Australian Politics Forum - Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18805
Gender: male

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #30 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:26am

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 1:48pm:

One at a time Baron.

Ok lets start with Tarek, he says the doctrine of armed jihad against the kuffar is responsible for Islamic terror, do you agree with this?

Tarek says the doctrine of armed jihad against the kuffar should be made defunct and inapplicable to the 21st century, do you agree with this?

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #31 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:34am

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

Ok lets start with Tarek, he says the doctrine of armed jihad against the kuffar is responsible for Islamic terror, do you agree with this?

The short answer is no.

But this Tarek guy is disingenuously conflating two separate things: what the vast majority of muslim scholars understand to be the doctrine of armed jihad, and what the minority of terrorists understand it to be.

So of course if you took the definition of armed jihad to be only the definition understood by a tiny minority of islamists (and ignored the mainstream view) - then yes, that doctrine is responsible for Islamic terror.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

Tarek says the doctrine of armed jihad against the kuffar should be made defunct and inapplicable to the 21st century, do you agree with this?

The actual mainstream view of armed jihad is identical to universal understandings of the right to self-defense, which no country on earth rejects, and which is even enshrined in the UN charter. So of course it is applicable to the 21st century. But the minority terrorist view of armed jihad - of course it goes without saying - it didn't apply to the 7th century, and it doesn't apply to the 21st century.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #32 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:58am

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:21am:

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Evasiveness is the principal political response to Islamic terrorism, from Obama, Hollande through all the imams and Grand Miff-tis to Turnbull and Merkel and the rest of them, all the way to our lefty progs and fellow-travellers. Their venom is reserved exclusively for those who are not prepared to go along with the snivelling evasions.Nothing infuriates lefty prog herds more than disagreement.

What do you think Soren, is it evasive of me to "snivel" against someone who posts a story about a group of thugs that beat up a shop owner and his wife in Scotland for something that happened in France, with the heading "entirely justified"?

A straight answer, if you would please.

Like I said - disagreement draws instant evasiveness.

In any case, you make a category mistake again, Gandy AND you ignore wise counsel calling for clear thinking.
Just because someone is evasive about the role, values, influence, desirability, political aims and other qualities (or lack of qualities) of Islam doesn't mean that he is evasive about everything.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96660

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #33 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:59am

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Nothing infuriates lefty prog herds more than disagreement.

Yes, old boy, I imagine you're right. You love disagreement. You'd fight to the death for the right of others to disagree with you. No one has the right to not be offended - or infuriated.

Except you, yes?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96660

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #34 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 12:03pm

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:21am:

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Evasiveness is the principal political response to Islamic terrorism, from Obama, Hollande through all the imams and Grand Miff-tis to Turnbull and Merkel and the rest of them, all the way to our lefty progs and fellow-travellers. Their venom is reserved exclusively for those who are not prepared to go along with the snivelling evasions.Nothing infuriates lefty prog herds more than disagreement.

What do you think Soren, is it evasive of me to "snivel" against someone who posts a story about a group of thugs that beat up a shop owner and his wife in Scotland for something that happened in France, with the heading "entirely justified"?

A straight answer, if you would please.

Like I said - disagreement draws instant evasiveness.

In any case, you make a category mistake again, Gandy AND you ignore wise counsel calling for clear thinking.
Just because someone is evasive about the role, values, influence, desirability, political aims and other qualities (or lack of qualities) of Islam doesn't mean that he is evasive about everything.

Good answer, old chap. If you want to practice shifty, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but, spineless evasiveness, issue a lecture on the virtues of evading.

No one has the right to not be offended, and no one has the right to not be beaten up for being a dirty Muselman.

You know what you are, old boy?

You're a liberal.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #35 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:03pm

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:21am:

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Evasiveness is the principal political response to Islamic terrorism, from Obama, Hollande through all the imams and Grand Miff-tis to Turnbull and Merkel and the rest of them, all the way to our lefty progs and fellow-travellers. Their venom is reserved exclusively for those who are not prepared to go along with the snivelling evasions.Nothing infuriates lefty prog herds more than disagreement.

What do you think Soren, is it evasive of me to "snivel" against someone who posts a story about a group of thugs that beat up a shop owner and his wife in Scotland for something that happened in France, with the heading "entirely justified"?

A straight answer, if you would please.

Like I said - disagreement draws instant evasiveness.

In any case, you make a category mistake again, Gandy AND you ignore wise counsel calling for clear thinking.
Just because someone is evasive about the role, values, influence, desirability, political aims and other qualities (or lack of qualities) of Islam doesn't mean that he is evasive about everything.

Gosh Soren, I was preparing myself for an obfuscation to the question, but I didn't really expect you to ignore it altogether.

Do you think its "sniveling evasiveness" for me to speak out against someone defending the unprovoked assault on a man and his wife for the crimes of others? Yes or no S.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #36 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:14pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:03pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 11:21am:

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Evasiveness is the principal political response to Islamic terrorism, from Obama, Hollande through all the imams and Grand Miff-tis to Turnbull and Merkel and the rest of them, all the way to our lefty progs and fellow-travellers. Their venom is reserved exclusively for those who are not prepared to go along with the snivelling evasions.Nothing infuriates lefty prog herds more than disagreement.

What do you think Soren, is it evasive of me to "snivel" against someone who posts a story about a group of thugs that beat up a shop owner and his wife in Scotland for something that happened in France, with the heading "entirely justified"?

A straight answer, if you would please.

Like I said - disagreement draws instant evasiveness.

In any case, you make a category mistake again, Gandy AND you ignore wise counsel calling for clear thinking.
Just because someone is evasive about the role, values, influence, desirability, political aims and other qualities (or lack of qualities) of Islam doesn't mean that he is evasive about everything.

Gosh Soren, I was preparing myself for an obfuscation to the question, but I didn't really expect you to ignore it altogether.

Do you think its "sniveling evasiveness" for me to speak out against someone defending the unprovoked assault on a man and his wife for the crimes of others? Yes or no S.

If you can tell me how that relates to what I actually posted (highlighted), I will.

Until then it's just another evasion, perfectly illustrating the very point I made.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #37 - Nov 20^th, 2015 at 3:07pm

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

If you can tell me how that relates to what I actually posted (highlighted), I will

To be honest I don't know what you mean by evasiveness in the context of the article you posted. The author expresses his disagreement to various sentiments including that terrorism is cowardice and Obama's seemingly cryptic use of the word "we". Apparently he was talking about evasiveness, yet I don't understand his logic. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

But you were talking about the response to terrorism, and how in your view the "lefty progs" only ever respond with evasiveness. Well I'll tell you about the response I see S - what I see is a shop owner and his wife being set upon and assaulted by 15 thugs in Scotland, and someone defending it with the words "entirely justified". I see a teenage girl getting king hit from behind and knocked unconscious - a blow that could so easily have killed her. I see a spike in intimidatory attacks against muslims including vandalising mosques. These are the responses I see. Are they as bad as the Paris attack? Of course not, have muslims done far worse to non-muslims? Of course they have. But this was never in contention - there is no dispute about the heinous nature of Paris and other muslim atrocities. Your "lefty progs" have been tripping over themselves just like everyone else to express their condemnation and disgust at the Paris attacks. So don't go constructing that strawman. But what seems to get up your nose is the fact that its the lefty progs who are cautioning against a backlash against the muslim community - something that is a reality.

This is what you are proving yourself incapable of S - acknowledging this very real phenomenon and condemning the attacks for what they are - totally unjustified. Its like your crusade against these "lefty progs" creates some impenetrable cognitive barrier against saying anything that might be construed as acknowledging they are right. So you tiptoe around outrageous attacks against muslims and even go one step further - actually labelling those who point out the vulnerability of the muslim community as "evaders". I mean would it really kill you to say "damn the terrorists, damn Islam, barbaric blah blah blah - but yes there is a risk this could cause a backlash against innocent muslims, and I don't condone that"?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #38 - Nov 21^st, 2015 at 9:16am

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 3:07pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

If you can tell me how that relates to what I actually posted (highlighted), I will

To be honest I don't know what you mean by evasiveness in the context of the article you posted. The author expresses his disagreement to various sentiments including that terrorism is cowardice and Obama's seemingly cryptic use of the word "we". Apparently he was talking about evasiveness, yet I don't understand his logic. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

Here is the explanation:

Islamic terrorism around the world is based on Islam, nothing else. Yet Bush, Obama et al immediately call Islam a religion of peace when an Islamic terrorist atrocity is committed, and immediately start babbling about tiny minorities and vast majorities - as if that somehow negated the fact that it is still about Islam and it it is Islam that needs to be confronted.

from that opening evasion comes all the others, including yours, the Grand Miff-tis and all the other devotees to Islam who immediately and always start talking as if Islamic terrorism wasn't about Islam.

So what happens with these evasions is that everything is addressed except what needs to be. Clear thinking and calling things by their names have been subverted by evasion.

Islam is not a religion of peace at all. It is a religion of Submission that will allow peace ONLY after you have submitted to it. All the Islamic terrorists attacks are carried out with the long term aim of global submission to Islam.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 21^st, 2015 at 10:52am by Soren »

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #39 - Nov 21^st, 2015 at 9:30am

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 3:07pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

If you can tell me how that relates to what I actually posted (highlighted), I will

To be honest I don't know what you mean by evasiveness in the context of the article you posted. The author expresses his disagreement to various sentiments including that terrorism is cowardice and Obama's seemingly cryptic use of the word "we". Apparently he was talking about evasiveness, yet I don't understand his logic. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

But you were talking about the response to terrorism, and how in your view the "lefty progs" only ever respond with evasiveness. Well I'll tell you about the response I see S - what I see is a shop owner and his wife being set upon and assaulted by 15 thugs in Scotland, and someone defending it with the words "entirely justified". I see a teenage girl getting king hit from behind and knocked unconscious - a blow that could so easily have killed her. I see a spike in intimidatory attacks against muslims including vandalising mosques. These are the responses I see. Are they as bad as the Paris attack? Of course not, have muslims done far worse to non-muslims? Of course they have. But this was never in contention - there is no dispute about the heinous nature of Paris and other muslim atrocities. Your "lefty progs" have been tripping over themselves just like everyone else to express their condemnation and disgust at the Paris attacks. So don't go constructing that strawman. But what seems to get up your nose is the fact that its the lefty progs who are cautioning against a backlash against the muslim community - something that is a reality.

What gets up my nose is that with Muslims and lefty progs, it's is ALWAYS ONLY about the backlash.

You are immediately get very miffed about a shopkeeper and a hijabi, which is right, EXCEPT your outspokenness is hollow and evasive because you Muslims, collectively, do nothing about the jihadis among you. A few ambiguous condemnations ( see the Grand Miff-ti's pathetic effort) and then you are onto the backlash for the next 4 weeks.

Tell us, INSTEAD, what you and your fellow Muslims are DOING to eradicate jihadis in Australia. What do you Muslims do to eradicate jihadis from Western countries and then from the world? Scores of people are gunned down in Paris and you are swinging into activism to highlight the very mild backlash. You utter inertia towards the jihadis makes your condemnations shallow and pathetic. This spoof headline sums you up perfectly:
Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing

You are supposed to be the VAST majority. What are you doing about the train bombings BEFORE they happens? Nothing. And that's what get's up everyone's noses. You are all hot to condemn the backlash which is a backlash against your inertia, evasiveness, dissembling and double dealing. The Grand Miff-ti is a spectacular embodiment how his flock cannot be trusted. Before him, Sheikh Hilarious was the same. You look at these two and think - this is the best Muslims can come up with to represent them, to lead them, to do their thinking for them.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 21^st, 2015 at 10:50am by Soren »

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96660

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #40 - Nov 21^st, 2015 at 4:40pm

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 9:30am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 3:07pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

If you can tell me how that relates to what I actually posted (highlighted), I will

To be honest I don't know what you mean by evasiveness in the context of the article you posted. The author expresses his disagreement to various sentiments including that terrorism is cowardice and Obama's seemingly cryptic use of the word "we". Apparently he was talking about evasiveness, yet I don't understand his logic. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

But you were talking about the response to terrorism, and how in your view the "lefty progs" only ever respond with evasiveness. Well I'll tell you about the response I see S - what I see is a shop owner and his wife being set upon and assaulted by 15 thugs in Scotland, and someone defending it with the words "entirely justified". I see a teenage girl getting king hit from behind and knocked unconscious - a blow that could so easily have killed her. I see a spike in intimidatory attacks against muslims including vandalising mosques. These are the responses I see. Are they as bad as the Paris attack? Of course not, have muslims done far worse to non-muslims? Of course they have. But this was never in contention - there is no dispute about the heinous nature of Paris and other muslim atrocities. Your "lefty progs" have been tripping over themselves just like everyone else to express their condemnation and disgust at the Paris attacks. So don't go constructing that strawman. But what seems to get up your nose is the fact that its the lefty progs who are cautioning against a backlash against the muslim community - something that is a reality.

What gets up my nose is that with Muslims and lefty progs, it's is ALWAYS ONLY about the backlash.

You are immediately get very miffed about a shopkeeper and a hijabi, which is right, EXCEPT your outspokenness is hollow and evasive because you Muslims, collectively, do nothing about the jihadis among you.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of biffo, dear boy. It's a normal human response to the tinted races.

We liberals believe in doing whatever we like as long as it doesn't hurt the non-tinted races.

White man's burden, innit.

Back to top

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21914
A cat with a view

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #41 - Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:17pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 3:07pm:

....

a backlash against innocent muslims

.....

Google;

it is only a tiny minority of extremists

gandalf,

For me, there is no logic in such an assertion, ....in your assertion.

Indeed, your characterisation of there being "innocent moslem(s)", as a norm, to me, is offensive.

Such a characterisation of the "innocent moslem(s)" as being the norm,

offends reason

.

It is as though you want to suggest [as a debating argument], .....that because the moslem has not yet had a viable 'opportunity' to prove his bona-fides to his faith [in violence towards the infidel], the moslem should somehow be handed an "innocence/victim" card, .....which the moslem can produced when confronted by indignant infidels [....indignant infidels who are learning about the real moslem intent, towards those who are not moslems].

gandalf,

There is no, "innocent moslem".

How so [logically] ?

Principally, because, if you are moslem, you are a follower of ISLAM.

And ISLAM has no benign intent [none at all], towards those who are not moslems [and who reject ISLAM].

e.g.
These words are the spoken sanction [the religious license] from ISLAM's deity, ALLAH, ....to persecute [and kill!] non-moslems!

---------- >

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves....."
Koran 48.29

.

Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1418244166/15#15
Quote:

You mean that we [infidels, on OzPol] are guilty of 'stereotyping' members of the Australian mainstream moslem community!!!!

Shock horror!!!!

Fancy having the gall to associate moslems, .......with, .....moslems!

Fancy having the gall to associate moslems, .......with, .....ISLAM [and with ISLAM's laws and tenets] !

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.

Google;
Shahada, confession of faith, of a muslim

.

Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/1#1
Quote:

"every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac"

- Yadda

QUESTION;
What about the innocent moslems ?

IMO, [logically] there are no innocent moslems [among persons who have come to the age of consent], and yet still declare themselves to be moslems.

How so [logically] ?

QUESTION;
How credible is it that a person who is devout enough to insist that he is a moslem, is unaware of what ISLAM promotes, and is unaware of what the principle tenets of ISLAM are ?

QUESTION;
How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'], ...to a philosophy which transforms human beings, into homicidal maniacs ?

QUESTION;
How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'], ...to a philosophy which claims that murdering, in the cause of religious bigotry, is a religious virtue ?

.

CRIMINAL INTENT, IN THE MOSLEM HEART
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1252898491/0#0
Quote:

Every moslem in Australia [and indeed, every moslem on the planet], by self declaring as a moslem, is self declaring a criminal intent [by our laws] against local non-moslems.

ISLAM is a criminal compact among moslems, to wage a violent 'religious' war against non-moslems ['disbelievers'].

.....Basically, fundamentally, all ISLAMIC doctrine translates as enmity, and encourages [criminal] violence, towards ALL non-moslems.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21914
A cat with a view

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #42 - Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:26pm

Yadda wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:17pm:

gandalf,

.....your characterisation of there being "innocent moslem(s)", as a norm, to me, is offensive.

Such a characterisation of the "innocent moslem(s)" as being the norm,

offends reason

.

It is as though you want to suggest [as a debating argument], .....that because the moslem has not yet had a viable 'opportunity' to prove his bona-fides to his faith [in violence towards the infidel], the moslem should somehow be handed an "innocence/victim" card, .....which the moslem can produced when confronted by indignant infidels [....indignant infidels who are learning about the real moslem intent, towards those who are not moslems].

gandalf,

There is no, "innocent moslem".

How so [logically] ?

Principally, because, if you are moslem, you are a follower of ISLAM.

gandalf,

QUESTION;

What % of moslems, .....are moslems ???

.

What, is a moslem ????????

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.

ISLAM = = ?????????

----------- >

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4

.

"Fighting [against disbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111

.

ADDENDUM;

Yadda said.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1409991405/8#8
Quote:

Promoting and encouraging violent and unlawful acts is illegal.

We live in a country in which the people supposedly respect the rule of law.

Without widespread respect for the law of the land, we [our Australian society] would descend into being like Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, etc, etc - which is exactly what moslems are trying to achieve.

Moslems want to destroy all of the institutions in Australia, which help to maintain a peaceful and functioning society.

SUGGESTION;
If you live in Australia and you don't like what ISLAM promotes
then you should contact your federal parliamentary representative - EXPLAIN TO HIM/HER WHY YOU DO NOT LIKE ISLAM AND MOSLEMS - and encourage your federal parliamentary representative to try to get ISLAM lawfully declared a proscribed [banned] group in Australia.

Act within the law.

Otherwise we are no better than moslems.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96660	Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror Reply #43 - Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:59pm Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 9:30am: What gets up my nose is... We'll need to make this one a multiple choice.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Tarek Fatah-Root cause of Islamic terror
Reply #44 - Nov 21^st, 2015 at 10:26pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 4:40pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 9:30am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 3:07pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

If you can tell me how that relates to what I actually posted (highlighted), I will

To be honest I don't know what you mean by evasiveness in the context of the article you posted. The author expresses his disagreement to various sentiments including that terrorism is cowardice and Obama's seemingly cryptic use of the word "we". Apparently he was talking about evasiveness, yet I don't understand his logic. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

But you were talking about the response to terrorism, and how in your view the "lefty progs" only ever respond with evasiveness. Well I'll tell you about the response I see S - what I see is a shop owner and his wife being set upon and assaulted by 15 thugs in Scotland, and someone defending it with the words "entirely justified". I see a teenage girl getting king hit from behind and knocked unconscious - a blow that could so easily have killed her. I see a spike in intimidatory attacks against muslims including vandalising mosques. These are the responses I see. Are they as bad as the Paris attack? Of course not, have muslims done far worse to non-muslims? Of course they have. But this was never in contention - there is no dispute about the heinous nature of Paris and other muslim atrocities. Your "lefty progs" have been tripping over themselves just like everyone else to express their condemnation and disgust at the Paris attacks. So don't go constructing that strawman. But what seems to get up your nose is the fact that its the lefty progs who are cautioning against a backlash against the muslim community - something that is a reality.

What gets up my nose is that with Muslims and lefty progs, it's is ALWAYS ONLY about the backlash.

You are immediately get very miffed about a shopkeeper and a hijabi, which is right, EXCEPT your outspokenness is hollow and evasive because you Muslims, collectively, do nothing about the jihadis among you.

White man's burden, innit.

You wouldn't have a clue about it, PB.

Here's ten rupee - have a banana.
Have two.

Back to top

IP Logged