Racist POS Just Deserts

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

In my view, radicals have several characteristics in common, most notably a desire to belong, to have an identity that feels important. 

Identity theory implies that people who consciously attach themselves to identity-focused ideologies are followers who mimic doctrines served up to them by others. Can such people really, then, claim religious "belief," for instance, as a legitimate rationale for their choices and behavior. True belief implies the coexistence of free will, which is negated where one simply follows the tenets of a received ideology. It's an interesting conundrum that challenges our preconceptions about the validity of purely legalist concepts of "freedom" and dignity. One can choose, of course, to identify with a particular ideology but beyond that are any of one's choices actually products of free will if they emerge as manifestations of ideological compliance? In my opinion, this is a fundamental (if I may use that term) weakness of the very notion of religious freedom as we have come to understand it in this country and in much of the West.

Edited August 22, 2018 by turningrite

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Again, we differ.  To me, adherance to a violent ideology is NOT irrelevant.  And terrorists are motivated by more than just "wanting to fit in somewhere."

Experts on terrorists and radicalization disagree with you.  Most of those radicalized, whether in the Middle East or not, are young men who know very little about Islam, but they feel alienated for whayever reason.  They are looking for something to hang their feelings of rejection on and gain a sense of belonging, violent Islam fits the bill.   Its the same motivation for violent White Supremacists - a way to blame and punish someone else because they feel rejected, and a group to identify with. 

I am not saying, btw, that terrorism isn't a problem.  I am saying that focussing on Islam as the reason for terrorism is a mistake.   If 5 terrorists share similar traits, but each has a different ideology, how are you going to address terrorism effectively if you select one ideology and declare that the reason?  Would be much more effective, in my opinion, to address the other, similar traits.  That way, you'll have a better chance of identifying those at risk of radicalization and hopefully preventing deaths.  Doesn't matter if the person is an Alexandre Bissonnette or a Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, identifying those at risk of radicalization is a more effective strategy than assuming that a particular ideology is at fault.  Especially when the vast majority of those with a less extreme version of the same ideology are never violent and condemn those who are.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Experts on terrorists and radicalization disagree with you.  Most of those radicalized, whether in the Middle East or not, are young men who know very little about Islam, but they feel alienated for whayever reason.  They are looking for something to hang their feelings of rejection on and gain a sense of belonging, violent Islam fits the bill.   Its the same motivation for violent White Supremacists - a way to blame and punish someone else because they feel rejected, and a group to identify with. 

I am not saying, btw, that terrorism isn't a problem.  I am saying that focussing on Islam as the reason for terrorism is a mistake.   If 5 terrorists share similar traits, but each has a different ideology, how are you going to address terrorism effectively if you select one ideology and declare that the reason?  Would be much more effective, in my opinion, to address the other, similar traits.  That way, you'll have a better chance of identifying those at risk of radicalization and hopefully preventing deaths.  Doesn't matter if the person is an Alexandre Bissonnette or a Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, identifying those at risk of radicalization is a more effective strategy than assuming that a particular ideology is at fault.  Especially when the vast majority of those with a less extreme version of the same ideology are never violent and condemn those who are.

 

What does the Quran say about terror?

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Experts on terrorists and radicalization disagree with you. 

 

 

Some experts disagree with me, yes.  Others do not.  I'm inclined to go with the reasons that terrorists themselves give for doing things  - to expand Islam, through violence and terror throughout the world and establish a Caliphate according to the directives of Islam, as laid out in the Koran. 

I'm well aware of Canada's/Trudeau's stance that terrorists just need hugs and poetry and millions of dollars and maybe a little sing-along.  I don't subscribe to the same warm fuzzies towards terrorists as you do.

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Just what opportunity do most Muslims have to engage in violence against non-Muslims? There are no strong Muslim states that can attack their non-Muslim neighbors. Pakistan would be slaughtering the Hindus of India if they were strong enough but they're not. The Muslim nations around Israel would be slaughtering Jews if they cold but the can't. If Sultan Erdogan thought he could invade Europe successfully he'd likely do it. Muslim states are fairly weak and have to be wary of what the world's superpowers say and might do. So their opportunities to attack and spread the word of Allah are quite limited. And we can't expect some peasant in rural Iran or Egypt to trudge into the city and get an airplane ride to Europe to go on jihad when he can barely afford a one-way bus ride. Besides, he's not likely to accomplish much of anything.

Those people who don't go on a violent Jihad are also the people who condemn those that do.

Most Muslims understand Jihad to be a personal struggle related to their faith and not a violent struggle against unbelievers.  Most Muslims take the Koranic instruction to peaceful co-existance very seriously.  

The notion you have that Muslims are a cruel, bloodthirsty horde just waiting to crucify Westerners is simply far-right and White Nationalist rhetoric that has sifted into right-wing mainstream.

 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Those people who don't go on a violent Jihad are also the people who condemn those that do.

Most Muslims understand Jihad to be a personal struggle related to their faith and not a violent struggle against unbelievers.  Most Muslims take the Koranic instruction to peaceful co-existance very seriously.  

The notion you have that Muslims are a cruel, bloodthirsty horde just waiting to crucify Westerners is simply far-right and White Nationalist rhetoric that has sifted into right-wing mainstream.

 

 

Neat that you speak for most Muslims. That's a lot!

[Goddess]

26 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Those people who don't go on a violent Jihad are also the people who condemn those that do.

Most Muslims understand Jihad to be a personal struggle related to their faith and not a violent struggle against unbelievers.  Most Muslims take the Koranic instruction to peaceful co-existance very seriously.  

The notion you have that Muslims are a cruel, bloodthirsty horde just waiting to crucify Westerners is simply far-right and White Nationalist rhetoric that has sifted into right-wing mainstream.

 

If they really wanted to condemn those who do, they would turn in their violent extremist Saudi imams and get rid of all the extremist writings in their schools and mosques.  They would make it clear to all their followers that jihad is not violent struggle against non-believers.  If they really wanted peaceful co-existence, they would not establish enclaves in all countries of the world where non-Muslims are not welcome and women are harrassed and followed and beaten for not "dressing modestly."  Polls would not show that the majority of Muslims world-wide want death for those who convert from Islam, death for apostates and anyone who doesn't show proper respect for their prophet.  Do you know how many people showed up for the missing Edmonton woman Nadia Atwi's second search party?  I do.  Because one of my friends was one of four (4) white women who showed up to search for her.  Where was her family and community?

No, I think there is a lot more extremism in Islam than the 100,000 you estimate.  But that's because you only associate violence with extremism.  For myself and many others, the prevalence of violent views in Islam is troubling.  But not apparently for Muslims or their supporters.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Goddess
No edit, hit the wrong button

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Goddess said:

For myself and many others, the prevalence of violent views in Islam is troubling.  But not apparently for Muslims or their supporters.

 

Children are taught the Quran verbatim. That would include verses about the use of terror to get what you want. Not to mention the treatment of infidel females not wearing the veil. 

[Goddess]

27 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Children are taught the Quran verbatim. That would include verses about the use of terror to get what you want. Not to mention the treatment of infidel females not wearing the veil. 

Oh, I know.  What is frustrating is non-Muslims who claim to speak for all Muslims, claiming that even though this is what is taught to young and old, that it has absolutely no effect on their behaviour whatsoever.

To claim that Islamic terrorism has no connection to the religion is to deny that Islam is much more than a religion - it's a religion, it's a social system, it's a political system - all in one that demands compliance of believers and non-believers to all 3.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Goddess

[taxme]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's what I'm saying - it doesn't exist !  ;How could such a thing exist ?

Hey countess, it's about time you started to learn more about Canadian history instead of always immersing yourself in Islamic/Muslim history all the time. Good job, countess.   

[taxme]

On 7/28/2018 at 9:15 PM, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/video-racist-threats-hamilton-1.4765141

 

Such a shame this guy had a bad day and now will not see his family for a period after he is sent away for incarceration.  Of course, some would call him a patriot for threatening to kill Canadians who are brown and therefore not deserving of the same rights.  ISIS and The Rebel to trigger marginally disturbed people into violence, but people like this get/deserve no excuses, so don't give them one.

I bet that you would never call a Muslim terrorist a POS, eh? You coward. Only white people are POS with you, right? Deplorable. 

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

I bet that you would never call a Muslim terrorist a POS, eh? You coward. Only white people are POS with you, right? Deplorable. 

Plus, he has no idea how to spell "just desserts". But hey

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, taxme said:

Hey countess, it's about time you started to learn more about Canadian history instead of always immersing yourself in Islamic/Muslim history all the time. Good job, countess.   

Right... like how the TWO countries - Britain and Europe - built Canada, British first...

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, taxme said:

I bet that you would never call a Muslim terrorist a POS, eh? You coward. Only white people are POS with you, right? Deplorable. 

Why not  ?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Plus, he has no idea how to spell "just desserts". But hey

Mea Culpa.  That's one I have never got right.

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

If they really wanted to condemn those who do, they would turn in their violent extremist Saudi imams and get rid of all the extremist writings in their schools and mosques.  They would make it clear to all their followers that jihad is not violent struggle against non-believers. 

The vast majority of Christians in Canada and Western natioms disagree with Betsy and her anti-abortion\anti-gay Christian beliefs.  Some Christians agree with her and some are, and have been, violent.  Why aren't you demanding that Christians do more to shut her particular brand of Christianity down?  Is it every Christian's duty and responsibility to condemn the actions of violent people who use the Bible to support a violent agenda?  Or is that an expectation you only have for Muslims?

Muslims denounce violent extremism all the time; Egypt regularly bombs those extremists on its borders and condemns their actions.  There are websites, Facebook sites, and youtube videos denying the validity if violent Islamic terrorism.  There have been marches against it and there have even been fatwas against it.  Plenty of websites and Imams and Muslims explain jihad as an internal struggle.  Why do you ignore those examples, along with the billion or so Muslims who do not practice or support violence, in favor of the minority who do?

If you are specifically talking about Wahhabism exported by Saudi, then do you demand that Canada and all Western nations stop doing business with them?  Or are you suggesting that Middle Eastern countries wage war on Saudi Arabia while its being backed by Western money, Western arms and Western political leaders?   

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by dialamah

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Oh, I know.  What is frustrating is non-Muslims who claim to speak for all Muslims, claiming that even though this is what is taught to young and old, that it has absolutely no effect on their behaviour whatsoever.

What is frustrating is non-Muslims who claim to speak for all Muslims, claiming that they are irredeemably violent despite the fact that most Muslims aren't violent at all and most condemn violence.

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

1. No, I think there is a lot more extremism in Islam than the 100,000 you estimate. 

2. But that's because you only associate violence with extremism. 

1.  Not my estimate; its an expert's estimate.  I have seen expert's estimate as high as 300,000 but couldn't find that link today.  Even so, I allowed for as many as 500,000 ... And that still remains a tiny minority of all Muslims.  

2.  We were talking about violent extremism, were we not?  You suddenly expect me to discuss something else because you don't like the numbers?

 

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

Some experts disagree with me, yes.  Others do not.  I'm inclined to go with the reasons that terrorists themselves give for doing things  - to expand Islam, through violence and terror throughout the world and establish a Caliphate according to the directives of Islam, as laid out in the Koran. 

Fine; nonetheless, they still represent a minority view within Islam.  And that view has been part of their downfall; their brutality and violence alienates far more people than it invited.  

And as ISIS has lost power and territory, so have Islamic terror attacks around the world declined.

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

I'm well aware of Canada's/Trudeau's stance that terrorists just need hugs and poetry and millions of dollars and maybe a little sing-along.  I don't subscribe to the same warm fuzzies towards terrorists as you do.

Not being unduly afraid of Muslims or Islam doesn't mean I have the warm fuzzies for terrorists.  I happen to disagree with the government about the lack of consequences for those who went to fight for ISIS.  

[DogOnPorch]

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

What is frustrating is non-Muslims who claim to speak for all Muslims, claiming that they are irredeemably violent despite the fact that most Muslims aren't violent at all and most condemn violence.

1.  Not my estimate; its an expert's estimate.  I have seen expert's estimate as high as 300,000 but couldn't find that link today.  Even so, I allowed for as many as 500,000 ... And that still remains a tiny minority of all Muslims.  

2.  We were talking about violent extremism, were we not?  You suddenly expect me to discuss something else because you don't like the numbers?

 

 

I don't claim to speak for all or even most Muslims. However, The Quran is the Muslim's holy book and orders Muslims to do this...Allah orders this behavior. 

1. Tiny minority...just a few bombings...raping children...terror attacks. Just a tiny number...hardly any at all. Enjoy your falafel.

2. You made-up those numbers. 

[DogOnPorch]

11 hours ago, dialamah said:

Muslims denounce violent extremism all the time; Egypt regularly bombs those extremists on its borders and condemns their actions.  There are websites, Facebook sites, and youtube videos denying the validity if violent Islamic terrorism.  There have been marches against it and there have even been fatwas against it.  Plenty of websites and Imams and Muslims explain jihad as an internal struggle.  Why do you ignore those examples, along with the billion or so Muslims who do not practice or support violence, in favor of the minority who do?

 

From the Quran...

Quran 2:216 - Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not. 

https://quran.com/2/216

 

Quran 8:39 - And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do. 

https://quran.com/8/39

 

The Quran orders Muslims to fight the Unbeliever until ALL religion is for Allah. Allah ORDERS this. Not suggests it or thinks it would be peachy if you can find a spare moment...

Are you going to deny what the Quran says?

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[Argus]

20 hours ago, dialamah said:

Experts on terrorists and radicalization disagree with you.  Most of those radicalized, whether in the Middle East or not, are young men who know very little about Islam, but they feel alienated for whayever reason.  They are looking for something to hang their feelings of rejection on and gain a sense of belonging, violent Islam fits the bill.   Its the same motivation for violent White Supremacists - a way to blame and punish someone else because they feel rejected, and a group to identify with. 

I am not saying, btw, that terrorism isn't a problem.  I am saying that focussing on Islam as the reason for terrorism is a mistake.   I

How many young Christian or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist or Sikh men around the world who alienated for whatever reason decide to use their religion as a justification for terrorism as compared to Muslims?

[Argus]

16 hours ago, dialamah said:

1.  Not my estimate; its an expert's estimate.  I have seen expert's estimate as high as 300,000 but couldn't find that link today.  Even so, I allowed for as many as 500,000 ... And that still remains a tiny minority of all Muslims.  

According to the polls there are many millions of Muslims just in Egypt who believe adulterers, blasphemers and apostates should be killed. I consider them to be extremists. Do you?

Edited August 23, 2018 by Argus

[taxme]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Mea Culpa.  That's one I have never got right.

Like so much more. 

[taxme]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right... like how the TWO countries - Britain and Europe - built Canada, British first...

Unh? 

[taxme]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why not  ?

Why? Because if you did you may be called a racist if you called a Muslim a POS. Besides you love your Muslims. it is always safer these days to attack white people because anyone who does knows that they will get away with it. The lefty liberal media will never say a word against anyone when they attack white people. They get a freebie. But boy does the lefty liberal media ever go bonkers when a white guy says something that appears to be racist towards a non-white person. The CBC is well known for this. They are always looking for some white guy who says something that appears to be racist. they say go get that racist POS.