Let's Have Another Argument about Islam

[Walkie]

I do not think it is either an either/or solution. I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that trying to keep out a bad minority of radicalised extremists is not requiring that all home grown extremists are taken care of first or visa versa.

I think there is a much bigger reason to shoot holes in that plan. IF "people from that area" are temporarily stopped from coming into America then surely that would move through Europe and say they were from somewhere not from that area. If it was applied to Muslims only, why not say you were Christian or Buddhist or something else? IF they do this then ironically the only people whop would really be affected would be the people that America (presumably) would not mind immigrating.

I was saying why it wouldn;t work, not why it isn't reasonable (if that isn't quibbling too much?)

Unfirtunately, the plan looks unreasonable from a number  reasonable  perspectives.  Not from all perspectives, but we surely need to careful to look at something like that from all sides (as we actually are, more -or-less) before ploughing ahead. No use trying to drag the Elephant out of the room, trunk first, through that little window up there, is there?

Quibbling aside. Yeah  you've just offered another good reason why some people would protest that it's an horribly unreasonable thing to do. And why it wouldn't work, anyway.

[Walkie]

Walkie-

Lots of people declared "I am Charlie" because they are brainwashed by the media.  Charlie Hebdo doesn't represent freedom of speech.  They fired one of their staff for "anti-semitism" and tried to get the Front Nationale banned because of their "hate speech".  Charlie Hebdo saying "the Koran is shit, it doesn't stop bullets" after a number of Muslims were massacered sounds pretty hateful. 

There were mass killings in other countries around the same time as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and no one showed solidarity with them. 

Well actually, after 9/11 there were journalists who asked bankers and business in the Middle East why America were attacked, and they were told that it was down to the US blocking democracy and supporting and installing dictators for decades and the US's support for Israel's occupation etc.  Israel blow up Palestinians and Lebanese in terrorist attacks every few years. 

Obama's drone campaign is the definition of terrorism.  They pick out someone who is suspected of one day thinking about considering possibly doing something against America/Americans and then bomb the barbecue or funeral the "suspect" is at.

Never mind how you chose to anayse it, never mind how many holes you pick in Charlie Hebdo, I would still  say "Je suis Charlie" . It was a gut-response from  people all everywhere, and it was very much  about the defending freedom of speech in the minds of the people who said it. It had nothing whatsoever to do with your intellectual nitpicking.

Sure it's worth analysing those things. Sure, it woukld be just as bad if Charliec Hebdo were immune from criticism (which they are very clearly not)  as it would be if Islam were immune from criticism. It was what Charlie Hebdo represented at that moment in time, that really mattered, and that was perfectly clear and obvious. 

Brainwashed by the media? Heck, you really are superior aren't you? I wouldn't trust you to lead me, with that attitude, Benji,  any more than i would trust some ranting Imam to lead me.

It wasn't a gut response remotely, it was just promoted by the mainstream media and politicians.  It's just a propaganda slogan.  Sure, if the same people didn't ignore and support similar crimes in other countries, I could be led to buy it.  Charlie Hebdo doesn't stand for freedom of speech, and any impartial media would have been able to point this out. 

It was "clear and obvious" in the mainstream media because they chose to put insane amounts of focus on it.  When Israel blows up 4 kids playing football on a beach with US or UK weapons and with the US and Israel's support, the same media seems to forget about it for the most part. 

It's not even controversial that the media brainwashes people.  It has been used throughout history to alter people's opinion on war very quickly.

Oh, rot! What an instution  stands for, in the mind of an individual, and what it is in reality are generally  two different things, and it's rarely based on a comprehensive socio-political analysis, and a broad knowlege of current affairs. Their  iconic value can override all such considerations

Thus institutions such as Christianity, or Islam can be totally valid symbols of peace, and brotherly love, in the minds of pure-hearted believers, irrespective of their blood-drenched history, irrespective of corruption within those instutions.  And you're intersted in defending those peoples rights ,  aren't you? You're not simply dismissing them as "brainwashed" or disingenous.

Similarly, Charlie Hebdo can be a perfectly valid symbol of free speech, especially under the given circumstances. Nothing wrong with accepting it as such. 

[odeon]

In real life, the truth matters whole lot more than who exactly says it, and the truth has a thousand different facets. So, if Al or anyone responds to a snark on my behalf, i think "Good, that's the really pointless bit out of the way" (if only it were quite that easy). But credit where credit's due , he did it well and scored more points than you, if I'm any judge. If you can't be arsed with reading Al's posts, that's really not my problem.

It can be, if you don't reply to my posts, thinking that Al already did address something or the other. Right now, I respect your opinion and your right to it, and will consider it before answering. Al's I am most likely going to ignore or use as target practice.

[odeon]

Has anyone uttered a word why Muslims might be 'prejudiced' against non-Muslims?  Does anyone actually think they hate us 'becozzz werrr freeee'?  We've been destroying the Middle East for decades, blocking democracy and supporting brutal regimes as well as stealing their resources and blowing them up.  But when we do it, we don't call it terrorism.  Does anyone actually believe the narrative that we went into Afghanistan to 'liberate women', to find Bin Laden and knock out Al Qaeda and the Taliban?  When the US supported Jihadists in the 80's that threw acid into women's faces, they never charged Bin Laden with 9/11 and the US supports Al Qaeda.  Or went into Iraq because Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda, and because he was a horrible person and because we love democracy so much?  When this was all a lie spewed out from Israeli intelligence, and we supported Saddam through his worst crimes.   

Did anyone think it would be a good idea to flood the West with people from the Middle East while we destroyed the Middle East?

The establishment have done this intentionally, they're not that stupid.  They want people to support their wars against the Muslim world and support Israel.   

What a shame. I found myself agreeing with some of your post until you sawed off the branch you were sitting on.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not.  Obviously it's going to be difficult for you to agree with stuff that goes over your head.

Personally found it to be one of your best posts.

He had the makings of a good post but the tinfoil hat is hard to ignore.

My tinfoil hat has fashion and flair.

I noticed.

[odeon]

In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.

It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?

See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.

[benjimanbreeg]

Walkie-

Lots of people declared "I am Charlie" because they are brainwashed by the media.  Charlie Hebdo doesn't represent freedom of speech.  They fired one of their staff for "anti-semitism" and tried to get the Front Nationale banned because of their "hate speech".  Charlie Hebdo saying "the Koran is shit, it doesn't stop bullets" after a number of Muslims were massacered sounds pretty hateful. 

There were mass killings in other countries around the same time as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and no one showed solidarity with them. 

Well actually, after 9/11 there were journalists who asked bankers and business in the Middle East why America were attacked, and they were told that it was down to the US blocking democracy and supporting and installing dictators for decades and the US's support for Israel's occupation etc.  Israel blow up Palestinians and Lebanese in terrorist attacks every few years. 

Obama's drone campaign is the definition of terrorism.  They pick out someone who is suspected of one day thinking about considering possibly doing something against America/Americans and then bomb the barbecue or funeral the "suspect" is at.

Never mind how you chose to anayse it, never mind how many holes you pick in Charlie Hebdo, I would still  say "Je suis Charlie" . It was a gut-response from  people all everywhere, and it was very much  about the defending freedom of speech in the minds of the people who said it. It had nothing whatsoever to do with your intellectual nitpicking.

Sure it's worth analysing those things. Sure, it woukld be just as bad if Charliec Hebdo were immune from criticism (which they are very clearly not)  as it would be if Islam were immune from criticism. It was what Charlie Hebdo represented at that moment in time, that really mattered, and that was perfectly clear and obvious. 

Brainwashed by the media? Heck, you really are superior aren't you? I wouldn't trust you to lead me, with that attitude, Benji,  any more than i would trust some ranting Imam to lead me.

It wasn't a gut response remotely, it was just promoted by the mainstream media and politicians.  It's just a propaganda slogan.  Sure, if the same people didn't ignore and support similar crimes in other countries, I could be led to buy it.  Charlie Hebdo doesn't stand for freedom of speech, and any impartial media would have been able to point this out. 

It was "clear and obvious" in the mainstream media because they chose to put insane amounts of focus on it.  When Israel blows up 4 kids playing football on a beach with US or UK weapons and with the US and Israel's support, the same media seems to forget about it for the most part. 

It's not even controversial that the media brainwashes people.  It has been used throughout history to alter people's opinion on war very quickly.

Oh, rot! What an instution  stands for, in the mind of an individual, and what it is in reality are generally  two different things, and it's rarely based on a comprehensive socio-political analysis, and a broad knowlege of current affairs. Their  iconic value can override all such considerations

Thus institutions such as Christianity, or Islam can be totally valid symbols of peace, and brotherly love, in the minds of pure-hearted believers, irrespective of their blood-drenched history, irrespective of corruption within those instutions.  And you're intersted in defending those peoples rights ,  aren't you? You're not simply dismissing them as "brainwashed" or disingenous.

Similarly, Charlie Hebdo can be a perfectly valid symbol of free speech, especially under the given circumstances. Nothing wrong with accepting it as such.

That actually would be a very good point, if Charlie Hebdo actually stood for freedom of speech and expression.  If the media highlighted the 3 points I made about them, things would have been very different. 

[benjimanbreeg]

In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.

It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?

See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.

At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry.  Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word. 

[Walkie]

In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.

It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?

See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.

At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry.  Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.

i think you just fingered the real problem there  . And Our Glorious Leader will snark til the cows come home.  And we are all idioits and bigots. ofc.  And Even Walkie is tiring of this same old. Can't we talk about Islam, instead , FFS?

[odeon]

I don't know if direct stats are available on this, but the kind of stats  that would really interst me, are not "terrorism" stats as such but something more along the lines of "Acts of aggression against feedom of speech,  freedom of religion etc"

http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf

Some of the things you are looking for are there, but as you point out yourself, most wouldn't be classified as terrorism. Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie and the like are a mere footnote when compared to the systematic repression of free speech in many parts of the world.

The problem in what you are saying (which superficially looks fine btw) is your use of "many parts of the world". In Thailand, try saying anything aloud disrespectful of the King. You will have your right to free speech respected. That is THEIR custom.
So how is that different to Radical Muslim extremists? They also would not respect free speech to criticise Muhammad.
So what will the Thai people (or indeed any subset or groups within the Thai people) do to you in YOUR country if you criticise or parody their King? Now make the same argument for what radicalised Muslim extremists will do for criticising or parodying Muhammed. If you are struggling, start with Charlie Hebdo and go from there.

Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.

You're simply trying to score simple, and simplistic, points. No surprises there.

When Walkie talks about the threat of free speech and you seem to agree in principle and then talk about other places in the world, it waters down entirely what she is talking about and I think you do this deliberately. There is no direct equivalence in threat to free speech from the Thais nor the Russians nor any group within such countries that absolutely have recognisable inhibitions on free speech. Let's stick to where the problems ACTUALLY lay.

Where YOU think they are, right?

Obviously, some Islamist terrorist attacks would equally come under that heading eg the attack on Charlie Hebdo
Blowing up that statue of Buddha  would count
The fatwa against Salman Rushdie would count.
And bviously a lot of of acts by other religious groups  would count too.

IMO, the Islamist terror attacks have been very different from the IRA terror attacks on England. The IRA message was "Withdraw your troops from Northern Ireland". There was actually a lot of sympathy for their cause amongst the English, if not for the methods.   ( I know. I was there. I had Irish Catholic friends with IRA sympathies. A lot of people did. ) . It put  the English on the horns of one hellova   dilemma, but it was (arguably) a reasonable demand

I see where you're coming from but would argue that groups like Al Qaeda have similar messages (i.e. GTFO of the Middle East), and actually, so do ISIS, even though their idea seems to be to expand to a worldwide caliphate. The differences between them and IRA are in how they define and allow the use of political violence.

Indeed there is ABSOLUTELY an element of this and I know people like Benji and myself have absolutely been critical of the West and more specifically the US and its allies in starting wars and conflicts and trying to nation build and interfere with World Policing.

They have made a rod for their own backs.

But it is not hypocrisy nor being disingenuous that I can be critical of the interfering and world policing (and can even see how people from such regions may hate us collectively for said interfering) and yet condemn what they believe is adequate response when it comes to the treatment of radicalised Muslim extremists and their attacks at Westerners.

Huh? You lost yourself there, didn't you? Try again.

One does not make the other right.

This we agree on.

ISIS is absolutely about setting up a new caliphate. They Absolutely want to spread Islamic rule. They are absolutely opposed to Western values and Western people. They are absolutely a danger and talk of their justifications or differences in culture or alluding to any efforts to stop them being bigoted as to it possibly impacting on decent Muslims is both stupid and disingenuous.

I agree regarding them being a danger, obviously, but if you fail to understand their reasoning, however wrong you think it is, you will fail to take appropriate action, not only against ISIS but when (or, in your case, IF) you attempt to help the millions of people who are running for their lives. You will fail to help and only replace the present disaster with something else.

It;s that demand  makes the attacks so deeply threatening , not the number of people killed.  We've been reminded ad nauseam that our chance of being killed in a terror attack is minute, compared to our chances of being killed crossing the road. and I alway think, so what?   The cars and trucks are not threatening my freedom .

And neither are the Muslims, even though that is the message brought to you by the populist politicians and media.

Not that any of us ARE talking about Muslims and you are not too stupid to not computer this right.

You obviously have reading comprehension issues, but don't insult the others by using the collective "we" when you are the dimwit.

"Our" gripe is ONLY (read that) for the radicalised Muslim extremists. So its cute and all that you steer away from these groups to constantly talk about Muslims as a whole and pretend that is what you were responding to. But you are not fooling us and you are not apply that point to what was saying specifically. (I'd give it up were I you because I am not even sure you believe it).

Bloody hell, are you really this stupid?

That's why so many people all over the world stood up and declared "I am Charlie" . We were all saying : we will not be intimidated into giving up any of our freedoms. And the freedom to mock a religion is every bit as important as the freedom to practice that  religion.

And I fully agree. But where is their support when less visible but far more serious threats against these freedoms pop up in places like Poland, Hungary, France or (obviously) Russia?

In all fairness, when Trump was elected, protests erupted because enough people see through him. In all fairness, it's why some Jews now say they will register as Muslims if Trump goes ahead with the Muslim database.

More serious threats? Fail.

When Trump was elected, people had been whipped up into a frenzy that they believed that he was a threat and so when they had the double whammy of Hillary not winning like they were promised and him being a leader like they had all been taught to fear through the fearmongering media, they protested in fear.

It was NOT that they were basing this on anything more than zealous ideology. "He is Literally Hitler. He is going to go from home to home with immigration deportations squads and set up deportation detention centres and even send Black Africans "back" to Africa." Yes this is not hyperbole. People ACTUALLY believe that and not from what Trump said, but what they were told by the Press, the DNC tasking heads, community leaders and Academic institutions.

Let's have a look at what he actually said:

Latinos:

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

And

It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East.

The ban on *all* Muslims entering the US (the first 20 seconds will do):

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video

The list goes on. Do a Google search on "what did Trump actually say on ..." and see for yourself. Then try to explain it away. This is not Hillary making up anything, this is Trump stating his opinions. I don't blame people for being scared of what this lunatic will do.

Pretending that:

protests erupted because enough people see through him

is just disingenuous, and believing it is idiotic.

As for registers...and? Some Jews believe what exactly about registers or databases recording Muslims from these areas? Do you know why it is that Muslims coming from Iraq are NOW able to be vetted but Muslims from Libya or Syria aren't? What is the one reason? Intel. What kind of intel? Registers of all the Iraqi based Muslims are now thorough enough to account for enough of the threats as to be marginal.

See that is the problem. People see the word "register and suddenly let their imaginations run in conspiratorial directions because they feel a negative undercurrent which makes them fearful that the person using said register will do so to do harm.

The negative undercurrent being that some citizens would have to register while others wouldn't. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the founding fathers had in mind, but I'm not an American, so...

What if said register is simply not a sword but a shield. It is just recording who is who so that the nastier elements are able to be identified and contained? what if identifying the bad elements means that the decent Muslims who are NOT radical extremists are NOT restricted from access to America and not otherwise inhibited? Wouldn't that be swell?

Ah. The "if you have nothing to hide..." defence. This is the kind of argument brought forward by DDR officials, actually, and I have to say, you'd make a fine STASI officer. A shame it's too late for that particular career option.

[odeon]

There are quite a few statements on this thread that I would like to take issue with , but right now, in the wake of Al's last post, I think the thing that really needs saying right now, is that identifying the radical extremists and keeping them out of America is not actually a solution.

I don't have an alternative solution to propose. If such a thing as a real solution exists then I don't believe anybody is going to find it without  first facing up to a plethora  of uncomfortable facts, the chief of which  would be: it's not that simple. I'm not claiming to to know all the relevant uncomfortable facts, but I'm pretty damned sure that the dialogue on this issue  (world over)  is dominated by prejudice, and that prejudice is always apt to find spurious solutions, via facile analysis of problems.

Remember the bold part, above, please.

Unfortunately the SJW are as prejudiced as everybody else is .

And who, exactly, are the SJWs?

I'm not trying to use the word "prejudice" as a pejorative. Prejudice is a natural human condition, arising from our inabilty to process every little bit of information that comes our way; we just have to live with that somehow, and figure out ways of preventing it from having catastrophic effects .  You certainly can't legislate against it. The best that  legislation can do is displace one set of social prejudices with another, as the dominant "politically correct" norm. Ofc, education is effective, but I use that term broadly. If "education" is all about absorbing societal norms from any culture whatsoever , then it will serve to deepen prejudice, nort undermine it. Education has to equate to that old-fashioned English notion of "broadening the mind". (I call that old fasdhioned because i really didn't see that happening at my English grammar school, back in the seventies. I saw much lip-service to that idea, and a curriculum that more often  worked to the opposite effect. But at least , back then, that defect appeared to be unintentional. Nowadays, the whole concept of broadening the mind appears to have been left behind- at least in the State sector -  in favour of making education "relevant") . In practice, then, I guess that has to mean self-education

I do very much like like that the "liberal"  bigotry is being effectively challenged. It had become really dangerous, IMO .But it's no use challenging that in isolation, as if some other form of bigotry would make a better job of things. I'm not even convinced that the powers-that-be really care what kind of bigotry we adopt, just so long as it distracts our attention, and keeps the little guy attacking  some other little guy.

What's the "liberal" bigotry? I'm not sure I'm following here.

I do believe Islam is a problem , and needs to be acknowleged as such.

This, IMHO, is prejudice and, as you've stated above (remember that bold bit?), what the discussion is dominate by. I don't think Islam is the problem any more than Catholicism is, or anything else. When IRA was busy bombing people to deliver a message, the idea many wanted to highlight is that it's a political statement, not a religious one, yet IIRC it was very hard for many to see the difference.

And that's the kind of insight that is needed now. There is no way you will ever stop the war(s) in the Middle East, or their consequences elsewhere, by assigning blame on Islam. People, yes. Radical nutjobs, yes. Warmongering politicians, yes. Religion, no.

Trump and his likes think that's precisely what they can do, and it will fail and create new problems, just like the Iraq war caused a lot more problems than it ever solved.

But it would need to acknowleged as such, even if it wasn't any part of the problem, because you can't just suppress a commonly-held point-of-view without creating worse problems than the ones you might expect to resolve in that way. (Hey! maybe we should make  Psychology a compulsory  subject in schools? That might work to curtail the widespread enthusiasm for naive, simplistic solurtions that don't work, mightn't it? )

Arguably, Trump is that "worse problem" , in America.

Not just in America--like it or not, the US is the world's dominant nation today and what happens there will affect us all. I suspect the world wouldn't be half as worried right now if this was about Le Pen in France.

But my point  is that the "Islam problem" has been defined in such a way that idfentifying "radical exteremists" and refusing them admittance to Amnerica   can be profferred as a credible solution.

It's not hard to find reasons why that couldn't possibly make much of a difference to anything (beyond increasing righteous indignation in various quarters) . Here's the the one that's uppermost in my mind right now (mostly because I think it's inarguable)

The Muslim  terrorists and jihadists in Britain have repeatedly turned out to be home-grown. That is native British Citizens, not from "over there" at all. Nor are they the offspring of radical Muslim parents.  The parents most often turn out to liberal , and sometimes even non-Muslim.   Maybe that pattern has yet to emerge in other countries, where Muslim imnmigration is a relatively novel phenomenon? I don't know. But it's very clear , here.

If the inflow of Muslims had been that kind of problem here--and we receive more refugees yearly than any other European nation except Germany--we would have had an unprecedented wave of terrorism. What we have is the extreme right supporters burning down refugee camps.

I hesitated to say that, because, personally, i don't think terrorism and jihadism  are the real issues any way, just another ugly symptom of a bunch of deeper , more complex problems, few of which are specifically  Islamic.  Also, it's probably easy to find a credibible hypothesis as to why that occurs, and run with that hypothesis straight into some other spurious solution. There are loads of theories, and we're always too fast to get behind them, because nobody likes to think that they "just don't know", do they?  We all like to think that we know exactly what 's going wrong, and exactly how to fix it.

Anyway, be that as it may, this idea of screening immigrants is surely a spurious solution.

It is, but it is the kind of populist quick fix I mentioned in another thread. It assigns blame, it outlines a comprehensible action the angry white male (the Trump voter; please don't go all literal on me here) can understand and relate to, and it suggests that the powers that be are working hard for a solution.

Except that they don't really have a clue, which Trump admits seconds after suggesting a ban on all Muslims entering the US. That part I actually find more scary than the rest.

[odeon]

Walkie- Yes, we let the wars in the Middle East happen, only the people can stop this all.  And the establishment have played tricks on the people.  It is true though that people ought to wise up and see through the propaganda. 

Muslims have it the worst at the moment.  Millions of people across the Middle East and Africa have been killed because of our war on Islam.  Disabled people have been the most persecuted people throughout history, they were being persecuted long before Judaism was established.  Jews are generally disliked because of their actions, well as a whole because of the actions of some or many of them.  Disabled people were put in death camps by the Nazis and there's evidence that there was an extermination policy against the disabled under Nazi rule.

Proof?

Not really something that can be proved off hand.  But you know it's going to be true.  Unless people were more tolerant and accepting of disabled people 3000 years ago, and if so it means we have dramatically regressed.

Nope, I disagree. 3,000 years ago, the likelihood of the disabled surviving for long enough to be actively persecuted was a lot lower than today, but people had plenty of competing tribes, foreigners and all kinds of strangers who all fit the bill better. Think about it.

[odeon]

The words "radical" and "extremist" don't mean a thing, it's just propaganda.  Someone could look at the posts here and call them "radical" and "extreme".

Actually, some do consider you to be extreme, now that you mention it.

[odeon]

In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.

It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?

See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.

At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry.  Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.

Redefining words now, Benji?

[odeon]

In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.

It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?

See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.

At least Al is taking on views he disagrees with and will argue till the cows come home with people he disagrees with, that's not bigotry.  Your complete dismissal of views you disagree with makes you a complete bigot in the true sense of the word.

i think you just fingered the real problem there  . And Our Glorious Leader will snark til the cows come home.  And we are all idioits and bigots. ofc.  And Even Walkie is tiring of this same old. Can't we talk about Islam, instead , FFS?

I assume that when Al or Benji call me names, that's different?

As for talking about Islam, go right ahead. We already have an ongoing discussion, so feel free to address any of the points made. Or, if you'd rather have a discussion on, say, the Quran or the Hadith, or why we use Arabic numerals, that's fine, too.

[Jack]

You think the UN has much power?

Indeed, they're completely shaping and unifying society and government on a global scale.

Yet they cannot stop the US and Israel from destroying the Middle East or stealing Palestine.

UN membership countries simply don't engage in war without UN approval. Granted, members of the security council have a higher level of control in decision making with veto power and supporting votes of allies, but the notion of not stopping one or two countries from doing something to me is a narrow view of how it works, who else is of benefit, and who is in support. If any other single superpower really wanted to stop what the US is doing, yes, they could in fact do it.

So when the US attacked Nicaragua in the 80's without the UN's backing and then Nicaragua went to the UN and the World Court and won and then the US just continued with even worse attacks, that's because of the UN?

Am talking about the big picture here. Global affairs have changed since the 80s, but that doesn't mean the US doesn't still step on the UN's toes, and has in fact done that in more recent years. However will still gladly argue that gaining control of the middle east is of long term benefit and fully supported by the majority of the world's government. Every superpower has their role in getting a piece of the pie; the US has to be the bad guy, the EU has to assimilate them, and China has to pay the bill. The only stand alone thus far has been Russia, and am thinking that's soon going to change.

Didn't mean to kill the conversation, if that's what I did. Did I get too tinfoiley? Don't you want to know what role Russia is going to play to get their piece of the middle eastern control pie? Russia couldn't stand back and maintain an impartial stance forever without it being viewed as passive complicity, especially not recently when faced with the direct needs of an ally. Russia's tokens of support for Syria has strengthened Russia's relationships with other countries in the middle east, and that includes countries which in the past have been US partners who more recently are inclined to gain favor with Russsia than with the US. Trump's election also signals improved future relations on the horizon for Russia and the US. Russia has to play the role of the good guy, the diplomatic negotiator working for both sides. Russia will walk away from this as the hero; Russia is going to save the world.