Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today....

[Mr Gurns]

There was a thread on Islam talking about the benefits of the religion, why was this thread taken off? was it deemed too positive for this forum or something?

Imagine the outrage if there was a thread praising Christianity on here

 

[Number37]

Imagine the outrage if there was a thread praising Christianity on here

That is exactly what some people do...imagine the outrage.

 

[Malifice]

Imagine the outrage if there was a thread praising Christianity on here

Weve had our fair share of fundamentalist Christians on the site I can assure you.

 

[Maggie5]

Maybe. I haven't seen any behaviour exhibited towards my Islamic friends or colleagues in my time which could be characterised as disgusting.

You should do your shopping in Coburg or better still try shopping in Broadmeadows.
They don't discriminate either, having a go at the small children.
Real heros!

 

[ScooterBrother]

You're better than resorting to strawmen, mate.

Use these stats

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/30/a...ings-us-terror-plots-attacks-to-93-since-911/

Many ingest the poison far too readily.

Appeasement and tolerance are different. Appeasement didn't work for Chamberlain on the Nazis, or Montezuma on the conquistadors.

From your source:

As these individuals are already in the U.S. when they become radicalized, immigration vetting can do little, if anything, to detect these individuals.

Thats a Troy Chaplin kick-out old mate

What are the numbers on taxes collected v social security benefits paid? Let along the cost of security. I'll take the food without the terror, thanks. And you throw in a "diversity", the gratuitous catchcry of libertarians, as though diversity was a worthwhile goal in itself. Diversity is making this country dysfunctional.

What terror? What terrorist attacks have we had?

and immigration generates economic activity. It actually provides a net gain. So the taxes vs social security has already been worked out:

Migrants contribute more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in individual benefits

https://www.oecd.org/migration/

On this we're not going to agree. That text is consecrate and inviolate. There will always be fundies who insist that it be observed literally. The way to control it is to ask "Is this person going to fit in?" of everyone who comes to the door.

Nah, it's a story, which has been translated and mistranslated and misinterpreted and translated again. I am not vouching for its veracity, instead, its difficulty to interpret. There are islamic scholars that fight tooth and nail over the meaning of individual words. Many believe that the true meaning can only be accurately understood if read in Arabic, as English is too precise and rigid. There is still debate about whether the text means maidens, virgins or grapes! The oft quoted:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

is actually part of an ongoing story about traitors within a group of people that revealed their location whilst they were being persecuted, but it reads, in isolation, like a call of death to all non-believers.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Ive just had to go through and delete a lot of posts. These included meltdowns and Posts which purported to characterise Muslims as paedophiles, or some kind of secret Army or Trojan horse infiltrating our society to kill us all.

I'll say it again: legitimate criticism of Islam is fair game. If you stray into the realms of bigotry then expect to lose posting privileges at bare minimum.

This isn't stormfront or some alt-right wank fest.

Don't know what was said but
I hope it's not restricting freedom of communication even if the views are from "alt-right"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Malifice]

Don't know what was said but
I hope it's not restricting freedom of communication even if the views are from "alt-right"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alt right reviews aren't welcome here. We have rules against bigotry, racism and sexism.

 

[Lebbo73]

Alt right reviews aren't welcome here. We have rules against bigotry, racism and sexism.

However, when it comes to Christianity bashing, all bets are off!

 

[Malifice]

However, when it comes to Christianity bashing, all bets are off!

No, they're not.

The day we get new posts every time a random Christian rapes someone on the other side of the world, we can talk.

With discussions on Christianity we can usually keep it to the actual literature in the Bible and fundamentalist interpretations of it, or criticisms of paedophile priests and the Church's complicity or lack thereof in covering that up. It rarely devolves into just hanging sh*t on ordinary everyday Christians, demonising all Christians because of the actions of a few, or bringing up the perpetrator's religion every time a Christian commits a crime. Same deal with threads on Israel and Judaism.

You can't say the same thing about threads and many posts on Islam. They invariably seek to attribute the actions of a few with the whole 1 billion of them. Whether thats an act of terror, a mass shooting, a random sex attack in Sweden or whatever.

It's like the hypocrisy with mass shootings at schools and elsewhere in the United States. If the shooters white, the 'right' make it about gun laws, and how we shouldn't ban guns. The shooter is always invariably just some angry nutter.

If he's a Muslim, the narrative changes. The shooter is now perfectly sane and only doing it 'because Islam made him'. Suddenly were arguing for a ban on Muslims.

I wish people could post to the same standard but they don't. I've said it before and I'll say it again; legitimate criticism of Islam is fine. Stray into bigotry and ill show you the door.

 

[medusala]

Alt right reviews aren't welcome here. We have rules against bigotry, racism and sexism.

What a joke. In your little parallel world all Trump supporters are racists, sexist etc

And you wonder why he won.

BTW Castro killed tens of thousands, tortured and imprisoned gay people etc.

Yet his deification on Figbooty is well established. Rules, what rules?

 

[medusala]

If he's a Muslim, the narrative changes. The shooter is now perfectly sane and only doing it 'because Islam made him'. Suddenly were arguing for a ban on Muslims.

That's BS and you know it. Huge difference between discussing deporting citizens and stopping mass migration.

Very average of you to even try to compare the two.

 

[Malifice]

What a joke. In your little parallel world all Trump supporters are racists, sexist etc

And you wonder why he won.

The vast majority of Trump supporters are just disenfranchised blue collar workers. The guys that lost their jobs to the very Corporatism, Trade liberalisation and globalisation you support.

And David Duke and the Klu Klux Klan of course. They also support Trump. For very different reasons.

So yeah not, all of his supporters are racists and sexists. It's just that the racists and sexists tended to vote for him.

BTW Castro killed tens of thousands, tortured and imprisoned gay people etc.

Yet his deification on Figbooty is well established. Rules, what rules?

Whos deifying Castro?

 

[Malifice]

That's BS and you know it. Huge difference between discussing deporting citizens and stopping mass migration.

Where do you draw the line Meds? Stripping citizenship of certain ethnicities and religions? Banning migration to certain ethnicities all religions? Implementing a registration system for them? State monitoring? Special laws? Forcibly deporting them? Work camps? A more... final solution?

Genuinely interested. Where do you draw the line?

 

[cartwright]

Stormfront are jerks. I notice you didn't address my point about a country's laws and morality of people




I'm half Greek. My Mum and her family used to experience racism - I'll ask her when it stopped next time we speak

ask her if it was "all in good fun" as Pauline suggested it was
...

No, because all the alt-right d*ckheads that have been banned from this thread started posting crap in that one.

One thread makes it easier to keep an eye on.

What's with this PC BS "alt right" anyway? They're plain old racist/bigots.

 

[CM86]

What a joke. In your little parallel world all Trump supporters are racists, sexist etc

And you wonder why he won.

Trump won because Mal doesn't approve of bigotry.

Usual figbooty misology from the bien pensants.

#magicpudding
#brokenrecord
Foxtrot Tango Whiskey

 

[skilts]

Where do you draw the line Meds? Stripping citizenship of certain ethnicities and religions? Banning migration to certain ethnicities all religions? Implementing a registration system for them? State monitoring? Special laws? Forcibly deporting them? Work camps? A more... final solution?

Genuinely interested. Where do you draw the line?

Patches of different colours to be sown on the chest of the potential (read actual) perpetrators have previously proved effective. Might as well dispose of the Yids, gypsies, mentally ill and ****ters as well, while we're at it.

Edit: I've just had a brilliant thought. To assist in combating recalcitrant muzzies, we could tattoo a registration number on their arms, to make it easier to identify them.

 

[scotslad]

The bottom line is that many innocent Muslims have suffered at the hands of these perpetrators. innocent woman, children persecuted for no reason, and if they speak up then same thing happens to them. many many have suffered terribly.

 

[ScooterBrother]

The bottom line is that many innocent Muslims have suffered at the hands of these perpetrators. innocent woman, children persecuted for no reason, and if they speak up then same thing happens to them. many many have suffered terribly.

That absolute inarguable and definitive proof that Islam and Terrorism are mutually exclusive is:

The vast majority of victims of "Islamic" Terrorism are.... Islamic!

I've yet to see a reasonable rebuttal to that argument. Surely if these Jihadists really did want to impose Islam on the world, the majority of the victims would be Christians and Westerners, no?

Couldn't be that the reasoning behind it all has much more to do with Geopolitics, money, power and greed eg the main cause behind just about every prominent violent movement in human history.

 

[Malifice]

That absolute inarguable and definitive proof that Islam and Terrorism are mutually exclusive is:

The vast majority of victims of "Islamic" Terrorism are.... Islamic!

Its a common thread with with Islamophobes. They see Islam as one singular monolithic bloc, and all Muslims being part of the same 'thing'. They also attempt to attribue an exclusive fundamental interpretation of Islam and the Quran that only IS would agree with, and the majority of Muslims reject.

Which conveniently ignores the Shia/ Sunni divide, and the fact that its largely Muslims killing Muslims.

Its disengenious at best. Its like slathering all Christians with the actions of the Westborough Baptist Church.

I mean if you want to get stuck into fundamentalist Islam, discuss the problem with young men (and they're almost always men) radicalising, the serious problems with womens rights, the causes for the rise in Islamic terror attacks, death penalty for apostacy and so forth in Islamic fundamentalist countries, Im not going to stop you.

They're all legitimate topics for debate, discussion (and ridicule and strong criticism).

Just dont cross the line is all I ask.

 

[Procrastinator35]

And we won't mention the fact that it's been U.S intervention into the Middle-East, from the 70's on-wards, that continually plunders these countries back into 3rd World States....With puppet fundys installed as heads of State, so as to stymie any progress & hope of democracy taking hold.

Nah....Lets ignore that one crucial factor & blame it all on the Koran & Islam......I mean, Christ almighty, Allah save us.

 

[Westerberg]

That absolute inarguable and definitive proof that Islam and Terrorism are mutually exclusive is:

The vast majority of victims of "Islamic" Terrorism are.... Islamic!

I've yet to see a reasonable rebuttal to that argument. Surely if these Jihadists really did want to impose Islam on the world, the majority of the victims would be Christians and Westerners, no?

Couldn't be that the reasoning behind it all has much more to do with Geopolitics, money, power and greed eg the main cause behind just about every prominent violent movement in human history.

They want to impose their specific version of Islam on the world, and the death of other Muslims is entirely compatible with that. Blasphemers like, Shia's, Sufi's, Ahmadi's all had it coming as much as the west.

Collateral damage of Sunni's is explained away as gods will, either they've died as martyrs and are now in eternal paradise, in which case they've done them a favour, or they were enemies / blasphemers and deserved to die.

It's a plausible interpretation of the faith, that clearly appeals to a small minority.

Geopolitics, power and Western meddling, no doubt explains why so many Muslims are willing to take up terrorism and commit these atrocities. But it doesn’t explain why they’ve decided that the appropriate response in the first place is terrorism or joining a group like ISIS and dying in defence of the faith.

You need a particular set of beliefs, like martyrdom in order to reach that conclusion, and it’s evidently not difficult to interpret the Islamic doctrine to justify such a response.

To quote Voltaire, if they can make you believe in absurdities, they can convince you commit atrocities.

Belief that one book, revealed to one man, in one language is the perfect immutable word of the creator of the universe is ridiculous. And it’s no coincidence that when Christians used to believe the same about their book, they committed similar atrocities.

 

[Collingwoodity]

The vast majority of Trump supporters are just disenfranchised blue collar workers. The guys that lost their jobs to the very Corporatism, Trade liberalisation and globalisation you support.

And David Duke and the Klu Klux Klan of course. They also support Trump. For very different reasons.

So yeah not, all of his supporters are racists and sexists. It's just that the racists and sexists tended to vote for him.



Whos deifying Castro?

All true. But the "alt-right" or "right" or "centre-right" thinkers think why weren't Corporatism, Trade liberalisation and globalisation addressed during the 8 years of Obama's administration?

Also, aren't Trump's main policies anti-trade liberalisation and globalisation? Yes he is in favour of Corporatism.

 

[Malifice]

All true. But the "alt-right" or "right" or "centre-right" thinkers think why weren't Corporatism, Trade liberalisation and globalisation addressed during the 8 years of Obama's administration?

Because the Left embraced them as economic policies all decades ago. See: Tony Blair in the UK (who followed his lead from Bob Hawke in Oz) and 'New Labor'.

The Democrats, UK Labor and the ALP all support globalisation and corporatisation and capitalist economics. They just also support strong social liberal policies as well to try and protect or lessen the impact of them (welfare, wage protection, public health and education, trade practices and consumer protection legislation etc).

Globilization is inevitable. Plus, the overall benefits of capitalism far outweigh protectionist or centralised economics.

The invisible hand and all that.

Also, aren't Trump's main policies anti-trade liberalisation and globalisation? Yes he is in favour of Corporatism.

He's touted protectionism which in Australia is the purview of the Nationals and One Nation (Clive Palmer was a fan as well from memory). Its a growing trend as a reaction to globilization; shutting up shop and closing the borders not only to migrants, but also to trade. See also: Brexit.

Its insular policies like this (and right wing governments) that tend towards leading to war. In fact, historically they're a precursor to war. In addition to militarization, jingoism and belligerent foreign policy, which are all more of Trumps methods and policies.

It remains to be seen if he's a dangerous populist madman who drinks his own bathwater and actually intends to do half the crazy shit he said he would do, or a brilliant if egotistical reader of the state of play who is just there to feather his own nest and create a legacy.

If 'the left' can learn anything from this, its that there is a sizeable proportion of the working class that feel left behind by the rapid pace of change. Like I said earlier, many of those (the majority) who voted for Trump werent racist KKK, swastika waving loons (althoug to a man those of that crowd that voted, voted for Trump). Most of them were working class and the poor who were afraid of a world that was getting smaller all around them. They watched 'fat-cats' get away with the GFC and housing bubble which cost them their homes, terrorists killing people all round the world and at home, US soliders coming home in body bags in a war none of them understand, and their jobs get taken away while the wealthiest 1 percent got an even bigger slice of the pie.

There are genuine (and percieved) fears and concerns among the poor and working class that arent being listened to.

This is the exact crowd that Howard cottoned on to in order to get into power himself. 'Howards Battlers'. Blue collar workers who felt alienated and left behind. He dangled first home buyer grants (You get a house, you get a house, everybody gets a house!) in front of them, while also locking up boat people. Suddenly they felt like they were getting a piece of the pie that had been promised, and they also felt like the brown people 'jumping the que to get free stuff from the government' were being kept away from that pie.

They jumped ship from Labour to Liberal.

Of course, then Howard tried to foist Workchoices on them. That was a bridge too far, and they quickly turfed him out.

Unions gonna union and all that.

 

[Malifice]

Geopolitics, power and Western meddling, no doubt explains why so many Muslims are willing to take up terrorism and commit these atrocities. But it doesn’t explain why they’ve decided that the appropriate response in the first place is terrorism or joining a group like ISIS and dying in defence of the faith.

Considering they're up against a technologically and numerically superior foe, then insurgency and political tactics are to be expected.

Such tactics are not without historical precedent.

The IRA avoided killing civilians as much as possible using similar tactics and methods. They knew it would turn people against them (inluding many in Ireland). With the Islamists, they rely on jazzy social media, spectacular attacks that hit world news (9/11, Paris, mass beheadings, gruesome execution videos etc) all of which are extreme and designed to shock and create terror. This is because unlike the IRA (who wanted sympathy for their cause) the Islamists actually want people turning against them, and hating on them, and persecuting them. They want people attacking Muslims because Islam proscribes the use of military force and self sacrifice only when you are the one getting attacked.

Bloody mass killings and terror attacks are designed to make the rest of the world start wanting to come after/ persecute/ ban/target Muslims and Islam. In response, this provokes more Muslims to take up arms in defence of the faith. We then get more mass killings. More persecution follows. And so on and so on it goes.

Its IS selling the narrative that this is a war between Islam and the West. When you understand this is what they're doing (and why) then it becomes self evident that Right wing idiots who parrot the same narrative are only helping IS.

This is why (for example) Obama doesnt refer to Islamic terrorism as 'Islamic'. It just reinforces this false narrative and actually makes the job of the bad guys so much easier.

You need a particular set of beliefs, like martyrdom in order to reach that conclusion, and it’s evidently not difficult to interpret the Islamic doctrine to justify such a response.

Not many Muslims do justify such a response. Most read the Quran in a very different context to the Wahabbi Salaffist fundamental interpretation. They're not all taking up arms in defence of the faith of course. Very few do.

What is problematic is dealing with the reality that some do get sucked in by this ruse, and do take up arms. As we all know it only takes one dedicated prick with an AK-47 or a plane or god knows what to kill an awful lot of people.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Because the Left embraced them as economic policies all decades ago. See: Tony Blair in the UK (who followed his lead from Bob Hawke in Oz) and 'New Labor'.

The Democrats, UK Labor and the ALP all support globalisation and corporatisation and capitalist economics. They just also support strong social liberal policies as well to try and protect or lessen the impact of them (welfare, wage protection, public health and education, trade practices and consumer protection legislation etc).

Globilization is inevitable. Plus, the overall benefits of capitalism far outweigh protectionist or centralised economics.

The invisible hand and all that.

He's touted protectionism which in Australia is the purview of the Nationals and One Nation (Clive Palmer was a fan as well from memory). Its a growing trend as a reaction to globilization; shutting up shop and closing the borders not only to migrants, but also to trade. See also: Brexit.

Its insular policies like this (and right wing governments) that tend towards leading to war. In fact, historically they're a precursor to war. In addition to militarization, jingoism and belligerent foreign policy, which are all more of Trumps methods and policies.

It remains to be seen if he's a dangerous populist madman who drinks his own bathwater and actually intends to do half the crazy shit he said he would do, or a brilliant if egotistical reader of the state of play who is just there to feather his own nest and create a legacy.

If 'the left' can learn anything from this, its that there is a sizeable proportion of the working class that feel left behind by the rapid pace of change. Like I said earlier, many of those (the majority) who voted for Trump werent racist KKK, swastika waving loons (althoug to a man those of that crowd that voted, voted for Trump). Most of them were working class and the poor who were afraid of a world that was getting smaller all around them. They watched 'fat-cats' get away with the GFC and housing bubble which cost them their homes, terrorists killing people all round the world and at home, US soliders coming home in body bags in a war none of them understand, and their jobs get taken away while the wealthiest 1 percent got an even bigger slice of the pie.

There are genuine (and percieved) fears and concerns among the poor and working class that arent being listened to.

This is the exact crowd that Howard cottoned on to in order to get into power himself. 'Howards Battlers'. Blue collar workers who felt alienated and left behind. He dangled first home buyer grants (You get a house, you get a house, everybody gets a house!) in front of them, while also locking up boat people. Suddenly they felt like they were getting a piece of the pie that had been promised, and they also felt like the brown people 'jumping the que to get free stuff from the government' were being kept away from that pie.

They jumped ship from Labour to Liberal.

Of course, then Howard tried to foist Workchoices on them. That was a bridge too far, and they quickly turfed him out.

Unions gonna union and all that.

I don't disagree with much of this. Just a few points:

I believe you mentioned that globalisation, Corporisation etc was the right's policies initially. So are they a good thing or aren't they?

Right wing governments tend to lean towards war. Historically, yes, but wasn't that the opposite this US election? Trump was anti-war and Hilary was pro-war.

Howard improved housing affordability for Australians. A very real issue now that the grant is gone. Not sure how that can be reflected on as a bad thing.

The locking up of boat people. Well, this is always murky water. What is the left's positive solution to the boat people and illegal immigrants? The liberal policy is not ideal but it has stopped the boats and there are less deaths at sea. I genuinely have not heard a constructive policy that resolves this problem perfectly.