Islam, the sneaky buggers

[ScottSA]

"Islamophobia" is a catchphrase invented by Islamic groups and marketed to sensitive "progressives" to head off criticism of Islam, the errr..."religion of peace." Naturally, anyone who points to the words of such stirling Muslims as, say...Mohammed...and claims them as evidence that Islam is not in fact a religion of peace is usually branded a "racist" or some other approved epithet. Whenever anyone suggests that we ought to take the words of high profile Muslims like Mohammed and Osama seriously, the carefully coached nutroots chuckle smugly about wingnuts imagining Muslims behind every tree. As it turns out...

"...It's now believed that several leaders of the Muslim establishment in America last decade conspired to infiltrate the U.S. political system, change Middle East policy and gradually Islamize America. At the same time, they hatched a plot to fund overseas terrorists.

Of course, they couldn't do this out in the open. So they set up benign-sounding nonprofits and charities to "camouflage" their traitorous activities, say U.S. prosecutors who cite wiretap transcripts and other documents uncovered in a criminal probe of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim charity in America..."

Wait a minute...that must be just some wingnut site, right? The poor innocent Muslims would never consider doing anything like that in real life, would they? It sounds almost like some science fiction plot, so no credible magazine would print that garbage...

Well, you decide how credible it is. And really, all they're doing is regurgitating facts and evidence the prosecutors have already found, so it doesn't even matter what the source is, but hey, IBD is not exactly some fringe magazine: http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...275871309181046

It would do the sensitive left a world of good to stop parroting the mantras and slogans of the left for a minute and take the time to find out what's really going on in the world.

[August1991]

We in the West must decide what basic principles that we want to defend and then we must defend them - strongly.

For example, if we think an individual's freedom to choose includes a young woman's freedom to choose her husband or a homosexual's freedom to choose - then we must defend this.

The Islamists want to restrict an individual's freedom to choose. It is this restriction that we in the West must oppose.

[jazzer]

The Islamists want to restrict an individual's freedom to choose. It is this restriction that we in the West must oppose.

So the west is now the arbiter of freedoms for the world? So what do you do with Palestine, who as you know, elected a terrorist organization in the old fashioned western democratic way.

[August1991]

So the west is now the arbiter of freedoms for the world? So what do you do with Palestine, who as you know, elected a terrorist organization in the old fashioned western democratic way.

Arbiter of freedom? No. If an individual has more choices, then the person is more free. I don't know what you mean about Palestine but I wonder what freedom to choose Palestinians have.

We cannot make it possible for all individuals to choose freely. But we should stand firmly on the side of making it possible for individuals to choose as freely as possible.

The more choices a person has, the richer the person is. It is hard to give a person choices - but that is the principle that we in the West should defend.

When a young woman can choose her husband, or a homosexual can choose to be homosexual, or a poor Chinese woman can choose between jobs, then they all enjoy the individual's freedom to choose - a basic principle of Western civilization. We westerners should be proud of such a principle and we should defend it strongly.

Edited September 30, 2007 by August1991

[ScottSA]

So the west is now the arbiter of freedoms for the world? So what do you do with Palestine, who as you know, elected a terrorist organization in the old fashioned western democratic way.

The west is the arbiter of it's own freedoms, is it not? And if it is right to have freedom, then why should it not be the arbiter of freedom? Or are you suggesting that serfdom is better, or, alternatively, that only you and your kind should have freedom but no one else should?

The Palestinians chose their government and then promptly descended into civil war. Maybe it's genetic, I dunno...

[trex]

The Islamists want to restrict an individual's freedom to choose. It is this restriction that we in the West must oppose.

that is smewhat one-sided because, we are not completely free to do what we choose in the west either. society sets the standards for the individual to go by. we have our own dos and donts here, which change over the years. not too long ago, in this country, women could not vote. could not get certain jobs. their rights were restricetd, not even "persons". this was barely 70-80 years ago.

even in the 1950's, our societys views of womens rights were repressive, and some feel there is still a way to go. although, "you've come a long way, baby".

another example is drug prohibition, possessing cannabis is illegal, but not getting drunk. people are put in prison for years, for actions that have no effect on others. so we are not "free" in this sense.

every society sets its own standards based on their sense of morality. in the case of islam, its much more conservative than we are, and they tend to shun materialism as well, a fundamental part of their religious beliefs which helps explain what we perceive as a lack of "progress" in their society. they choose not to, consciously.

thus the whole premise of this thread is flawed. in all religions, and even in laws, theres theory vs reality. while the books may say wonderful things about peace, both islamic and judeo-christian, it always comes down to the human factor, what the humans do with it, is something different. and these things are used by the ruling elite to control society, despite the theory. so it doesnt matter what the religion is, be it muslim or christian or jew, or "other", the works of the society seems often to be in opposition to the main ideas of the book. Therefore to say, "islam is about violence, not peace", but not to see that the same argument applies to christianity, or judaism, is simply being biased.

[Moxie]

I read that article this morning, bloody scary but the government seems to have it's head in the sand regarding Terrorist's Funding.

In Canada it is up to Custom Canada to shut down organizations that raise funds for Terrorist Organizations, to date they have seized no monies from any organization.

tbud your post makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps you should rewrite it, society is made up of many subcultures, gangs, excons, policemen, firemen the military, lobby groups etc. Society as a whole has many parts, Islam and it's subculture of supporting terrorists organizations is the topic is it not Scot?

I think Canada should rewrite the constitution, clearly define what "Freedom of Religion" means. Include legislation that has the power to shut down religions and cults like Wahhabi Islam, Bountyful and some of the other fundie religions. We need to update laws to include max. sentences for "Honour Killings", sexual mutilation, enforced marrages, all these cultural practices subjugates and allows for the abuse of females. Canada should not be allowing these cultural practices period, spare me the "Reasonable Accomadation" speech. It's left wing propaganda.

[ScottSA]

that is smewhat one-sided because, we are not completely free to do what we choose in the west either. society sets the standards for the individual to go by. we have our own dos and donts here, which change over the years. not too long ago, in this country, women could not vote. could not get certain jobs. their rights were restricetd, not even "persons". this was barely 70-80 years ago.

even in the 1950's, our societys views of womens rights were repressive, and some feel there is still a way to go. although, "you've come a long way, baby".

another example is drug prohibition, possessing cannabis is illegal, but not getting drunk. people are put in prison for years, for actions that have no effect on others. so we are not "free" in this sense.

every society sets its own standards based on their sense of morality. in the case of islam, its much more conservative than we are, and they tend to shun materialism as well, a fundamental part of their religious beliefs which helps explain what we perceive as a lack of "progress" in their society. they choose not to, consciously.

thus the whole premise of this thread is flawed. in all religions, and even in laws, theres theory vs reality. while the books may say wonderful things about peace, both islamic and judeo-christian, it always comes down to the human factor, what the humans do with it, is something different. and these things are used by the ruling elite to control society, despite the theory. so it doesnt matter what the religion is, be it muslim or christian or jew, or "other", the works of the society seems often to be in opposition to the main ideas of the book. Therefore to say, "islam is about violence, not peace", but not to see that the same argument applies to christianity, or judaism, is simply being biased.

You're just silly. Go back to school.

[Melanie_]

I think Canada should rewrite the constitution, clearly define what "Freedom of Religion" means. Include legislation that has the power to shut down religions and cults like Wahhabi Islam, Bountyful and some of the other fundie religions. We need to update laws to include max. sentences for "Honour Killings", sexual mutilation, enforced marrages, all these cultural practices subjugates and allows for the abuse of females. Canada should not be allowing these cultural practices period, spare me the "Reasonable Accomadation" speech. It's left wing propaganda.

Reasonable accomodation doesn't mean allowing anything that is against the law in Canada. Honour killings are illegal - it is called murder. Sexual mutilation - "female genital circumcision" - is also illegal, and is considered child abuse. There was a case this week where the leader of a fundamentalist church was convicted of conspiracy to rape because he coerced a young girl to marry against her wishes. Canada doesn't "allow" these cultural practices. Blaming the left for these atrocities, as if the left supports them, undermines the fight to get rid of them.

Edited:

The conviction was in the US, of Warren Jeffs, the leader of a splinter Mormon group.

CTV

Edited October 1, 2007 by Melanie_

[ScottSA]

Reasonable accomodation doesn't mean allowing anything that is against the law in Canada. Honour killings are illegal - it is called murder. Sexual mutilation - "female genital circumcision" - is also illegal, and is considered child abuse. There was a case this week where the leader of a fundamentalist church was convicted of conspiracy to rape because he coerced a young girl to marry against her wishes. Canada doesn't "allow" these cultural practices. Blaming the left for these atrocities, as if the left supports them, undermines the fight to get rid of them.

Edited:

The conviction was in the US, of Warren Jeffs, the leader of a splinter Mormon group.

CTV

You'll find that our government is hogtied by political correctness, and that it will move with all dispatch against Christian sects, but pussyfoot around to an amazing degree when "new Canadians" are involved. The practice of marriages arranged at birth are rampant in the "Indo-community", and fgm is also practised occasionally in Canada as a "cultural" practice. I have no idea whether it's illegal or not, but a blind eye is turned to it on a regular basis. Link

It's not that the left supports them, but the left is full of paradoxes, and find's itself balancing its outrages in the most discordant ways. It's blind devotion to 'tolerance' in this case forces it to both defend and condemn practises like this, or at least keep a low profile when the subject comes up.

[Shakeyhands]

You'll find that our government is hogtied by political correctness, and that it will move with all dispatch against Christian sects, but pussyfoot around to an amazing degree when "new Canadians" are involved. The practice of marriages arranged at birth are rampant in the "Indo-community", and fgm is also practised occasionally in Canada as a "cultural" practice. I have no idea whether it's illegal or not, but a blind eye is turned to it on a regular basis. Link

It's not that the left supports them, but the left is full of paradoxes, and find's itself balancing its outrages in the most discordant ways. It's blind devotion to 'tolerance' in this case forces it to both defend and condemn practises like this, or at least keep a low profile when the subject comes up.

the old attack on christianity by the left argument... come on.

Nice sneakage of homosexuality being a choice btw... your handlers would be proud!

[Melanie_]

In Canada, as well as in most Western countries, FGM is illegal. People conducting this practice can be charged with aggravated assault and those who participate in the commission of FGM can also be charged. There is legal precedent in Canada for women to seek refugee status who are under pressure to undergo FGM against their will. FGM is considered to be a form of child abuse, and children who are at imminent risk may be removed from their family home to prevent its occurrence.

Canadian Women's Health Network

[Borg]

Reasonable accomodation doesn't mean allowing anything that is against the law in Canada. Honour killings are illegal - it is called murder. Sexual mutilation - "female genital circumcision" - is also illegal, and is considered child abuse. There was a case this week where the leader of a fundamentalist church was convicted of conspiracy to rape because he coerced a young girl to marry against her wishes. Canada doesn't "allow" these cultural practices. Blaming the left for these atrocities, as if the left supports them, undermines the fight to get rid of them.

Edited:

The conviction was in the US, of Warren Jeffs, the leader of a splinter Mormon group.

CTV

You may be a reasonable person, and your argument may sound reasonable to you now.

However, there is a good chance that the future will bring things that would and will seem unreasonable to you.

It is my firm belief we will see things get far worse in the future. It is also my firm belief that we will see the "unthinkable now" become the accepted norm - and all within my lifetime.

There are many examples of this in history.

Why? Because the average Canadian as a whole does not believe it CAN happen. And there is non STRONG will to prevent this from happening in the future.

Mark my words - even those who will castigate my comments - we will see Islamists bring some serious and very detrimental changes to this country - and we will allow it to happen.

All in the name of co-operation and "the spirit of the Canadian Way".

Borg

[kuzadd]

the old attack on christianity by the left argument... come on.

Nice sneakage of homosexuality being a choice btw... your handlers would be proud!

ever notice, scottsa, continuously portrays islam as the religion of violence, BUT, we see the "christian" nations and there Pentagon indoctrinated christian soldiers ilegally invading and killing people, under bogus, trumped up reasoning.

Anyone see the nice mercenaries,l ikely good "christian" Americans, in iraq, randomly driving along shooting people in cars.

But hey, it is only Islam that is violent.

:rolleyes:

Yeah sure!

Edited October 1, 2007 by kuzadd

[Canadian Blue]

You may be a reasonable person, and your argument may sound reasonable to you now.

However, there is a good chance that the future will bring things that would and will seem unreasonable to you.

It is my firm belief we will see things get far worse in the future. It is also my firm belief that we will see the "unthinkable now" become the accepted norm - and all within my lifetime.

There are many examples of this in history.

Why? Because the average Canadian as a whole does not believe it CAN happen. And there is non STRONG will to prevent this from happening in the future.

Mark my words - even those who will castigate my comments - we will see Islamists bring some serious and very detrimental changes to this country - and we will allow it to happen.

All in the name of co-operation and "the spirit of the Canadian Way".

Borg

There are also many examples in history when people who have been completely fearful of a group simply based on their race or religious ethnicity and have done things which have been detrimental to humanity. Muslims, believe it or not, are individuals as well, and many have made positive contributions to Canadian society. For the past two years of my life I have lived in Ontario [GTA, Kingston], Quebec, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Alberta, and have yet to see us be invaded by the Islamic hordes. I once got into an argument with a person over the threat Muslims posed to Canada, yet when asked what the five pillars of Islam were they simply drew a blank. More of this is due to ignorance of the religion of Islam, and a few people on the extreme right cherry picking religious texts to help showcase their narrow intolerant view of the world. Furthermore some elements of the evangelical right would like to see Biblical Law implemented in the United States; that would include killing people who are homosexual, those who commit adultery, lie, steal, etc. Where exactly is the outcry against this, if theocracy is a danger in the Middle East, then why shouldn’t it be condemned here in the west as well. Some Christian’s believe we need to engage in a massive war in the Muslim world to help bring about the second coming of Christ, and then Jesus will wipe out all the non-believers. Yet that belief of some Christian’s isn’t nearly as repulsive as the sight of ordinary Muslims in Canada who for the most part are peaceful and productive members of society. Unfortunately for them they now have to deal with the bigots from the right who constantly talk about how they are all fascists simply because they come from the Middle East.

Keep in mind that before 9/11 the largest loss of life from a terrorist attack on US soil was due to the actions of a white Christian male who was a member of a right wing militia. Oddly enough the first group to be blamed after Oklahoma was the Muslims...

Edited October 1, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[Higgly]

"...It's now believed that several leaders of the Muslim establishment in America last decade conspired to infiltrate the U.S. political system, change Middle East policy and gradually Islamize America. At the same time, they hatched a plot to fund overseas terrorists.

Of course, they couldn't do this out in the open. So they set up benign-sounding nonprofits and charities to "camouflage" their traitorous activities, say U.S. prosecutors who cite wiretap transcripts and other documents uncovered in a criminal probe of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim charity in America..."

OMG! It sounds like the Jews! Holy crap!

[Canadian Blue]

The Muslims in 2007 are very similar to the Jews in the 1930's, both were violent and had a secret plot to take over the world.

[buffycat]

The Muslims in 2007 are very similar to the Jews in the 1930's, both were violent and had a secret plot to take over the world.

Well... the hatred directed towards the Jews then and the Muslims now is certainly similar.

I would also add that both groups havae leaders who have been hiding behind religion as well. Though ask youself - could someone start a thread here titled: Judaism, the sneaky buggers - and get away with it?

Same coin, different sides.

[Higgly]

The Muslims in 2007 are very similar to the Jews in the 1930's, both were violent and had a secret plot to take over the world.

I was thinking more of Christian Amanpour's "Warriors of God" documentary on CNN in which she shows how the American Jewish demographic exerts its considerable influence in support of Israel. But thanks for tuning in.

[buffycat]

I was thinking more of Christian Amanpour's "Warriors of God" documentary on CNN in which she shows how the American Jewish demographic exerts its considerable influence in support of Israel. But thanks for tuning in.

Oh Higgly, surely you don't mean the LOBBY??

[Canadian Blue]

I was thinking more of Christian Amanpour's "Warriors of God" documentary on CNN in which she shows how the American Jewish demographic exerts its considerable influence in support of Israel. But thanks for tuning in.

I watched that documentary, and it really is amazing how much those three groups are alike. The odd thing is that you'll find all three groups people who argue for peace, tolerance, and negotiation instead of this suicidal tendency towards radicalism, jingoism, and intolerance.

[Higgly]

I watched that documentary, and it really is amazing how much those three groups are alike. The odd thing is that you'll find all three groups people who argue for peace, tolerance, and negotiation instead of this suicidal tendency towards radicalism, jingoism, and intolerance.

You missed the part where Amnapour showed an American orthodox Jewish woman in a cunning little hat showing a group of Christian fundamentalists around the West Bank and saying "How can they say we are occupiers? It is ours!" If you were a Palestinian Arab holding a deed to the land this woman was driving over, would you consider her a radical? I sure as hell would, and I would see nothing about her as being in favour of peace and tolerance.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Higgly

[Canadian Blue]

I think you missed my point which was that on all sides their are those who want to bring about a lasting peace. Now I obviously disagree with that woman, and I think that this notion Christians have of Israel as being instrumental in the second coming is absurd. I believe that it is possible for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, to coexist peacefully in the Middle East, it's been done before. However if that is to ever happen it will take political will from all sides. I fully support the right for Israel to be a nation, however at the same time I support the right of Palestinian's to be able to live as a nation as well. Both sides have been engaging in a conflict which has not brought about any productive results, and thus far I think that the actions of Israel in the past have done nothing but inflame tentions even more. Unfortunately religion is once again clouding the debate, and any time you add religion into any conflict it will simply inflame tentions even more since religion isn't rational.

Keep in mind that I strongly disagree with many of the policies of the Israeli government with reference to Palestine.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[Higgly]

I think you missed my point which was that on all sides their are those who want to bring about a lasting peace. Now I obviously disagree with that woman, and I think that this notion Christians have of Israel as being instrumental in the second coming is absurd. I believe that it is possible for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, to coexist peacefully in the Middle East, it's been done before. However if that is to ever happen it will take political will from all sides. I fully support the right for Israel to be a nation, however at the same time I support the right of Palestinian's to be able to live as a nation as well. Both sides have been engaging in a conflict which has not brought about any productive results, and thus far I think that the actions of Israel in the past have done nothing but inflame tentions even more. Unfortunately religion is once again clouding the debate, and any time you add religion into any conflict it will simply inflame tentions even more since religion isn't rational.

Keep in mind that I strongly disagree with many of the policies of the Israeli government with reference to Palestine.

I think we are in agreement. I agree with your thoughts about the Israeli government, and I think that this is especially applicable whenever people like Sharon and Netenyahu have ben involved.

[Michael Hardner]

I hear many warnings along the lines of Borg's...

Mark my words - even those who will castigate my comments - we will see Islamists bring some serious and very detrimental changes to this country - and we will allow it to happen.

Having known Muslims, I think it's more likely that they will be brainwashed by the Canadian way of life than vice versa.

Also, having wasted countless minutes arguing with Scott, I can save the rest of you some time:

His argument is entirely circular. Muslims are prone to evil acts because of their religion, he says, and the root cause is their holy book. If you point to other holy books that contain similar exhortations to evil, then the argument comes that those books don't cause violence because their adherents don't commit evil acts.

Basically, he doesn't like them, and that's what is behind all of his arguments. There's nothing reasoned, or thought out about it. He wants to be able to call them racial epithets whenever he likes, because he hates them, period.