Wilders on Trial

[DogOnPorch]

I posted your hero's response back here yonder. Enjoy Israel Apartheid Week. Only once a year, afterall.

[Argus]

Which is why people who actually STUDY Islam as they would study any other social construct view people like Pat Condell, Hirsi Ali, and other bigots as complete morons.

They're blatant cousins of White Supremacists.

To you, anyone who questions Islamism is a bigot. You'd be doing that, fighting frantically and desperately for their rights to everything they want, right up to the moment they re-opened the gas chambers. At which point, smiling and bowing, you'd hurry in to please your masters.

[Argus]

Someone should ask the leftists the Islamic view of female and gay rights.

They'll blithely tell you that's just a "tiny minority" and if you point out the surveys of Muslim opinion, and how, for example, women and gays are treated by law and culture in Muslim countries they'll squirm uncomfortably and tell you that we can't judge other people's cultures.

Then they'll call you a bigot.

[Argus]

But if I want an opinion on Islamic Theology, I'm going to trust someone who's studied the Qu'ran a lot more than I am someone who flipped through the book looking for the bits they could pluck out that justified their prejudiced notion of what Islam is or isn't.

Maybe, but nobody gives a damn about what the theological aspects of Islam are compared to the day to day practice of it, and the cultural messages it puts out. And those messages seem to be heavily laden with hatred, violence, bigotry, mysogeny and the most extreme forms of homophobia.

It's nice, i suppose, if some ancient scholar suggests that murdering people isn't theologically acceptable, but it hardly offsets ten thousand barely literate Mullahs screaming invective from their mosques every day insofar as the effect on the mass of believers goes.

[Bonam]

Islam is a religion of conquest. One need only look at the actions of its central figure, Mohammed. Dusty old writings in books are irrelevant compared to the example set forth by the prophet that Muslims revere.

[ToadBrother]

To you, anyone who questions Islamism is a bigot. You'd be doing that, fighting frantically and desperately for their rights to everything they want, right up to the moment they re-opened the gas chambers. At which point, smiling and bowing, you'd hurry in to please your masters.

First of all, Islamism and Islam are two different things, just as Christian Reconstructionists and Christians are two different things. In both cases, we're dealing with a fanatical subset of a much much larger group.

I have no problem with reaching out a welcoming hand to Muslims. I also have no problem pursuing, persecuting and, where necessary, locking up or even killing Islamists.

Edited March 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[JB Globe]

To you, anyone who questions Islamism is a bigot.

Really?

Quote me on that.

I must be a bigot because I've got a problem with Islamism too.

This is what I said: "Anyone who believes Islam in and of itself is evil, is a bigot"

End of story.

Stop acting like a moron, it's embarrassing.

[DogOnPorch]

Islam is a religion of conquest. One need only look at the actions of its central figure, Mohammed. Dusty old writings in books are irrelevant compared to the example set forth by the prophet that Muslims revere.

Not only that, any connection Mohammed supposedly has with Jerusalem were completely made-up on the spot by Omar once the city fell to the invaders.

Priest: It is said this is the very spot were Mohammed visited heaven after a night flight from Arabia on a griffon.

Omar: Well I'll be damned.

Edited March 2, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[JB Globe]

Maybe, but nobody gives a damn about what the theological aspects of Islam are compared to the day to day practice of it, and the cultural messages it puts out.

Scholars of Islam study all of that.

And they don't agree with the notion that "Islam itself is evil"

This is a very adorable song and dance.

Do you practice much?

[ToadBrother]

Islam is a religion of conquest. One need only look at the actions of its central figure, Mohammed. Dusty old writings in books are irrelevant compared to the example set forth by the prophet that Muslims revere.

Yes, it was expansionist, but then again, so was Christianity. Do you think Christianity spread simply by good will? Guys like Constantine actively exterminated both heathens and heretics.

There was a period of Islamic history during the Middle Ages when it was far in advance of much of Christendom. Even after its fall (in large part a victim of hoards from the Asian steppe), the Ottoman Empire generally treated Christian and Jewish minorities far better than Muslims or Jews were treated in Christian lands.

Modern Islamism is a relatively new movement, rooted in 18th and 19th Wahabism that sprung out of the Arabian Peninsula as a fanatical and purist response to what was viewed as the wickedness and unrighteousness of the Ottoman Empire.

Let me ask you. If you were a Jew, where would you rather have lived in 1200AD. London or Baghdad?

[Bonam]

Yes, it was expansionist, but then again, so was Christianity. Do you think Christianity spread simply by good will? Guys like Constantine actively exterminated both heathens and heretics.

I made no statements in defense of Christianity. Why do you assume that simply because I say something about Islam, that I must hold the opposite view in regards to Christianity? I am an atheist.

Let me ask you. If you were a Jew, where would you rather have lived in 1200AD. London or Baghdad?

Let me ask a more relevant question. Where would I rather live today?

[ToadBrother]

Let me ask a more relevant question. Where would I rather live today?

But you're the one that brought up Islam being a religion of conquest. Now either you believe what you said, or you don't. If you do, then surely pointing out that what Islam is today is not what it was, say, four hundred or eight hundred years ago. If you don't believe what you say, then why say it?

[Bonam]

I fail to see your point. Everything changes over the course of centuries. Nevertheless Islam is a religion with a conqueror as its most revered figure. Thus, it glorifies conquest.

[ToadBrother]

I fail to see your point. Everything changes over the course of centuries. Nevertheless Islam is a religion with a conqueror as its most revered figure. Thus, it glorifies conquest.

All dominant culturals are ultimately conqueror cultures. I mean, the Brits didn't accidentally forge a vast global empire, and I'm sure Native Americans have similar sentiments about the United States that you seem to hold about Islam.

What is telling is that you single Islam out, when in fact, it's only one of several extant and historical civilizations that were extremely expansionist. Would you care to point out why, say, the doctrines of Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden are particularly any different than your claims of Islamic conqueror spirit?

One of the most revered figures throughout the last 2300 years of Western history is Alexander the Great, who conquered a lot more territory than Mohammed managed. Where's your critique of the Alexander Cult, which has persisted even longer than Islam or Christianity? The Alexander Cult in all its various forms, through guys like Napoleon and Hitler certainly has killed more people than Islam.

Edited March 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

The topic of discussion has nothing to do with those, and so I have not commented on them here. Getting back to today's major religions, Islam is the one that has a conqueror as its most revered figure. It is a religion of conquest, regardless of and independent from all your attempts to deflect to other topics.

[ToadBrother]

The topic of discussion has nothing to do with those, and so I have not commented on them here. Getting back to today's major religions, Islam is the one that has a conqueror as its most revered figure. It is a religion of conquest, regardless of and independent from all your attempts to deflect to other topics.

I'm not trying to deflect anything, I'm curious as to why your spending so much effort evading. Considering how many millions the Western powers put under their thumbs over the last five hundred years or so, it seems strange to act as if another expansive culture somehow has some fatal flaw compared to us.

Edited March 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

This discussion just isn't working. The thread is about Wilders, and naturally that quickly found its way to a discussion of Islam. You appear to want to discuss Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, manifest destiny, and other totally unrelated subjects from "the last 500 years". Feel free to make your own threads on these topics. Meanwhile, the facts about Islam haven't changed, whether or not western civilization also has a history of conquest is irrelevant.

[jbg]

One of the most revered figures throughout the last 2300 years of Western history is Alexander the Great, who conquered a lot more territory than Mohammed managed. Where's your critique of the Alexander Cult, which has persisted even longer than Islam or Christianity? The Alexander Cult in all its various forms, through guys like Napoleon and Hitler certainly has killed more people than Islam.

The difference is that Greeks aren't inflicting terror relating to the conquest of any part of their former empire much less every part.

[DogOnPorch]

The difference is that Greeks aren't inflicting terror relating to the conquest of any part of their former empire much less every part.

Big Al also went mufti re: the Persians. Hard to say which culture influenced which culture more.

Bonanm: This discussion just isn't working. The thread is about Wilders, and naturally that quickly found its way to a discussion of Islam. You appear to want to discuss Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, manifest destiny, and other totally unrelated subjects from "the last 500 years". Feel free to make your own threads on these topics. Meanwhile, the facts about Islam haven't changed, whether or not western civilization also has a history of conquest is irrelevant.

I think it is interesting that Wilders gets immediately labeled as far-right as per Nick Griffin and his gang of Holocaust deniers rather than just 'right', 'centre-right' or what-have-you. I guess fellows like Wilders just make folks numbed by multiculturalism a tad nervous when he opens his mouth. Best brand him a monster and cast him out.

It's fear. Fear of Wilders being correct. Fear that values once dear are turning deadly. Fear of the fellow calling down negative attention. Fear that the whole system might be wrong.

[bloodyminded]

Big Al also went mufti re: the Persians. Hard to say which culture influenced which culture more.

I think it is interesting that Wilders gets immediately labeled as far-right as per Nick Griffin and his gang of Holocaust deniers rather than just 'right', 'centre-right' or what-have-you. I guess fellows like Wilders just make folks numbed by multiculturalism a tad nervous when he opens his mouth. Best brand him a monster and cast him out.

It's fear. Fear of Wilders being correct. Fear that values once dear are turning deadly. Fear of the fellow calling down negative attention. Fear that the whole system might be wrong.

Also, fear of a man gaining power who is absolutely and fundamentally opposed to free speech.

As you conceded.

[DogOnPorch]

Also, fear of a man gaining power who is absolutely and fundamentally opposed to free speech.

As you conceded.

Actually, I disagree that Geert Wilders is against free speech. Don't worry, I know you think he's Ghengis Khan come back to life. He's against the Islamification of his country and the rest of Europe. If the Koran wasn't used by so-called radical extremists as justification for their acts, I personally doubt he'd care. But since the radicals do such a bang-up job getting folks to love 'em...like these idiots from Luton, UK. Note the irony of their complaining about their freedom to spread hate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXA-uQj0zfo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hL5c_vwKqs

...B-52s carpet bombing our children...

But since they're friends of yours, I can see why you'd want them hanging-out in your town. Great for tourism, for one.

[bloodyminded]

Actually, I disagree that Geert Wilders is against free speech. Don't worry, I know you think he's Ghengis Khan come back to life. He's against the Islamification of his country and the rest of Europe. If the Koran wasn't used by so-called radical extremists as justification for their acts, I personally doubt he'd care. But since the radicals do such a bang-up job getting folks to love 'em...like these idiots from Luton, UK. Note the irony of their complaining about their freedom to spread hate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXA-uQj0zfo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hL5c_vwKqs

But since they're friends of yours, I can see why you'd want them hanging-out in your town. Great for tourism, for one.

Wrong...you DO agree that he's opposed to free speech...unless you are a profoundly stupid little man, which you are not. (Of course, this makes you a disingenuous debater, which is a different issue; but you're not stupid.)

You happen to agree, perhaps, that the Koran would be a good book to be banned, if it were possible to do so.

But that IS opposition to free speech.

To say that Wilders is opposed to free speech is not an opinion, DoP; it's an objective reality, based precisely and only on Wilders very explicit words.

I linked them for you earlier on this thread. They're clear.

Oh...and just by the way, every time someone commits the heresy of disagreeing with you (or, even worse, criticizing your shrieky little reactionary heroes) that doesn't make them "friends" with radical Islamists, or that they wish to "hug terrorists."

If you aren't brave enough to debate like an adult, without these little ad hominems that you know are false...then why bother?

There are other sites more appropriately geared to masturbation.

[DogOnPorch]

Wrong...you DO agree that he's opposed to free speech...unless you are a profoundly stupid little man, which you are not. (Of course, this makes you a disingenuous debater, which is a different issue; but you're not stupid.)

You happen to agree, perhaps, that the Koran would be a good book to be banned, if it were possible to do so.

But that IS opposition to free speech.

To say that Wilders is opposed to free speech is not an opinion, DoP; it's an objective reality, based precisely and only on Wilders very explicit words.

I linked them for you earlier on this thread. They're clear.

Oh...and just by the way, every time someone commits the heresy of disagreeing with you (or, even worse, criticizing your shrieky little reactionary heroes) that doesn't make them "friends" with radical Islamists, or that they wish to "hug terrorists."

If you aren't brave enough to debate like an adult, without these little ad hominems that you know are false...then why bother?

There are other sites more appropriately geared to masturbation.

Meh...you have your opinions...I have mine. Hate Wilders...love the radicals. It matters not in the big picture. Your chums will get what's coming to them by hands other than yours or mine.

[bloodyminded]

Meh...you have your opinions...I have mine. Hate Wilders...love the radicals. It matters not in the big picture. Your chums will get what's coming to them by hands other than yours or mine.

They're not my "chums." They're radicalized reactionaries.

You're the only one here defending and supporting the opinions of reactionaries.

Anti-Islamism turns people into frightened little pussies. I assure you that's not my fault.

[DogOnPorch]

They're not my "chums." They're radicalized reactionaries.

You're the only one here defending and supporting the opinions of reactionaries.

Anti-Islamism turns people into frightened little pussies. I assure you that's not my fault.

Yawn