UKC

Nice to see the French military shot him before he killed anybody...I suppose these are the kind of Islamic extremists Trump is worried about....
Not much condemnation from Moslem media...

In reply to Jim 1003:

'Moslem' media?

In reply to Jim 1003:

Ohh la la zut alors - nothing like waiting for the full facts to emerge before pandering to some TRUMPed up stereotypes and cliches, and that was NOTHING like...

In reply to Jim 1003:

Yeah, glad they dealt with him efficiently.

Out of curiosity, what "Moslem media" do you read? I don't read any religious media, normally, it just isn't my thing - but fair play to you for taking such an interest in other cultures.

In reply to Jim 1003:


What? The really shit ones?

If Trump is really worried about "Islamic extremists" he should be worried about the American ones, who already live in a society saturated with legally and illegally held guns, particularly as in the first days of his administration the House has seen fit to vote on repealing gun control regulation that made it harder for people with mental health problems to buy guns. Trump-Pence: making it easier for the mentally ill to obtain firearms since 2017.

In reply to Jim 1003:


wtf?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Yeah, you know? The Daily Camel, the ISISBC, The Crescent Moon (nice pics of girls in sexy burkas in page 3 btw)...

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Moslem is a perfectly valid (but unfashionable) synonym for Muslim, isn't it?

In reply to Jim 1003:
There's a big issue in Islam, and Radical Islam in particular is a menace that must be tackled along with other militant religiosity and regressive ideology (like that in the USA):

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58933c0de4b070cf8b80d970

In reply to Shani:

Except of course that there is no comparison between Christianity in the USA and Islam, other from the most dedicated moral relativists and the delusional.

Christianity has never said, in its holy books, that infidels must either convert to Christianity or be killed, it has never as a religion espoused beheading and its prime doctrine is that of forgiveness and turning the other cheek. It does not say that apostacy or a dozen other offences should be punished with death and mutilation. The prime doctrine of Islam is forced conversion, under the shadow of the sword, which is how it spread with such rapidity and brutality in its conquest of North Africa, the Byzantine lands, Arabia and the Sassanid empire, not to mention Spain and and the South of France. It is an inherently intolerant, aggressive and expansionist ideology that brooks no rival and makes no compromises.

Christianity was also not founded by and did not elevate to a semi-divine figure, the equivalent even for that time and place, of a Waffen SS officer who fought in dozens of battles and personally organised mass murders of surrendered prisoners, quite apart from his love of loot and women as possessions.

There really is NO comparison between the figures of Mohamed and Jesus, no matter how convenient it may be for some to pretend that there is. That Christians have in the fairly distant past behaved very badly in the name of their religion is clearly a perversion of Christian doctrine, similar or far more brutal behaviour from Moslems is the essence of their doctrine. The theology of ISIS is impeccable, according to well informed Islamic scholars, though this extreme version is not practiced by the majority of Muslims, it is certainly not heretical.

In reply to Jim 1003:
Don't panic Captain Mainwaring.

http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-weste...

The last 15 years have been far safer than the previous 30 years. Maybe Islamist terrorism just isn't very scary compared to us Europeans.

In reply to TobyA:

Yes really it's pretty astonishing that the proportion of mad shooters perpetrating mass killing in America that are Muslim is really rather small given that they are such an horrendous danger.

In reply to elsewhere:

Wow so many inferences could be made from this data.
Is it reliable?

In reply to Jim 1003:

Seems like this guy was a bit of an amateur - attacking police officers armed with sub machine guns with a machete doesn't look a good idea. Probably just a one off religious nutter.

In reply to Simon4:



Google:

"Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages".

This was officially sanctioned, right from the very top, formally organised slaughter of tens of millions of people in the name of God over a period of hundreds of years.

Makes Islam look look a bunch of small time amateur dabblers in comparison.

In reply to pasbury:



You tell me, how does it compare to your knowledge?

Tallies with my recollection of the NI Troubles when terrorism was weekly (I don't remember the earlier times when it was daily) compared to the rarity of terrorism these days.

In reply to Simon4:
Agreed. (Although you've over-egged your response to my post - particularly your opening paragraph).

In reply to Simon4:

Ha, ha, ha! If you are going to self-appoint yourself as an expert to decide which flavour of Islam is the correct one, you should at least have some idea of what you are talking about.


Neither it does Islam. The Quran in fact prohibits force conversion


No, the preferred methods are such pleasant events such as burning at the stake


No it isn't. In fact the death penalty is to be given under the old testament for:

Murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17,21)
Attacking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17)
Disobedience to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
Failure to confine a dangerous animal, resulting in death (Exodus 21:28-29)
Witchcraft and sorcery (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:5, 1 Samuel 28:9)
Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5)
Sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:16)
Doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12,14,17,19-21)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)
Homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13)
Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:20)
Perjury in capital cases (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)
Refusing to obey a decision of a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:12)
False claim of a woman's virginity at time of marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other than her betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

and several more 'crimes'. Besides there's a great range of choice punishments handed out by Jesus and God in those books.


You got that the other way around. In the Quran there's no mention of apostasy being a 'crime', let alone anything punishable, whereas the bible very specifically it says that apostates must be killed and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 13:6-11). Ah, and all the above list plus a few more


Wrong again. Islam doesn't allow forced conversions under the Quran, and those places that Arabs conquered the locals were allowed to continue with their religions. You mention Spain? How could there have been 3 religions + coexisting under their reign if the prime octrine was to convert them or kill them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convivencia

You should read up history instead of Breitbart.


Like the expression people uses to excuse old people being racists, "he was just a man of his time".


According to you because it suits your Islamophobic beliefs rather. Care to name those "well informed islamic Scholars" and what their standing is within the muslim community at large?

In reply to the thread:

Excellent, another game of UKC 'Terrorist Top Trumps' seems to be in process...

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Moslem is in fact a derogatory term in Arabic when the word is read with english phonetics from its english spelling. It largely stopped being used because of that, but the anti-muslim brigade caught up on the fact and apropriated it to intentionally cause offense. That's why you got people like Simon and Jim using it, it's up there with 'nigger' and 'paki'.

In reply to Simon4:



Deuteronomy 13:1-18
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

In reply to FactorXXX:


ISIS? Pah!.... I'll raise you with the Ecky Thump Black Pudding Gang of Bury.

In reply to Simon4:

When Muslims do bad things it's because their religion tells them to, since Islam as bad. But when Christians do bad things, it is a perversion of their religion because Christianity is good.

Facile?

In reply to Simon4:

Sorry Simon4, but I see this as a very warped view of Islam based on a mishmash of facts, quotes, distortions and stretched interpretations.

Sadly it only suits one perspective - an aggressive islamaphobic standpoint with divisive aims.

I'm praying that you naively cut and pasted your post from elsewhere...

In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:



Some serious s & m fun could be had with this script.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Good and bad depend on your point of view. Christianity is clear about turning the other cheek, if Christians don't follow it that can hardly be blamed on Christinity. It's not to do with what is objectively good or bad it's about rules, and different religions have different rules. Islam has some really bad, from my point of view, rules. The only real problem with Christianity is the idea that a book has moral authority.

To those citing the Old Testament - if you don't know, the New Testament (the one about Christ) overrules the old. The clue is in the name of the religion.

Edit - on this attack, I'd agree with Jess, let's hope any future attacks are as successful!

In reply to thomasadixon:


There you go http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/the-but-thats-just-the-old-testament-cop-o...

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Well that was a load of nonsense. Jesus was violent and warlike eh? Amazing.

Religions aren't all the same.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Anyone else reminded of this?

youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc&



Three shots in the guts? Good grouping!

In reply to thomasadixon:

No. Neither Christianity nor Islam are clear about anything. Simon4 and others' assertions that Islam is a prescriptive set of rules by which Muslims must live are patently false - if they were true, then Muslims would agree on what these rules are, but they don't. They all say different things, because they choose the bits they like the sound of (the bits that fit in with their outlook which, as with every human, is dependent on their environment) and reject the rest.

I understand that there are differences between the two religions, and that Christianity is even less intelligible as a doctrine than Islam and therefore even more open to the "pick and mix" approach applied by *all* followers of *all* religions. This is a relative difference in the level of unintelligible, contradictory garbage written many hundreds of years ago by people whose views have absolutely no relevance to the modern world. The power of the awful bits of the Koran and their relative consistency in comparison to the more eclectic and utterly garbled mumbo jumbo of the Bible doesn't exonerate Christianity from its pathetic failure to provide any kind of moral guidance to its followers. True, you can't blame the Bible for ISIS, but you can pick just about any type of immoral behaviour (be it murder, rape or child abuse) and immediately find a wealth of examples of how the Christian faith has been used to excuse, justify or promote it.

Yes, given the choice, I'd rather kids were given copies of the Bible than the Koran, and would rather they were forced into a nice C of E Sunday School than a mosque. Both are damaging, but Islam is likely to be the greater of the two evils. As such, can we please drop this pretense that Christianity has anything remotely useful to offer (it's 'word salad' onto which any meaning you like can be imposed, as history as unquestionably shown) just so we can feel secure in the superiority of our cultural heritage in contrast to someone else's.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Not really, the guy was Egyptian, Trump hasn't banned Egyptians as he has business interests in Egypt.


I believe it is the job of the media to report, not condem, but as I haven't seen much Moslem / Muslim media, whatever you actually mean by that, I really don't know what they are and aren't doing, I suspect you don't either.

I wonder if the Alt Right media condemned that French Canadian chap last week, I know Trump was very quiet about it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

We'll have to disagree on the clarity of Christianity's basic teachings, or how it could be used to justify rape.

Otherwise I think you're imagining I've said something I haven't. I'm no fan of Christianity (for starters turn the other cheek is bad idea), but Christianity is bad too isn't an argument against the issues with Islam. It's untrue to claim they're equivalent - as that link tries to - and irrelevant to the issues with Islam. It is also a religion, so what?

In reply to thomasadixon:
What was the largest Empire in history Thomas and what religion did its agents follow? Simon is of course doing what he always does which is your standard ahistorical decontextualised bait and switch of blaming what people do on the religion they follow or at least say they follow and ignoring everything else. From the Sunni Shia split through the different waring caliphates, Muslim powers have always been pretty good and bringing each other down, just as have 'Christian powers' in the European regional security complex have. It's no surprise that we Christian Brits had to look to rest of the world to spread "Anglicanism's blood soaked borders". It is clearly all total bollocks, but perhaps it makes some people feel better about their suspicions about Mr. Khan down the road.

In reply to Shani:


That was a 'red wine' response. Apologies.

Now, let's take a look at what Trump's Chief Strategist has to say. A religious guy called Steve Bannon:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-enti...

In reply to Shani:



Pity you can't condemn Islamic terrorism, instead of posting bollocks about America.

In reply to Big Ger:




I think the intention of the Islamic terrorist yesterday was to attack tourists in the Louvre, I see the luvvies on here can bring them selves to condemn it, but witter on about Trump's perceived diversity issues....

In reply to Jim 1003:

Don't be absurd. Everyone here condemns the shooting. Many of us however understand Trump and acolytes are probably more dangerous and risky in big picture terms

In reply to MG:

If they condemn it there's no evidence of that. Using terms like, 'many of us understand' infers a superiority which is exactly why Trump was elected and why Brexit has occurred. The masses don't like it, don't buy it and have voted to deal with that attitude.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Saying something is understood is now somehow superior? Holding any sort of discussion is going to be tricky if people are that sensitive. I thought the right didn't like political correctness?

In reply to Jim 1003:

I think you can safely assume that anyone in their right mind condemns violent machete attacks of all kinds and I expect the world's eyes aren't currently on this thread on a climbing forum looking for its lead on this important issue.

I don't think MG is inferring superiority, but if you think an attack by a man from a country not covered by President Tweet's travel ban is justification for that ban then we can infer you're not thinking about this as hard as you might.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

As should you! Islam by definition means "Submit".



What is the penalty for Apostasy? Ah yes! Death!

Last time I checked, there are about 109 passage of violence. And the Quran is not like the bible. The bible is written by scholars and authors about the word of God. The Quran is the word of God and is unquestionable, cannot be wrong and is the only true word of God. The bible has the New Testament overwritten the Old, which was filled with violence, "Eye for an Eyel" etc.
The Quran states that when 2 contradictory statements are found, the later overrides the earlier, and that death and violence all comes at the end.

Here's just a few juicy quotes.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah"

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause"



Quran (2:193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."
You Could be right, it's not forced conversion, you have a choice, you convert, or you die.


We have different definitions of "co-existing" and yes. They offer a tax against the non-believers to live under their reign of they refuse to convert.

Dhimmis aren't given the same legal protection as Muslim, aren't classed as the same as Muslims, have to wear clothing and shorn hair to distinguish themselves from Muslims,
Dhimmi means protected, and why do they need protected, because they are subordinate and Islam calls death to kafir. Unbelievers. So you either bow down and pay a tax (jizya) and live under rule where your a second class citizen or you die. And your sons were free game for them to take away and converted to fight their holy war and become janissaries


As should you! Might I suggest starting with the Quran. Why did the crusades start? As yes, the rapid and aggressive
Expansion of Islam, that burned church's up to Italy and Spain.

869-883 black slave revolt in Iraq, had to get that one in, everyone seems to
Focus on Western Slavery. Arabs also had a lucrative white slave trade too.


Stop using that bullshit word. Islamaphobia. It's not a phobia. It's a reasoned, logical attitude, one that I have against all religion/fairytales.

Why can one not be critical of Islam? What puts that above anyone else? Why can't I pick holes in it? Why can't I refuse to believe it or like it?

In reply to Jim 1003:

And it's lucky that the proles have the people like you to be the vanguard of their revolution and talk straight to all us metrosexual, feminized, craven, urban liberal elitists snowflakes isn't it?

Just remind me though, how big a margin did Trump win the the popular vote by?

Your desire to have people condemn a bloke hitting people (that he didn't know and who had done nothing to him) with a machete is odd. Do you think anyone believes that it was a good thing? Have you condemned yet the man in Birmingham who got sent down yesterday for 14 years for the sustained sexual abuse of a baby? If not, should I take it in some way that you "understand" that behaviour or would it be more sensible for me to presume you find it as morally repugnant as everyone else here, but we _might_ possibly have different views on what causes such behaviour and what is the right punishment and treatment for such a person?

In reply to TobyA:


It was quite a big margin wasn't it?



Though negative.

In reply to Bootrock:

Booty, do you know its "visit my mosque day" tomorrow? You can find the mosque closest to you on the MCB's website and then pop along for tea, biscuits and a chat. I'm sure someone would be willing to at least have a go at reading the surah you quote above and explaining why they are making you a cuppa and not trying to lop your head off. http://www.visitmymosque.org/

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Doesn't it depend if you count all the non-existent votes cast by the non-existing voting illegal aliens? I was as non-upset about that as I was over the non-horror of the non existent Bowling Green massacre that Ms Conway so helpfully non-reminded me about yesterday.

- right, blow all this, I can tell its going to turn into one of those completely depressing non discussions by people who just can't get their head around how the otherside think (me included). Anyone fancy Stanage or Burbage? Looks like it's sunny up there currently.

In reply to TobyA:
Nah it's alright mate, I have had my fair share of mosques and Muslims. I have no time for taqiyya.

Interesting as I have a muslim friend who hates his religion, eats bacon sarnies, drinks and just thinks it's all nonsense. But he's too scared to tell his family.

In reply to Bootrock:
In the UK? Or, as I think you hinted at having been a soldier before, was it in a war zone? I imagine the experience could be quite different.

Yep, things are changing but rather slowly it seems about people from Muslim backgrounds who just stop taking any interest in their religion. Being, for example, gay and from a Muslim family for example seems much harder now than it does for most people in the UK, but hopefully views will liberalise within those social groups just as they have amongst so many others.

In reply to TobyA:


Depends entirely where in the UK now doesn't it....

In reply to TobyA:


This is a real problem in many parts of the UK with large Muslim communities. People from that community who don't want to be a Muslim often face ostracisation, bullying and sometimes violence.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And those that aren't even Muslims..

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:



I think you are right Trump was quite wrong, he should have included Egypt in his travel ban as well, hopefully he'll sort that out now...

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Same fellas who make Moslamic Ray Guns I suspect.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

Obviously didn't hear the adage of bringing a knife to a gun fight. Or as I've heard rephrased, piss to a sh1t fight, I forget the context

In reply to cap'nChino:


Have a like for that! Made me chuckle. And for anyone that hasn't seen it.

youtube.com/watch?v=aYd9qbRz2fc&


Although if you listen, he doesn't say ray guns, he says Rape Gangs.

In reply to Bootrock:




Cheers.
Honestly didn't know it was Rape Gangs, makes a lot more sense now.

In reply to Bootrock:

It's at times like this I wish they still made Carry On films. Imagine what Sid James could make of Shi'ites, telling Dimmies to bow down for a tax called Jiz-ya.

In reply to Jim 1003:


What? You mean like i did at on 20:47 Fri?

In reply to MG:


I think Jim is content to attack a 'lefty snowflake' straw man. He might be Bootrock's sockpuppet.

In reply to Shani:


Have you just learnt the word snowflake?

In reply to Shani:


Keep up the abuse, it means your cause is lost....

In reply to elsewhere:


The number of casualties isn't a reliable guide to the threat because the Islamic terrorists are interested in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and mass casualty attacks. You could have 15 years of hardly any casualties because they are getting caught in time then one bio or dirty nuclear attack and 100,000 casualties all at once or they could fly a plane into a football stadium and kill 20,000 at once.

It would be crazy to conclude that because since 9/11 islamists haven't managed to pull off an attack that kills thousands of people in the west that they won't manage it in the future when there are thousands of them trying. Yes, most of them are morons that feel the need to yell Allah Akhbar before they run at a group of soldiers armed with automatic weapons waving a knife but it isn't that hard to build very dangerous things and sooner or later if enough of them try and we aren't extremely vigilant they will get lucky.

In reply to Jim 1003:

I agree. This was you Jim, at 925hrs today:

"I see the luvvies on here can bring them selves...."

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You may well be right, but casualties are a publicly available and verifiable indication of the decline of terrorism, particularly here in the UK.

In reply to Bootrock:

Oh dear... We have our resident BNP propagandist in the house...


Wrong

Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness and peace.[33] In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God"


In the bible, yes. In the Quran, no.


I was going to say i'm impressed you read the Quran, but then i realised you lifted that straight out of the Islamophobic propaganda that gets passed around in fb and quoted in choice websites.

That exact 109 number is used by "Ban Islam and Sharia Law Worldwide", "religionofconquest", "religionofpeace", etc. Well done repeating propaganda while at the same time pretending you have any knowledge.


Everyone hold the f*ck on, we have a genius in the house.


All of those books have been written by humans you'll find out, scholars and authors the lot of them.


The new and the old tetament complement each other. The old testament sets the "Laws" and focuses on the people, the new chronicles Jesus and reasserts those laws.

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one dot of the Law to become void.

Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

At one point in history the Old Testament was proposed to be 'ignored'. It never got anywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

Christians of course can chose what parts of the bible to follow or not and how to interpret the bible itself, which is why mostly they don't go around killing the first born babies of every Egyptian, Conversely, the same applies to Muslims.

You can't give the priviledge to do so to Christians while at the same taking it away from Muslims.


Where?


Like in the second coming?










I was going to go one by one disproving you, but then i realised i would be wasting my time as you wouldn't even read what is written, but if you have the least of an interest to find the correct translations of these verses and their context, instead of the choice manipulated mistranslations they are with the the context removed spo they could be sent in the weekly EDL newsletter, all you got to do is google the numbers above and you'll see how truncated the stuff you posted is.


Whereas in 1492, at the end of those 700 years of co-existance, when the Catholic kings reconquered Spain, they didn't ask Jews and Muslims to pay tax. The choice given was convert or die, and if you have enough money give us everything you have and be expulsed from the land. And even after they converted the ride was a bit rougher than having to pay some tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriscos


Still preferable than the Christian option of running you past the inquisition before burning you at the stake


Because Christian fundamentalists mixed up politics with religion


You are scared shitless, which is why you are willing to discriminate against, bar from travelling, and remove basic rights from 1.8 billion people on the basis that they have an ethinic background or follow a religion that you feel illogically and unreasonably threatened by.

You are, by definition, an Islamophobe


You can do all those things all you like. What you shouldn't do is to make up lies, fake news, alternative facts, and regurgitate propaganda which has no other motivation than sow hatred against people because you "refuse to like it".

You have obviously spent some time in front of the keyboard intent on proving that Islam is a uniquely violent religion when compared with Christianity, and that by extension all muslims are terrorists or something. Why would you do that? What is it in it for you? What do you gain by demonising 1.800.000.000 people?

In reply to Mr Lopez:

And that, I think everyone can agree, is how you hand someone their arse. Have a like.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

You are going as far in apologising for Islam as those blaming it (and more importantly Muslims) for everything bad do in the other direction. The fact is it does, as practised in most of the middle east, encourage and support death for apostasy , subjugation of women and among many other unpleasant things. There are serious, credible reports and polls clearly showing this. Aspects of this thinking inevitbly affect politics in countries with many Muslim immigrants. It is entirely reasonable to object to this and to try prevent it occuring. That is entirely different from arbitrary bans on immigrants or demonising all Muslims.

In reply to MG:


Islam doesn't need apologising for. It is a very broad religion with countless ideas and interpretations, that can't be deemed overall a 'bad' thing that would warrant any apologising.

Some of it's interpretations and the implementation of those can indeed be bad, more than bad, terrible and horrifying, and you won't find me or most right thinking people apologising for those, as i find them as abhorrent and detestable as anybody else.

So if you want to discuss things like jihadist fundamentalist salafism, then by all means, go ahead and i'll be up there with you agreeing they are the scum of the Earth.

But banding those with Mustafah from the corner shop under the banner of Islam is as fair as putting Elma, the nice old lady from number 294, in the same wagon as the KKK under the banner of Christianity.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Are there thousands of "Islamists" trying to do this? Where are they and why are they so crap about it?


It isn't? Why is it then that all the non-state actors' attempts to build unconventional weapons have been failures? Aum Shinrykio spent some millions, recruited scientists from the relevant fields, were unmolested by pretty lame policing for years and still only made a weapon that killed less people than a zealot stealing a truck and driving it into a crowd.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Well I disagree. I think it is a profoundly bad philosophy for goverment, as demonstrated by the almost uniformly bad governence in countries where it forms the basis for power. (Incidentally I would say the same for Christianity and most religions but currently they don't have much political power).



This is the problem. Any critique of Islam is immediately conflated with criticism of its followers by its apologists. This shuts down debate and gives.credance to the "all Muslims are terrorists" school of thought.

In reply to thomasadixon:


You might try to be more clear in future then, with comments like "The only real problem with Christianity is the idea that a book has moral authority." I think there are rather more problems than that, for example everything the Catholic Church teaches around the world and the influence of religious right in the USA to list but two significant *current* examples. There is no need to delve into history, but if we do the story becomes darker still.


You misunderstand the argument (I thought I had been clear). S4 said "Islam bad, Christianity good" (I really can't find any greater nuance in his totally vacuous and wildly inaccurate post) which you seemed to defend - god only knows why. I'm just refuting that. I'm not defending Islam nor not arguing the Christianity is equivalent or "just as bad" - and I can't see how anyone would interpret my post that way.

In reply to TobyA:

Thing is Trump is an extremists and his policies may kill more people than Islamic terrorist ever have - Bush's certainly did

In reply to MG:



Well yes, sovereign governance should be secular and based in proven scientific facts and logical reasonable social norms based on respect, tolerance and stability. Religion should not be the base of governance or law in any case, yet


With what? I'm not arguing for Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Pastafarianism to be the basis of a country's law, am I? If you want to argue the pros and cons and various merits of religious governance vs secular states then go ahead. I'll be agreeing with you that the state should be secular.

What are you disageeing with?


Again i can't see where you are going to. I said:


What is the problem?

In reply to Mr Lopez:



It's appalling results when applied to government, and law, both of which are intrinsic to Islam.


That Islam has nothing to apologise for.


That in response to Islam being criticised, you point to an invented nice Muslim. It's like responding to criticism of Tory government policy by pointing to nice old true blue Mrs Huffington Buffington who always bakes cakes for the church fete.

In reply to MG:



So you are disagreeing with what i said about Islam and religion in general being an excellent and foolproof way to form the basis of governance and a country's laws?

Oh wait, i never said that. Or did i? Mmmmhhh.....


Neither it does. And i'll paraprhase

Islam doesn't need apologising for. It is a very broad religion with countless ideas and interpretations, that can't be deemed overall a 'bad' thing that would warrant any apologising.

Some of it's interpretations and the implementation of those can indeed be bad, more than bad, terrible and horrifying, and you won't find me or most right thinking people apologising for those, as i find them as abhorrent and detestable as anybody else.

So if you want to discuss things like jihadist fundamentalist salafism, then by all means, go ahead and i'll be up there with you agreeing they are the scum of the Earth.

Are we running circles here or what?


Mustafah wasn't brought into play as a response to Islam being criticised It was a simple example to illustrate how Islam cannot be considered a single immutable idea but a much more expansive set of ideas that can even be contradictory in many ways.

The same way that nice old true blue Mrs Huffington Buffington who always bakes cakes for the church fete and votes Tory can be used as an example when paired with Bulldog Steve who votes EDL and is part of Combat 18 that right wing politics extends for a long way either side.

So by all means, critise Tory government policy, but don't go around saying that Tory policies are neo-nazi because they share the "right wing" moniker with the League of St George if you want to be taken seriously.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


You didnt, but earlier said Islam had nothing to apologise for. Make your mind up. If you now agree with me, great.
.

>

In reply to MG:


Did you even read my post before replying?

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Yes. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you actually wanted to discuss this. I see now you definitely do just want to be a pompous smart-arse know it all. I'll stop wasting my time.

In reply to MG:


You may want to rephrase that. It was the terrorist who was shot.

In reply to TobyA:


Why on earth would any atheist want to visit a mosque though, apart from the architecture?

In reply to cap'nChino:


Interestingly, that guy, dumb as he was, was actually saying "mulsim rape gangs," which in the light of Rotherham, Bristol and other events doesn't sound so stupid now.

In reply to Big Ger:

Neither the Bristol nor Rotherham gang members would easily be characterised as close to devout. They certainly weren't doing what they were doing in the name of Islam, were they?

In reply to Big Ger:


He was a regular Poirot

In reply to Big Ger:

Shame he didn't say 'pizza delivery driver and taxi driver rape gangs' because that would have been a tad more specific and accurate.

In reply to Big Ger:


Because it's interesting maybe? Exactly the same as visiting a church or a synagogue or gurdwara. In these days talking to people you wouldn't normally talk to seems a great idea. For members of mosque committees to give up their Sunday to talk with non-Muslims also seems like a nice thing to do.

In reply to Big Ger:


In my case it was to show respect for a friend's wife who had died. My friend knows I'm an atheist , had us a Muslim, but still invited me, and his family explained what to do, and what was going on, very interesting it was too.

I'm still an atheist.

In reply to Big Ger:

I went round the Blue Mosque in Istanbul once with me Mam (en route for a remembrance trip to Gallipoli), great building.
They might regret the no shoe policy though with my rancid feet dissolving the carpets.

Allah didn't speak to me.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I am gonna let you ponder that for a bit longer. Just have a little think.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

I am gonna keep this short.

1) have never, will never support BNP or the EDL. Your attempt to discourage me by trying to smear me will not work. Your typical lefty screams of "racist" will not work.

2) Islam means submission. You can stick as many made up soft words In between it.
'Aslama - Submit to God. 'Islām - Submission.


3) the punishment for Apostasy is in the Quran.....

4) aye the 109 was a quick google search to get a total number. Maybe you should read some of them though, I read the lefty stuff. Time spent on enemy reconnaissance is rarely wasted, also why I read Cosmopolitan...

5) I actually have read the Quran, and the bible. I haven't read the Sikh scriptures yet.

6) the Quran is considered the very word of God and is unquestionable, undeniable and never wrong. The bible is written by scholars and authors and is the teachings of god.

7) you are throwing this Christianity stuff about? But I dunno why, I despise religion. I don't like Christianity and debate my Christian mates regularily about it. So you can quote as many times about the bible all the want, I would probably agree with you on it.
The only religion I have a tiny amount of respect for is Buddhism, and even then, by Christ it's got a violent past.


8) again, all this Christianity stuff, your point is? I am not a Christian, nor do I defend it. I attack it with more enthusiasm than I do Islam, because It won't get my head cut off.

9)the crusades are an interesting time. Go read about it.

10) not scared shitless. Not phobic. Not phobia. If anything I find it hilarious that people put so much faith (believing without proof) in fairytales, and I pity them that they can't grasp the real world and need a security blanket. Again why is Islam above Critism? And what's worse is the apologist creatures that come worming out to try and score points about it, like some kind of snowflake Olympics. Ding! You get the gold medal!
And I will say YET AGAIN. Immigration isn't the problem, be they Asian, black, white, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh f*cking Jedi for all I care.
Mass, uncontrolled, unchecked, unregulated, illegal immigration IS a problem.
Do you lock your door at night? Do you create a barrier from those outside? Not everyone is going to kill you and rape your family, but do you want to risk it one night by leaving it unlocked?

11) by your logic, am I a Christianaphobe? A buddhistphobe? A jediphobe?

12) i don't sow anything to feed hatred. That's your job. By dismissing it and ramming it down people's throats, that's what the left has done so well to lose its popularity.
I am prepared to look at anything and make up my own mind, without emotionally knee jerking.

13) I have never spent time to prove Islam is more violent than anything, Just that it IS violent, and does condone violence. And it condones lying to non-believers.
If you want to debate Christianity I would gladly do so, but we would probably agree.
Interestingly did you know according to the bible God killed estimated 2.5 million,
And Satan only killed 10.... That's food for thought.

14) why do you feel the need to apologise for them?




You crazing lefties and your emotional knee jerking.

In reply to Bootrock:

Pondered quite thoroughly already thanks.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Anyone outside their insular communities, especially if they are kafir, non-believers are fair game.

And they are taught to lie and deceive the non-believers.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Bravo. Erudite and overwhelming rebuttal.

In reply to Bootrock:



For someone who paints themself as a hard nosed cynic, you're unbelievably gullible, aren't you?

In reply to Bootrock:


Who are? The blokes in prison? Pedophile taxi drivers? Pedophile taxi drivers from a Muslim background? All Muslims? Or all taxi drivers?

And before you go cutting and pasting long tracts on taqiyya from your favourite Counter-Jihad blogs, I know what Robert Spencer and his like say it means, I also know what historians of the Shi'a faith say it means and how it developed.

In reply to Bootrock:

That was not short. It took me aaages to scroll through. Next time just put the link in to where you cut and paste it from.

In reply to ebdon:

Didn't cut and paste bro. Unlike you snowflakes, I have done a lot more than read about it.

And it's not all doom and gloom. You should look at the Bedouin and their traditions and customs, especially their code of honour that they say predates Islam. Fascinating stuff.

In reply to TobyA:


Interesting you should say prison, because there is a real epidemic of Islamist extremism in prisons and it's a breeding ground of hatred and extremism.


Yep it's terribly interesting stuff!

In reply to Bootrock:

This I can corroborate. My daughter works at a cat B prison. Some real nasties in there. She says that gangs are rife and that the Islamic gangs are the most feared. They are radical and seek to radicalise others.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


But apparently you can't say that, because then you're a bigoted, islamaphobic, xenophobic, ignorant, homophobic, transphobic, facist, neo-nazi, BNP supporting, stupid, right wing, horrible racist.

In reply to Bootrock:

Nope Im just stating facts.

In reply to Bootrock:


Not at all. The problem with gangs and recruitment to Radical Islam is well known.

Also, there are many people offering important ctiticism of Radical Islam such Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris, who are deserved of wider support.

In reply to Shani:





Now we can agree on something.

In reply to Bootrock:


You really think you have some special insight into all this don't you? You might just want to consider that there people whose job it is in some way to understand all of these phenomena, to make policies to stop it and so on. Academic sociologists have been banging on for years about prison radicalisation for example. I remember reading that French professor with the Algerian name for the first time maybe 11 or 12 years ago on precisely that issue when my work covered these issues.

How do you think the Prevent strategy was ever created? Many other people: coppers, teachers, social workers etc. see the problems of radicalisation through their work too regularly. I know you want to be a special snowflake and all that, but sorry, you're just part of the blizzard.

In reply to Bootrock:
Indeed.

But this is the problem; you fight against a 'lefty-snowflake' straw-man half the time, who you think will defend the more murderous and barbaric elements of religion. But most if not all of those you'd call a snowflake on UKC actually appear quite reasonable to me - and would willing be critical of Radical Islam.

In reply to Shani:

Talking of Sam Harris:

youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y&

In reply to Bootrock:

Right,


Wrong


99% of your input in these forums is spouting those beliefs, poltics and ideas that form the backbone of the BNP and various extremist outfit alike. Time for you to own up and call a spade a spade


Ah, yes. Those so called words, with their meanings, and stuff, that can be ignored when they don't mean what you want them to mean. Who cares about words when trying to define the meaning of a word, Uh?


Prove it.


Guess that's where it gets you when you google for "proof that Islam is a violent religion". You could have tried googling for "Is Islam a violent religion?" and then instead of mindlessly pull up facts from thin air to defend your rooted position you could have learnt something instead. Though i guess when even things like learning and facts are approached with an "enemy" concept and in a partisan way where you pick up an entrenched position and you defend it to the death you probably don;t get the best avenue to get to the bottom of a matter.


Don't believe you, and seeing your propensity of lying and make up stuff to back your point of view only reasserts this.


Roses are red, violets are blue...


Funny thing, that's how forums work. Someone writes something, then somebody writes something in reply. My post was a direct reply to Simon's post where he compares Christianity with Islam directly to try and prove that Islam is intrinsicly violent when Christianity is intrinsically peaceful


Good on you


Judging by your ability to pen this short reply i gather your head haven't been cut off yet after your constant anti-muslim attempts of demagogue either?


I have, yet you really shouldn't expect many people to come to the same conclusions you have.





Yet you spent a lot of your time trying to convince everyone that we have to be scared by them. Constantly and unrelentingly.


Probably all of the above and more, but there's a point when you have to stop putting individual adjectives and just admit you are an intolerant bigoted individual who hates everyone who is any diferent to himself.


Your whole posting history disagrees with you


Lol!!!


Why are you lying constantly?

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=657923&v=1#x8492907


Yep, Freudian slip?


No thanks. Done debating with you


Good on him


What a loser


Not apologising for anyonoe, but good use of the word 'them' to just bring closer the point that for you everything is bipolar 'us' vs 'them' 2 way little World.


Thank you for your input. Our customer service department will put your Blue Peter badge for saving the World in the post shortly, which you should receive within 5 working days. If you have not received it within the expected time contact us on 0908 277 0888 to order a replacement.

Good day

In reply to Mr Lopez:

left.



is it though.


nope. i am free to make up my own mind, never have and never will support any of them.


safe, voluntary? why add them? ah yes because you want a softer meaning. it comes from submit to god, Aslama, to Islām submission.


the answer is out there. stop seeing what you want to see. i know the answer. i have read the quran, i have spoken to muslims, i have spoken to ex muslims, i have spoken to Interpreters. seek and ye shall find.


i googled the total number of passages out of interest, a few years ago i went through the quran. the answers are out there. the quran is out there.


beleive all you want. I couldnt give a toss.


you missed the entire point.


well my post was in reply to yours, and christianity is still fair game for critism, but somehow You seem to think islam is above such critism.

both are violent. all religions have a violent past. but at the moment, noone is ploughing into kids or cutting peoples.heads off in the name of Jesus. noone is killing innocent people for a christian caliphate.


cheers, you patronising prick.


not yet!


mmmhm


nope. you can make up your mind which ever way. its not about being scared. its about finding your own answers. not the lefty answer they want you to see.


hahahaha you sad little snowflake. oh no someone has a different opinion so he must be evil and nasty.
i have worked around the globe, with many dofferent people, i prefer an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.


nope.


your the only one emotionally knee jerking here.



what, because i disagree and disprove of a fairytale it makes me bad and a liar?


you need to take the snowflake glasses off.


good. because you are a toilet.

aye. good.... right...


he wanted adam and eve to have free will so who is the evil one?



you literally dont get it. you missed the whole point for an enotional kneejerk.



you can shove it right up your hoop.


I hope your day sucks

In reply to Shani:


i can think of at least one that is defending it....i dunno how hes gonna cope when he finds out about bacha bazi.

but yes, to solve radicalism is going to take more than a bunch of us Kafir and Infidels preaching to them.

More coverage on those within the muslim community helping and condemning would be beneficial, i am sure I watched a video the other week about quite a senior Sheikh or imam coming out and speaking about the truths of ISIS and the interpretations of islam.

In reply to Bootrock:

Give me a sec, just going through this to see if and how i should engage https://www.empoweringparents.com/article/dealing-with-child-temper-tantrum...

In reply to TobyA:

my mummy says I am special.

ok ok serious now...

I dont think you have grasped the idea of this snowflake word...
But, go posts some links, you have me intrigued and I would like your insight.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

It's a pity that, you can't condemn Islamic extremism instead of being an apologist for it...and insulting anybody who highlights Islamic extremism.

In reply to Mr Lopez:



hahaha oh you crazy snowflakes and your pretentious assumptions that you are better and smarter than everyone else. And you lot wonder why the regressive left are losing support and ordinary people are turning, and right wing politics are growing in popularity. you're too busy apologising to look and be critical. You just have an emotional reaction and spaff your SJW apologist BS all over the place and condemn anyone that doesnt agree with you.

In reply to Bootrock:


You're very angry. In your tantrum you've doubled down on your straw man.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Let's be honest, it's an almost unbelievably shit one barely deserving of a few inches on the 'news from the world pages' alone wall to wall headlines and our fear.
jk

In reply to Bootrock:

I was wrong, his name is Iranian, not Algerian. Most of his stuff is academic so you'll need access to journals or a uni library to read it, but there some stuff in English on the internet such as https://www.opendemocracy.net/farhad-khosrokhavar/prisons-and-radicalizatio...

I remember there was lots of talk of prison radicalisation in the UK as well, back when I was researching this stuff. I think it was an FCO guy who told me in an interview they were moving certain prisoners around the system so they didn't start building up followings in one particular prison. The Saudis have been doing their rather 'unique' deradicalisation process in their prisons since the mid-2000s also. Lots of people went to see how it worked, but as it was relying on the the loyal Wahhabi ulema to quite a degree, I don't think any other countries wanted to try it.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Still asking people to condemn, odd, as yet I don't think I've read a single person on this thread apologising for Islamic extremism in any form... What about the bloke I mentioned to you yesterday? You never condemned his crimes - why not?

In reply to TobyA:


Yea I was thinking about this earlier, I am sure I watched a programme about it, with ways to combat it such as solitary and like you said moving round the system etc.

Cheers for that link. I am not too clued up on the Saudi system so I will go check that out too.

In reply to TobyA:

Trumps silence on the canadian attack is staggering..

In reply to TobyA:


Talking to someone from a particular prison's IMB, it's a pretty big issue despite significant efforts by the prison service and prison Imans. Angry, disenfranchised inmates with little to no hope are strongly drawn to radical preaching (regardless of faith), and Islam dominates the radical preaching in our prisons.

Overlooked on this thread (by the same old posters trotting out the same threadbare arguments from both sides) is the role some Islamic theological organisations play in the radicalisation process in the UK and abroad. Radical preachers - and quieter but very determined people - being given perceived authority through their attachment to a subset of mosques etc. Pointless arguments about what a book says (when it's all down to interpretation and social forces; almost nobody lives literally to any major book of faith) or pointless comparisons with Christianity-past (yes it used to be worse; this has precisely zero baring on today's issues) nicely divide the sides and stop any sensible discussion.

Also; follow the money.

In reply to wintertree:

Similar story in France, large proportion of those involved in various attacks in France apparently were radicalised in prison

In reply to Jim 1003:


There are a thousand and one truly horrible things that happen every day I've never seen you condemn. Are you an apologist for those actions? Of course not.

You aren't being insulted because you highlight extremism. I suspect people insult you because they find the conclusions you draw poorly informed, ill considered and unhelpful.
jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I didn't know that driving taxis was an influencing factor in treating 12-14 year olds white girls as items to be used or traded in. Or pizza delivery men are all of a mind that "that “all white girls” were “slags” and “worthless” except for sex."

In reply to Roadrunner5:

As is the silence of some of the more vociferous posters on here.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=657621

There's only 17 posts and a quick scroll will show some notable absentees.

In reply to Hugh J:


Was it in the name of Jesus like?

In reply to Bootrock:



Quran 2:190 "Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. Allah does not love the aggressors

This is a passage about the crucifiction of jesus and a garbled one at that


You are doing the same as the ISIS lot in picking out pieces that suit your view point. Which is in effect the essence of religion. Taken in context a different interpretation can be put on all those passages. It has ever been the case that religious texts have been used as the pretext for human action. And if your religious text does give you the excuse why then make something up like Sharia law based as much on commentries on the Quran as the Quran itself or Catholic doctrine, King James famously re-wrote passages of the Bible in order to justify his persecution of witches. Even Buddhism has its "additional" texts to support differing views.
Religion is at heart politics. It justifies political action without the uncomfortable notion of having to actually think about your actions

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Great line.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:
There's a lot more passages. Contexts and quotes out there.

And nope. ISIS are using fundamental Islam and extremism to brainwash and manipulate people into killing innocent men, women and children, Christians, Muslims alike in the name of a fairytale.

I am being critical of a fictional book that some proclaim to be all knowing, unquestionable, and never wrong, whose contradictions are excused by abrogation/Nashk.

The Quran is the text, sharia is the holy law and fiqh is the human interpretation of that law.

You can make your own viewpoint up. I have mine, it's a fairytale. One which people kill for. If a God is so high and powerful, all knowing and wise, the. Why does he need minions, tiny specks on the grand scheme of the universe to kill, maim and do his dirty work. Why would an all knowing and wise God be so ambiguous in his word? Surely if he was a peaceful being and saw people were misinterpretations his laws and causing the deaths of innocent men, women and children, he would think about having a word or two.

Your last paragraph was spot on though. Religion is just mankinds attempt to answer the big questions in life.

In reply to Bootrock:

i had a big reply then the server crashed or something and i can't be arsed to write it all out again.
But the gist is i am not disagreeing with you.

It is all a fairytale open to many interpretations and viewpoints. The difference is no body will try to kill you for not liking Hans Christain Anderson

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Or 'Hans Muslim Anderson' for that matter.

In reply to George Fisher:


<Applause/>

In reply to Shani:


Or has somebody else said 'God save us from his chosen people'.Oxymoron?

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

When the Dalai Lama warns Europe of Islamification/Arabisation you would think people would start taking notice.

In reply to Bootrock:

Except that's not really what he said.

He said that offering refugee status was the right thing for Germany to do, but that the longterm answer lay in bringing an end to the troubles so that people could return home and rebuild their countries, not be stateless refugees.

Entirely different with context.

I state Bloomberg, Daily Telegraph and the FT amongst several sources.

Whether he's right and Iraq and Syria can be rebuilt is a matter for debate, but it is clear that he was not warning of Islamification.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
And the only way to give them a place to return to is for troops in the ground. Not arming a rebel entity that fails, and hands over arms to ISIS.

And I agree, a demilitarised zone set up, teachers, medics, doctors, tradesmen used to help rehabilitate and look after them for their return to Syria. Becoming stateless is not good. And that key word "Temporary". Does Saudi have a bit of cash (well cash left over that's not funding Mosques across Europe...) and lots of space to set up camps to help their fellow Muslim brothers?

Opening the flood gates is not the answer. Especially since Germany has lost track of 600,000 of the 1.1 million migrants it let in.


And I think you will find that he said Germany is for Germans and spoke of Europe being Arabised.
"Germany can not become an Arab country".

In reply to Bootrock:
The answer lies in the political will for the US and Russia to bring their various proxy forces to heel, and clip the wings of their pet dictators.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The Saudis will act in their own narrow interests, which is the preservation of riches for a small elite, and the interests of Wahabism, which is a pretty narrow definition of Islam, much despised by the wider Muslim world.

The West has to face up to the fact that part (not all!) of the situation in the middle east is of it's own making.

Like listening to the domestic going on next door, pretending it's none of your business but forgetting it was you that shagged his wife.


and back to the Dalai Lama - again, he did not say that.

here's the Telegraph for a starter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11864173/Dalai-Lama-real...

and the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/31/the-dalai-lama...

The point he is making is that Arabs (which is a pretty broad concept and to an extent he's including Persians) do not want to be a stateless diaspora, and that it is not in their interests to be stuck in another country.

Edit: typos

In reply to Bootrock:

I don't want to sound rude, but how have you interpreted it as that?

If you read carefully, that's not at all what he said...

In reply to Timmd:


That's a very big "IF" for Booty

In reply to Timmd:
"Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country," he said to a German newspaper
....
Speaking to reporters in the de facto capital of Tibet's exiled government, he said: "Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country," in an interview with German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. "Germany is Germany. There are so many that in practice it becomes difficult."

Aye, reading it carefully. What's missing like?

In reply to GrahamD:
Oh. There we go! You snowflakes never let me down.

"someone said something I disagree with, they must be stupid, god why can't people have the freedom to speak the stuff I agree. I don't like seeing stuff that doesn't fit my agenda."

In reply to Bootrock:

...... What's missing like?

This bit

"When we look into the face of every single refugee, especially the children and women, we can feel their suffering," he said. "The goal should be that they return and help rebuild their countries".

He's saying it is not in the longer term interest of the host country, nor the refugee to ignore the prospect of being able to return home and rebuild a country.

He is most definitely not saying Germany for Germans, in the Aryan sense you probably interpret it.

He's saying people thrive best when they are part of a settled community. The refugees had no intention of heading for Germany, it's outside of their social and cultural networks, it's a very different place but had to because of the civil wars.

In reply to Bootrock:

As Buddha would say..

"It's a bit like when Coventry City had to play at Sixfields.

It's a compromise miles away from the home fans, suits neither Northampton nor Coventry, but is the best solution to the immediate problem...and we're all football fans after all"

In reply to Bootrock:

It could be interpreted in more than one way, it could be a 'warning of Islamification', or it could be an acknowledgement of the difficulties of a large number of immigrants being assimilated into a country, practically and emotionally/culturally.

In the Page Hall area of Sheffield, the large number of Roma immigrants are finding themselves at odds with the people already there. The locals (especially the woman I would think) find it intimidating/perturbing when groups of men stand around in the street and on corners as a way of socialising and coming together - during the lighter summer evenings particularly. There are tensions which can come before assimilation and integration start to take place.

I do get what you mean, but if following the Dalai Lama, and looking into Buddhism too (to the limited degree that I have) has taught me anything, it's that the same things can be open to more than one interpretation.