Are Muslims really trying to take over, or are some people just suffering from Islamaphobia? — Page 16

They are sometimes tangentially related.

Judaism is very difficult to convert to(when it happens the person in question is looked on as being discovered to be Jewish and returning to the religion).

Jewishness is carried down the maternal line to the degree that even after hundreds of years of diaspora Semitic characteristics are genetically observable (unique to people of the middle east, like Arabs).

Jewish people are subject to diseases (such as Tay-Sachs disease) almost unique to the their group.

Sikhs are in a similar situation.

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.

That's religioust! :p

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.

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.

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.

imperialscum said:

TV's Frink said:

Wow, you still can't read!

No offense.

And you still can't write. In proper English it is spelt "offence". :P

Offense intended.

That's irrational.

Almost all religions have dodgy scripture and shifty clerics.

The majority of Muslims are as intrusively religious as the majority of any religion or lack of.

So if you are anti-Islam you might as well be anti-Human because people are generally speaking the same.

Hey, it's me. said:

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.

I've not said you are homophobic at any point.  We've discussed the difference between racism, culturalism, and religionism, so I don't know why you keep harping on about that.

At the same time, how can you say you aren't intolerant to other cultures with your claims (that's all they are, sorry) about moderate Muslims.

And no, I don't live in London, so I don't know the exact details, but I find it hard to believe they are taking over and should all be removed from the country.

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...

Hey, it's me. said:

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...

Bangladesh, name one peaceful Hindu, Christian or Jewish country.

imperialscum said:

Okay again.

I do not see benefits of lax immigration policies. I support selective immigration. If a country is in need of a few skilled individuals that is completely okay. But to just accept anyone, especially to do less paid jobs (or even worse, to let them live on the state's social support) just because your own people do not wish to do it, that is stupid and could be even considered as an exploitation.

And yes, I do not like multiculturalism. Why exactly should I? And why am I getting attacked by intolerant people who consider themselves "tolerant"? I do not treat people who are of different culture bad. I respect them just the same (if they respect me). Actually I love cultures. And that is one of the reasons why I do not like multiculturalism.

There's no point in discussing anything with someone who thinks we're the intolerant ones.  Especially if you think your culture is somehow diminished by other cultures.

Okay I'll make it easier, name one country called the United Kingdom Of Great Britain that hasn't started a war with a predominantly Islamic country in the last two decades.

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.

oh, I think I remember a little of the argument now.