No. When you mentioned intolerance to those who are different from you, race implies intolerance or prejudice to those of the human race who are physically different from you. Be it Chinese, those from the sub continent, black, whatever. I'm talking about Religion. I have no problem with Judaism, Hindus or Sikhs, Taoism or any other. Just Islam. And that ain't down to fucking road signs in Arabic. Pardon my french.

Race is a very arbitrary attribute. What it all really boils down to is being different. This difference can be skin tone, anatomical differences, cultural differences, generational differences, differences in sexual preferences, etc. 

All these things go by different names, often ending in "ism", but they are all part of the same thing and spawn from the same way of thinking, and there are any number of rationales to justify them (some more reasonable than others).

^^lol^^ :p (Frinks post)

You're still judging a group of people as a whole based on their belief system, rather than looking at the individual. 

If we aim to educate, we can make a difference for the better. If we aim to alienate, we just make things worse and lose our credibility to educate.

CP3S said:

Race is a very arbitrary attribute. What it all really boils down to is being different. This difference can be skin tone, anatomical differences, cultural differences, generational differences, differences in sexual preferences, etc. 

All these things go by different names, often ending in "ism", but they are all part of the same thing and spawn from the same way of thinking, and there are any number of rationales to justify them (some more reasonable than others).

I give up. You won CP3S.

Immigration often becomes an issue during a financial downturn.

There are a lot of immigrants in London but many of them go unnoticed because they are pale skinned and very, very rich.

There are also a large number of immigrants to Spain who are pale skinned and disproportionately rich, obsessed with avoiding the local cuisine and only hop back to the UK to vote Tory once every four years or so.

Heck there a silly goon who doesn't pay a penny in tax here, was knighted by the British Monarch and is an active campaigner for Scottish independence and lives in the Bahamas.

TV's Frink said:

But he's right.  You're so focused on "racism" as a word that you're ignoring what he's actually saying.

 

impscum is doing the same.

I'm not intolerant of all religions. Just Islam. I'm not racist, homophobic, intolerant to other cultures. I just don't like Islam. You can harp on about moderate Muslims all you want. You don't live in London. Moderate Muslims are what are known as 'sleepers'. They can preach about peace and so forth but if the fundamentals take hold (which they increasingly are) they will fall into line and adhere without so much as a whimper. And make no mistake about that. This is the point you are NOT getting. There will be no protests, no non conformity. Nothing. And let me inform that that is not scaremongering. You live in America, you have absolutely no idea of the reality of the situation in London.

Name me a free (or peaceful for that matter) 'Muslim' country on this planet? Where the religion of fundamental Islam has a stronghold and the people therein such a society are truly free?....tumbleweed...

imperialscum

adywan said:

So America are now prepared to arm the Syrian Rebels because they say that the president has used chemical weapons. I'd be very wary of this. It was a very small amount used. Doesn't this ring alarm bells with anyone? Top experts have warned that these weapons were used by the rebels (the UN's investigator Carla del Ponte informed them about this after her investigation), in order to get the support of other nations and they were not used by Assad. But what's more worrying is that it is known that Al Qaeda is fighting alongside the rebels (same thing as what was happening in Lybia). So, if America start providing this military support, they are in danger of arming those they are supposed to be fighting against.

There are some terrible things happening over there, but is it all that we are being told it is? Rebels executed a 15 year old boy in front of his parents because they claimed he used the profit Muhammad's name in an offensive manner. And we've seen the pictures of the rebels eating one of the government soldiers hearts. Is this really the type of people that we should be helping? Also videos of Rebels training to use chemical weapons surfaced.

I'm hoping the Uk stays well out of this but the chances of that happening are slim to none. Shouldn't we be listening to those independent investigators instead of brushing their reports to one side without any evidence to refute their reports? 

And, before any one suggests that this is another Anti-American post by a Brit, it isn't. I'm curious to know what you guys over there think about all this.

very difficult situation.   I am very wary of arming Al Qaeda members.   I also think this Assad is a very bad guy, even if he hasn't used chemical weapons(and I am not saying he has not).   How trustworthy is the evidence that Assad has not used chemical weapons?   If the rebels did indeed execute a 15 year old boy for using Muhammad's name in an offensive manner, these do not sound like people whom can be responsible with the running of a nation.     If they win, would Syria just be going from one bad government to another?  I am really, truly not sure what we should do about Syria.   Perhaps we should do nothing, but then again, many people are being killed there.  Can we stand by and wash our hands of it like Pilate?  I don't know, I truly don't know.

I don't get it.