslim man to marry a non-muslim, unless they are 'people of the book' (Christian or Jew), that homosexuality is forbidden, that the education curriculum should be curtailed in terms of the sciences and geography to remove 'anti-islamic' parts such as evolution of man, that art, music, photography and film are forbidden.

These are all doctrines currently being taught by a variety of mainline, considered-moderate, islamic leaders right here in the UK.

Leaving extremism and terrorism aside, you look at what happened with the trojan-horse stuff at school.

This was a variety of schools in Birmingham, Greater Manchester and Bradford areas, where the intake is largely from local muslim communities. Pressure was put on the school governers and teaching staff, who were often non-muslims, white/british, to segregate men from women, to restrict the teaching of certain parts of the curriculum, to exclude women from sports/games. This was often with the full support of majority of parents and local religious leaders, hence the massive pressure put on the school governors and teaching staff and hence why they caved in and gave in to the pressure, so school inspectors found schools where men and women were segregated, where men were taught a reduced curriculum which ommiitted stuff like the fact that humans evolved from apes and the universe and Earth were billions of years old and women were taught an even more reduced curriculum and were excluded from careers advice and sports.

This was not only approved, but encouraged by the local muslim communities and the white british people in charge of the schools gave into them out of fear of being seen to be 'intolerant' of their religion.

Actually, some of the attitudes on this thread are a massive symptom of the problem.

Young muslims from the UK, even though they are born here, are isolated, because the teachings of islam in their current form isolate them. Mixing with non-believers is frowned upon. Marriage or relationships are actively prohibited. The requirement of Halal and the prohibiting of alcohol, music and arts isolate them from socialising with the rest of society.

These are MODERATE islamic views currently put forward by religious leaders. Is it no wonder that currently young muslims are ending up feeling isolated from the society they grew up in and full of confusion and anger? Is it no wonder that there is a problem with young gangs of muslim men using women as sex slaves and objects with no thought of them being fellow human-beings? Its not much of a leap from current moderate islamic teaching to the extremist teaching.

What Islam needs to do is modernise and adjust its central ideology, in order to marginalise and expose the extremist ideology and better integrate muslims with the rest of the world. If this isn't done then things are only going to get a lot worse.
 
B60KxrACIAA4Ya7.jpg
 
Struggling to keep up here lol, but how is what I wrote 'high level conspiracy stuff'??
It is clear as day that there is a crusade battle at present between the West (i.e. old Christian faction) and the Islamic factions. It is clear that this is an old ongoing battle.

There is indeed a battle WITHIN Christian circles between secularism and Christianity; but outside of that on a global level there is an ongong battle for hearts and minds between the Christian and Islamic factions. I see it as an MP who has to deal with other political parties at home ("internal politics") vs when he has to fight against possible invaders ("Foreign Policy").

The purpose of Islam is no different to Christianity: to control hearts and minds but under a 'different flag'.

You could say tat Religion is just politics with the word 'GHod' tacked on: most people just follow the religion of their ancestors much like most people will likely vote who their family or local community USUALLY vote for. The difference with religion is the 'GHod' label makes it feel much much further from reproach

What would be the argument similar to yours, but on the Christian/anti-Muslim side? Imagine someone posting stuff about Jihad and colonialism, the spread of the caliphate and painted most pro-Muslim messages as just feeding into that mindstate...


'Tar and feather' acts in Northern Ireland when you just associate 'too closely' with those on the 'other side'. Not to mention kneecapping. Have you seen the furore about women priests? Have you seen the anti-abortion militancy and the bias against women that can entail? Do you think sexism is quite common in many parts of Christianity, Mormonism for example? We could go on; many would claim these to be barbaric too; but arguments about who is 'more barbaric' are pointless imo as they feed the crusade beast.



I said BBC et al were often biased sources who have grown out of the Christian monolithic mindset and often feed the crusade beast from a Christian biased perspective imo. For example, would they highlight 'Christian atrocities' that may occur and highlight them as such using those words (in the same way the term 'Islamic atrocities' would be used).
So you chose another source, one woman who you believe is 'impeccable' because she is an individual who has criticized Islam based on her individual experiences. Ok fine.
But shall I choose another person with an opposite mindstate - perhaps a person who is say British and who has converted to Islam and says Christianity is 'barbaric' - and 'trade blows'? If I can find that single person would that make it valid for somebody to say 'Christianity is a more barbaric religion'?

In fact if I select some people who say how fulfilling and happy they are with their Islamic faith would that help as well?

Not saying that bad stuff isn't happening in Christian countries and with a basis in Christianity. I think you're setting up a false equivalency though.

The furore about female priests? Tell me about the furore about female mullahs? Or would a better comparison be a woman's word being worth less than that of a man in a court of law?

Anti-abortion militancy as you call it. Please. Go ahead and tell me about the freedoms for Muslim women in Muslim countries to decide over their own bodies. Tell me how the stories about 12 year old girls being married off are just wrong (and here I'm holding way back to still be able to enjoy my coffee as you may or may not be aware)

I see no equivalency just because you list some horrors on the "other side". I said "more" because I think what happens in Muslim countries are worse. Imagine a female friend of yours, young, liberal, she could choose to live either in a random "Christian country" or a random "Muslim country". What do you think would be the best choice for her in terms of freedom and safety?

Go ahead. Name your source then. I didn't pick Hirsi Ali just because she's an ex-Muslim (apostate, remind me again how that's treated in Muslim and Christian countries respectively) that agrees with me. She's intelligent, well spoken, has personal experience that makes her an excellent first hand source who speaks very well on this issue. I think she's someone that adds valuable information to a discussion like this. I would be shocked if there aren't people that have gone the other way. Of course there are will millions of people around. Feel free to present the well spoken counter example that has gone the other way. I will be very interested to hear what they have to say.

If Hirsi Ali is not enough, how about Rushdie? And since you're trying to set up an equivalency, would you mind letting us all know the last time a top level Christian leader offered money for the murder of a writer and his compatriots (A Norwegian publisher was shot, but luckily survived, for the "crime" of publishing a book)? Where's the equivalent in "Christian countries"?
 
I see that several media outlets have come to their senses a bit and unlike during the Danish cartoon scandal they're now choosing to display the images so relevant to this issue. Well done those journalists, editors and publishers who have rediscovered a part of their integrity.

Trust the French to get it right. I really think these terrorists have made a strategical mistake targeting France with stuff like this. I hope I'm right.
 
o-GAY-PROPHET-570.jpg


I was really hoping to find a cartoon of Muhammad being sodomised by Jesus or Buddha or something - turns out my tastes are a little too specific and I broke rule 34.

Then I did a search for rule 34 Muhammad and found the following links - WARNING: THEY ARE REALLY, REALLY NSFW

http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list/Muhammad/1
http://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=list&tags=muhammad

So maybe rule 34 wasn't as broken as I thought :ross:

I think that maybe we should make Jan 7th the official "Ridicule Islam Day*" where we all just take the **** out of people with no sense of humour and a paedophilic, imaginary friend.



* Obviously if anyone has any good suggestions for days on which we should ridicule other religions that take themselves far too seriously then I'll be more than willing to join in. I'm thinking Easter Sunday for Christianity.
 
It would be so much easier to warm to the muslim communities, which so many of our towns and cities now accommodate, if their leaders and seniors would unconditionally condemn and castigate the evil deeds supposedly perpetrated on behalf of "the prophet".

But such condemnations never happen. At some point the ridiculously stretched tolerance of the indigenous Anglo Saxon will be overly abused.
 
It would be so much easier to warm to the muslim communities, which so many of our towns and cities now accommodate, if their leaders and seniors would unconditionally condemn and castigate the evil deeds supposedly perpetrated on behalf of "the prophet".

But such condemnations never happen. At some point the ridiculously stretched tolerance of the indigenous Anglo Saxon will be overly abused.
I have heard quite a few Muslim leaders in both the UK and France condemn what happened yesterday.
 
really?

tell that to the people of Ardoyne

I'm from Northern Ireland, live 20 miles outside Belfast. Protestant with a Catholic girlfriend, friends who are both Catholic and Protestant. NWND is absolutely correct, the problems here are nowhere near what they were in the past.

The troubles in Northern Ireland are less to do with sects of Christianity and more to do with British colonialism which left a country divided and many British settlers living in the north of Ireland where religion just happened to be one of the many differences between north and south and Irish natives and British invaders.

100% correct.
 
I have heard quite a few Muslim leaders in both the UK and France condemn what happened yesterday.

Not all that many though.

I haven't heard of many "Not in my name" type protests being arranged either.
 
I have heard quite a few Muslim leaders in both the UK and France condemn what happened yesterday.

But localised isn't enough.

I would fully expect the Pope to come out if some loony tunes went round killing people in the name of the Catholic Church, let’s not kid ourselves he would.

Why then when such atrocities in the name of Islam ever happen and let again be honest, they happen a lot, when then do you never see a staged condemnation made by an Ayatollah or collection of them?? I’m not attacking the whole muslin race here I just think its fair comment to say there is not enough done within their house to educate the rights and wrongs. And before people say “well they do you just don’t hear it” well for my money we should hear it and it should be on a world platform. This isn’t a knee jerk reaction to one event, this craps been going on for years and until there is a mass campaign that starts from within Islam, this isn’t going to change at all. It’s not just the responsibility of the west to fight this…..
 
I'm from Northern Ireland, live 20 miles outside Belfast. Protestant with a Catholic girlfriend, friends who are both Catholic and Protestant. NWND is absolutely correct, the problems here are nowhere near what they were in the past.

There still are problems though right?
 
Regarding the attacks, there was a muslim guy on the radio this morning. Normal guy, family, job etc. He condoned the acts but was trying to explain why the cartoons were so offensive to muslims due to the love of their prophet.

The interviewer asked;

'Give us a feel for your love of Mohammed, do you love him more than your wife and children'

The guys response, without a hint of hesitation;

'Absolutely, I love him more than my entire family combined'

If this is a normal, run of the mill bloke, I don't see how you can win a war against thousands (more?) highly radicalised individuals who are dotted all over the globe.
 
But localised isn't enough.

I would fully expect the Pope to come out if some loony tunes went round killing people in the name of the Catholic Church, let’s not kid ourselves he would.

Why then when such atrocities in the name of Islam ever happen and let again be honest, they happen a lot, when then do you never see a staged condemnation made by an Ayatollah or collection of them?? I’m not attacking the whole muslin race here I just think its fair comment to say there is not enough done within their house to educate the rights and wrongs. And before people say “well they do you just don’t hear it” well for my money we should hear it and it should be on a world platform. This isn’t a knee jerk reaction to one event, this craps been going on for years and until there is a mass campaign that starts from within Islam, this isn’t going to change at all. It’s not just the responsibility of the west to fight this…..

We all know how the catholic church responded after the second world war, they set themselves up as south american travel agency
 
We all know how the catholic church responded after the second world war, they set themselves up as south american travel agency

Ok then, the archblooming bishop of Canterbury, regardless I'm not religious and its 2015.....not 2010BC or 1945
 
Back