Are Muslims really trying to take over, or are some people just suffering from Islamaphobia? — Page 24

Bingowings said:

If by your country you mean your city you may have a small degree of a point.

Currently 5% of English residents are Muslim in the rest of the UK the share of people with a religion other than Christianity is around 0.5% and Islam is just a minority within that tiny minority.

I don't believe that 5% of English people everywhere are Muslim.

So it seems to me that most Muslims in Britain are corralled in English cities (mostly in the north but London has a large share too) which paints a distorted picture.

Particularly if those Muslims are wearing traditional clothes and beards and opening clothes and food shops catering to their tastes.

To label all of these people as Jihadist is as absurd as calling all Jews Zionists or all Christians anti-Semites.

I suggest you read this Bingo. It may make you rethink your views on 'moderate' Muslims 

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3425/Islam-extremism

No because it's on the Gatestone Institute's pages.

It's a propaganda front for oil monied billionaires and far right wing Israelis.

Use Boolean logic.

Of all these groups accused of trying to rule the world which actually rule the world :Socialists, Gays, The Rich, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Satanists, Shape Shifting Lizard Men?

Who runs the Gatestone Institute?

That view reeks of paranoia. I've no Idea who the Gatestone institute are so will you post me a link that explains and justifies your claim. The article is a very balanced one. It's neither right or left in its message. 

You think it's paranoid not to believe everything you read on the internet?

Gatestone publish articles by Fjordman (the favorite read of Anders Breivik) and the conspiracy theorist Bat Ye'or.

They raise money at invitation only events with speakers like Douglas Murray, Henry Kissinger, John Bolton, Bruce Bawer, Geert Wilders, Frank Luntz, Daniel Pipes at The Four Seasons.

If you were posting stuff from Alex Jones most people would get their salt shaker ready but posting from Gatestone is practically reading from the NeoCon Bible.

imperialscum said:

Bingowings said:

I'm fortunate not to want my Country to be global scale.

You did not quite understand where I was aiming at. What I was trying to say is that now you are (we all here are btw) in the top 5% of world's population that exploits the rest of the 95%. If you will move down the global scale as a result of bad local economic policies, such as excessive local social policies, (or if others will push you down) you won't be able to enjoy the "nice" socialism. If you move into the 95%, the only socialism you can have in a poor country is the one makes everyone equally poor.

If you are trying to say to enjoy the benefits of socialism one must first go through a period of capitalism. I would agree with you but so did Karl Marx.

I met him you know?

I told him to introduce the cigar and the funny walk into his act but he didn't go for it like Sigmund.

I agree with a lot of what Douglas Murray says. As for Kissinger and the others? Couldn't care less. But it seems to me you're totally oblivious and living in ignorance of the problem at hand. And like most people like yourself who've never experienced it at first hand, consequently it doesnt exist. And we're all hatemongers, racists and xenophobes who speak out about it and raise legitimate concerns. Answer me one question. When Muslims are the minority in a society, do their public leaders talk about the importance of peace and tolerance amongst everyone?  and that yet when they are the majority, tolerance and peace between communities is suddenly thrown out the window and intolerance is the key word? 

Ronster said:

Stop watching the news, stop reading the news and you will feel better...

It takes time to wear off but once you do you can live your life properly and not in ignorance

fixed.

Hey, it's me. said:

I agree with a lot of what Douglas Murray says. As for Kissinger and the others? Couldn't care less. But it seems to me you're totally oblivious and living in ignorance of the problem at hand. And like most people like yourself who've never experienced it at first hand, consequently it doesnt exist. And we're all hatemongers, racists and xenophobes who speak out about it and raise legitimate concerns. Answer me one question. When Muslims are the minority in a society, do their public leaders talk about the importance of peace and tolerance amongst everyone?  and that yet when they are the majority, tolerance and peace between communities is suddenly thrown out the window and intolerance is the key word? 

Have you actually read my posts or are you just posting nonsense again?

The people you are linking to are all tainted sources.

I believe you feel surrounded by frightening and alien people but most of that is down to a warped world view from the people you are reading and an obsession with surface details.

This is exactly the sort of fertile soil that Hitler used to turn the pretty liberal between the wars Germany into the rubble left when he died.

Hitler saw (from his point of view) rich Jewish bankers getting more rich off world war one. His response was to persecute the Jews.

You are making much the same mistake.

I'm not talking about Hitler. Answer my question.

Hey, it's me. said:

I'm not talking about Hitler. Answer my question.

Your questions seemed to be rhetorical.

You are still treating Muslims as something separate to the rest of the human race.

Humans when they gather in numbers create laws for their society.

If you are suggesting that the majority of current Western societies are more tolerant of difference than the majority of current Islamic societies I would agree with you.

That tolerance is rightfully extended to Muslims within those Western societies by almost everyone but a few.

In the majority of current Islamic societies intolerance is wrongfully extended to outsiders.

Tolerance of difference is good. Intolerance is bad.

The history of the West has only recently moved in the direction of tolerance.

Distancing ourselves from regimes like Stalinism and Nazism.

Islamic countries have historically and recently distanced themselves from America, Europe and Israel because of the actions of those societies towards them and they suffer from distancing themselves from the benefits of the lessons we have learned.

That doesn't give you license to act like them though does it?

Don't forget the imperialism of the Ottoman Empire. Islam is historically intolerant of other religions. You may practice your religion but always succeed Islam is superior. After years of harmony in Jerusalem between Jews, Christians and Muslims was it not a Muslim that lit the blue touch paper by inciting war by burning down churches? Before that time there was,and always had been, peace between the religions. Don't try to make out they are the innocent victims of history Bingo.

The Turkish Empire was long lasting and had periods where it was more tolerant than Christian Imperial powers.

The Tudor Dynasty (Golden age, Shakespeare and all that) saw English monarchs oscillate between attacking various definitions of Christianity but it took a Stuart King to really kick off the burning of Cunning Folk.

People are by nature generally no good.

Their Governments project innocence but are equally duplicitous.

It's always been the way since the first civilisations in the Middle East.

Recent history has made our societies outwardly more welcoming of difference because our recent enemies were outwardly hostile. Not because it was good or the right thing to do because if that alone were enough we wouldn't have needed the civil rights movement.

The countries that define themselves as Islamic are rejecting the character of the societies that have offended them.

And in doing so cutting their nose off to spite their face but they do a lot of that sort of thing over there right?

That doesn't mean we should be like that, it means we should be even more tolerant of Muslims within our societies and not impose our ways on so called Islamic countries (most of which have their own relationships with each other anyway).

If we are not seen as 'the enemy' our good customs will be seen as less offensive and maybe even desirable.

imperialscum said:

What I was trying to say is that the global economy always have and probably always will function according to basic natural laws (which is capitalism in other words). It is either your country will play by those rules, be successfully at it and be in the rich 5%; or fail at it and end up in the poor 95% who are exploited by the 5%. It is naive to think that everyone could have a couple of cars, a couple of mobile phones, a couple of computer. If people in 5% of the countries can have all that then it means the people in the other 95% must work for that.

Unfortunately, the human, however sophisticated, is in its core still an animal. We still have and operate by natural instincts of self-improvement and such. The capitalism targets those instincts that is why it works so "well", while socialism goes against them. If you will enforce too excessive socialism in one country you might risk people asking themselves "why do I work my ass off when everyone gets the same" and work less and less, which will gradually diminish the country's global economical power. And that will lead it into those 95%.

Note that I personally think that what I said is unfair and bad. But that is how it is. It is a jungle on a different level. I am just being realist.

We are only superficially animal.

We are equally drones of technology and society, we are swept up in that trinity of chaotic evolution.

We have learned to project our animal responses into technology and culture.

Our desires too.

If we are capable of turning the greed for food and mates into a greed for lumps of metal and rocks we can also turn it into greed for compassion and progress.

Imagine a world where a starving child was more rare than diamonds. Only the very rich could have one. Not nice for the child in question but better than a world where starving children are as common as pebbles on a shingle beach.

Bingowings said:

The Turkish Empire was long lasting and had periods where it was more tolerant than Christian Imperial powers.

The Tudor Dynasty (Golden age, Shakespeare and all that) saw English monarchs oscillate between attacking various definitions of Christianity but it took a Stuart King to really kick off the burning of Cunning Folk.

People are by nature generally no good.

Their Governments project innocence but are equally duplicitous.

It's always been the way since the first civilisations in the Middle East.

Recent history has made our societies outwardly more welcoming of difference because our recent enemies were outwardly hostile. Not because it was good or the right thing to do because if that alone were enough we wouldn't have needed the civil rights movement.

The countries that define themselves as Islamic are rejecting the character of the societies that have offended them.

And in doing so cutting their nose off to spite their face but they do a lot of that sort of thing over there right?

That doesn't mean we should be like that, it means we should be even more tolerant of Muslims within our societies and not impose our ways on so called Islamic countries (most of which have their own relationships with each other anyway).

If we are not seen as 'the enemy' our good customs will be seen as less offensive and maybe even desirable.

Apostasy isn't a swear word in Christianity. In Islamic countries you can get killed for committing it. That's a real tolerant religion and culture?? Their ideology does not fit with modern, western society. It's fascism. No matter how much peace loving bullshit rhetoric their leaders spout. Everyone needs to fucking wake up.

It's not that long since this was the case.

It's pure fluke we had the industrial revolution when we did.

If they had discovered some old Greek books in their collections before we did they might be bitching about how backwards our bronze aged culture is.

http://tellmamauk.org/call-on-home-secretary-to-ban-visit-by-pam-geller-Robert-spencer/

So, where were the same voices asking for this man to be banned? 

http://huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/19/Saudi-preacher-Mohammad-al-arefe_n_3465941.html

Hypocrisy in action.

Dark Willow says :

Finished...

*sigh*

Who wants to play sink the Titanic?

No stamina ;)

Hey, it's me. said:

http://tellmamauk.org/call-on-home-secretary-to-ban-visit-by-pam-geller-Robert-spencer/

So, where were the same voices asking for this man to be banned? 

http://huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/19/Saudi-preacher-Mohammad-al-arefe_n_3465941.html

Hypocrisy in action.

You may tut and roll your eyes, but that's a pertinent question that merits answering. Ignoring it proves your ignorant.

Bingowings said:

Your funny bingo. Above all else I like your sense of humour. But your a willfully ignorant fool.