This week in Islam

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Marocc said:

It isn't their obligation to serve anyone to begin with.

 

No worries...she's on your side. She'll do as she's told once Islam rules.

[Marocc]

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

https://www.thelocal.se/20190730/malmo-teenager-ordered-off-bus-because-for-wearing-too-few-clothes

“I can confirm that the driver was not acting out of any religious or political motive,”

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, Marocc said:

The media tells the masses what to be interested in.

I think it's a feedback loop.  In Western countries, Muslims misbehaving gets more interest than non-Muslims misbehaving so it gets more media attention.  

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Marocc said:

“I can confirm that the driver was not acting out of any religious or political motive,”

 

Muslims lie to the kafir and it's a virtue.

[Marocc]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It is part of their job, so yeah it is.  In Canada and many other countries, you can't refuse service to someone because they are gay, or brown or white or dress in a way you disaprove of.  You can lose your job for refusing, so they do have that choice. 

It depends on the situation. If they own the company they can usually say no. Of course if they say "it's because you're gay" etc they may be sued. But they choose their clients. If a private owner of a restaurant refuses to let someone in bare foot, that's his call. If a dog trainer decline to train a dog because the owners are Jewish all they need to say is "no thanks". They don't need to say why they don't take the job.

[Marocc]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Muslims lie to the kafir and it's a virtue.

You lie to everyone.

[Michael Hardner]

38 minutes ago, Marocc said:

The media tells the masses what to be interested in.

There's a selling aspect but they can't waste time on unpopular time wasters either.

[dialamah]

14 minutes ago, Marocc said:

It depends on the situation. If they own the company they can usually say no. Of course if they say "it's because you're gay" etc they may be sued. But they choose their clients. If a private owner of a restaurant refuses to let someone in bare foot, that's his call. If a dog trainer decline to train a dog because the owners are Jewish all they need to say is "no thanks". They don't need to say why they don't take the job.

Agreed, there are nuances and ways around.  But generally its frowned upon to discriminate against others based on identity, both legally and socially, in Western nations, more so than in many other places.

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, Marocc said:

You lie to everyone.

 

No...my job is simple enough...point out the barbarity of the death cult known as Islam. With daily terrorist attacks and other similar contributions to humanity...from treating women as property to hating dogs & poets & Jews...Islam provides its own rope to hang itself in the court of decency. 

Islam...even a pig in lipstick is better than this cult started by a child molesting warlord. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

How about Christians who refuse to serve homosexuals. 

You're still not getting it.

This is a matter of a foreigner coming here, saying women here dress like sluts, and then refusing them service on a public bus unless they change their ways to be more in agreement with his people's culture. This is a fairly clear demonstration, in miniature, of what almost everyone opposing mass immigration is afraid of - foreigners wanting to change our culture and values to mirror theirs.

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Marocc said:

“I can confirm that the driver was not acting out of any religious or political motive,”

Of course he was.

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

This is a matter of a foreigner coming here, saying women here dress like sluts, and then refusing them service on a public bus unless they change their ways to be more in agreement with his people's culture

In the story posted: 1 - it was in Europe somewhere;  2 -  there was no mention of the driver being Muslim;  3 - the bus company said it had nothing to do with religion or politics.

So based on the story that was linked... it wasn't a foreigner and it wasn't an attempt to force a "women to dress like they do back home". 

 

 

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

In the story posted: 1 - it was in Europe somewhere;  2 -  there was no mention of the driver being Muslim;  3 - the bus company said it had nothing to do with religion or politics.

So based on the story that was linked... it wasn't a foreigner and it wasn't an attempt to force a "women to dress like they do back home".

It's freaking Sweden. Moreover its in Malmo. Of course he's a Muslim.

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

It's freaking Sweden. Moreover its in Malmo. Of course he's a Muslim.

Maybe he is.  Maybe he's a Christian.  Maybe he's just nuts.  But based on the information in the linked story, you are drawing conclusions based entirely on your own biases and not on any provided facts. 

How does that demonstrate any logic, something you often crow about having?

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Odd that you just state that the public wanted more coverage of the one attack, and assert that the media is 'controlled' with no cites.  I will assert that the media exists to get eyeballs/attention and is therefore a general reflection of the mass interest.

Why cite, surely you agree the media is often controlled in high profile legal cases. Are there no publication bans? It did seem like information about the Danforth one was being kept out of public view, though we are not always told why.

What are we talking about? Whether or not people care more if the shooter was white? A rather macabre and stupid discussion. The poster who raised that question exposed that they judge through these base assertions. I would never even consider it. I assert that most Canadians do not judge such situations by the shooter's skin colour, and will still be just as upset if a little girl is killed, regardless of her skin.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. surely you agree the media is often controlled in high profile legal cases. Are there no publication bans? It did seem like information about the Danforth one was being kept out of public view, though we are not always told why.

2. I assert that most Canadians do not judge such situations by the shooter's skin colour, and will still be just as upset if a little girl is killed, regardless of her skin.

1. Yes, publication bans are overt, open and I'm not aware of one in the Danforth case.  There was an investigation under way that wasn't released until it was done.  I remember some people were impatient about that, but not much else.

2. There's a cultural conflict - for some - that pits alt-right terrorism against Islamist terrorism.  I don't understand why, though.  They are probably the two highest threats for terrorism.

 

[DogOnPorch]

Alt right = anybody not Muslim or their devoted Dhimmi supporters.

[OftenWrong]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's a cultural conflict - for some - that pits alt-right terrorism against Islamist terrorism.

I'm perfectly ok with that which opposes Islamist terrorism... remembering that Islam is not a skin colour.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I'm perfectly ok with that which opposes Islamist terrorism... remembering that Islam is not a skin colour.

Great but irrelevant to the point.  You're quite a patriot for opposing terrorism, I'm sure.

[GostHacked]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Great but irrelevant to the point.  You're quite a patriot for opposing terrorism, I'm sure.

He'll also be able to tell you the motivation of each Muslim that does something before any of us are aware of it. I mean that is Uri Gellar level right there.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Great but irrelevant to the point.  You're quite a patriot for opposing terrorism, I'm sure.

Well thanks but the point was about skin colour in that discussion. It's not a valid point to the thread. It detracts from the wonderful quality of this debate... lmao

You mentioned the conflict is between alt-right terrorism and Islamic terrorism. Interesting point. Islamists are winning. They are more organized, have an army of followers, and have a decent amount of funding. We discussed the funding earlier. There's evidence that certain rogue nations like Iran are providing funding for Islamic terrorist operations against the west. Alt-right groups also have funding, but the alt-right terrorist is a loner. He is a lunatic fringe. No one that I know of applauds his evils acts. Yet we have seen in the blessed and helpful media, footage of Muslims cheering while watching news of some massacre. I'm sorry that the public perception sees this as the general attitude. To the media it made for good airplay.

[dialamah]

On 7/31/2019 at 4:39 PM, OftenWrong said:

No one that I know of applauds his evils acts

No one that you know. 

On 7/31/2019 at 4:39 PM, OftenWrong said:

Yet we have seen in the blessed and helpful media, footage of Muslims cheering while watching news of some massacre.

I have never seen that, but I've heard it claimed many times. 

In the meantime, people have applauded Bissonnette and the NZ Killer among others.  The NZ killer paid homage to Bissonnette as he carried out his massacre.  Andrew Anglin* said of Tarrant:  This dude is already a folk hero to so many, and we have to agree that what he did was indisputably heroic in the classical sense. It is not an uncommon thing for heroes to act foolishly. The odds are people are going to crowdfund statues and memorials in honor of this guy. This dude is funny and joking around, which makes him seem far more funny and personable than the death cult invaders that he is slaughtering.

He wasn't the only one of course, there are plenty of similar comments spread on social media when some alt-right "lone wolf" kills Blacks, Jews, Muslims.  The White Nationalist website "Blood and Honor" says about Combat18 that they are specially honored for their commitment to the cause; they might not be offering virgins, but these guys know that they're heroes to the "movement" to attain "purity" in Western countries.

Most of us, including Muslins, condemn terrorists.  Most of us, including Muslims, condemn people who'd celebrate or applaud those terrorists. 

*Andrew Anglin - Daily  Stormer website.

Edited August 2, 2019 by dialamah

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You mentioned the conflict is between alt-right terrorism and Islamic terrorism. 

No - I didn't say that.  I said that people are comparing those groups in terms of their relative risk, not that they are fighting each other.  Sorry to be unclear.

[dialamah]

Dutch Burka Ban Unworkable

Ski masks, full face helmets, burkas banned in public buildings and public transportation.

Part of Government's attempt to mollify the far right, led by Geert Wilder.

Police say enforcing the ban is not a high priority and it will take at least 30 minutes to respond to calls, if thwy can make it at all.

Police will not enforce ban at police stations because they don't want to discourage women from reporting crime.

Transportation officials won't prevent women from boarding vehicles because they can't wait for police backup.

Somebody has already said they'll pay for any fines assessed against Muslim women.

All of this for about 100 full time Burka wearers.

[scribblet]

More than a hundred but they don't really know, either way they are doing the right thing, and not for the " far right ", that's just the left narrative.  Denmark has banned also and France,  15 countries actually. 

Edited August 2, 2019 by scribblet