Those barbaric Muslims, again....

[123everton]

That's just a taste of some of the adjectives used to describe Muslims on this site, and, in truth often in the world at large.
Barbaric, backward, medieval are amongst the others, is this fair?
There's millions of Muslims in the world they're not all burkha clad screaming anti-western polemicists, we wouldn't be able to get away so easily calling Africans these names or west Indians for that matter, so whuy is it reasonable to speak of Muslims in such tones?
There's lots of radical English speakers, some elected, who voice opinions that I find absurd or even abhorrent, do they speak for the nation as a whole?
Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, internment, area bombing, shoot to kill, bombing neutral countries are all policies being carried out in the state sponsored (our state for that matter) "War On Terror" are these policies being carried out with the express approval of all (or even the majority) of the people?
No, of course they don't, the press has an agenda when it produces these stories, and when these stories pander to popular prejudices, the public laps it up.
Look at America's military history, My-Lai (all over Vietnam), the G.Is were notorious for their rapaciousness and theft in Italy, they did it again in Iraq, look at our "friends" abroad Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Nicaraguan Contras etc etc.
We in the west are so civilised it must be great, to be able judgement so glibly.

[naomi24]

Everton, if you don't want people to disagree with you, don't post the question.

[beso]

All the Abrahamic faiths base their philosophy on the concept of an all powerful dictatorial God that insists there is only one truth and that all change in moral values must be resisted. It is THEism. THE God. It is THE biggest problem we face.

With no room for negotiation or discussion the foundation of of the value system lies entirely on the interpretation of a holy book by a self serving brutal oligarchy. This atitude is embeded in the cult. Whole tracts of the Bible preach how the fat of the animals belong to the sons of the leader.

So many times ordinary people have been compelled by these self syled arbitors of truth just to safeguard their priviliges by "holy" theft and murder.

Western governments do it but it is simply couched in the societal prejudices just like the acts perpetrated by the Islamists seem rational and justified in the context of their culture.

[beso]

Religious apologists always base their argument on comparison. The fact is Judeism, Islam and Christianity are all based on a rediculous premise that ancient goat herders could come up with an unquestionable code of morality that can still be applied in world of which they had no knowledge.

Accepting the preposterous claims that the church is the holder of perfect truth is surely lunacy.

[modeller]

123everton #Barbaric, backward, medieval are amongst the others, is this fair? #
You have been given the answer and as usual with your posts you don't like the answers.
Yes it is fair ! Because of their behaviour today.
Today Iran is stoning people to death.
Today Nigeria are stoning and chopping off the hands of thieves.
Today Saudi Arabia are recommending that the stones used in stoning should not be bigger than fist size because they want the victim to die slowly .
Today Kurdish mobs are beating 15 year olds to death for shaming their families.
Today ,Today , Today, These things are happening in the Islamic world Today.
And you ask # Is it fair ? # Don't you have a Google icon on your desktop ?
But then you wouldn't like the answers if you could bring yourself to read them.

[123everton]

Rather than debate the point some have chosen to try and discredit me, reflects on them not me.
Simple question, when such epiphets are being used, who are you trying to impress?

[naomi24]

Everton, No one has tried to discredit you, and contrary to your statement, it doesn't reflect on the people here - it reflects on you. These people have simply stated the facts - facts that you consistently refuse to acknowledge. The only person who discredits you is you - and you make a pretty good job of it. Pity you can't see it.

[123everton]

So why mention my stance on JWs, it has nothing to do with the question.
What hasn't been explained to me is this, you call someone barbaric etc etc, at what point do you expect them to agree with you?
So who is it you are trying to impress?
Them, yourself, or a watching audience?
I'll give you an example, the other day three men got on, with fake passes, I pulled them, found out they were no good and told them they had to pay, they had no money and wanted a free ride, I said no. So we had a frank exchange of views, i was called a variety of names (no need to list them), now here's the thing, they want me to do things their way, they want me to agree with them so we can get all get along nicely.
At what point am I supposed to realise and go my God you're right, all these years I've been living this way, thankyou for pointing out the error of my ways?
So they got off and walked.

[naomi24]

Everton, Your stance on JWs confirms without a shadow of a doubt that you are a religious apologist, and therefore it has everything to do with the question. Unlike you, I'm not playing to an audience in an effort to be politically correct. As you well know I don't 'do' politically correct and I don't need to impress anyone because, again, unlike you I have the guts to call those who stone people to death for adultery, or behead innocent hostages, and demand that people be beheaded for drawing cartoons, or for allowing a toy to be given a common name barbaric - because they are barbaric. No other description suffices. Decapitation and stoning are both barbaric forms of execution - but apparently you disagree because it appears that you are quite happy to condone whatever they do because it's done in the name of religion. Bloody (and I say that literally) religion!!!!

I don't expect them to agree with me, but I do expect intelligent people born into a western culture to be able to differentiate between right and wrong. The people you are supporting have minds entrenched in the dark ages - and how can anyone ever expect them to move into the 21st century when people like you continually support them and excuse their actions? Everton, the whole world needs to tell them they are wrong, because they are - and you need to remove your rose coloured spectacles and think about what you're actually supporting. We do not live in an idealistic world Everton. These people live in a different culture and in a different time, and they don't think as you do, so it's time you woke up to reality. They are laughing at apologists like you because you are doing them a great service - but if it came to the crunch, your head would fall without a second thought from your 'friends' because you are an infidel. Wake up Everton!!

[tamborine]

savage, (lacking all mercy) !

[birdie1971]

Come on Everton. This debate is getting Keyplus-esque. You've stopped trying to justify your position and are now accusing others of attacking you.

As Naomi has eloquently explained above, you are what is known as a 'useful idiot' – it's a not a very nice epithet but it does sum up your attitude to a value system and a religion that despises your very existence. If you woke up tomorrow and found that you were living in an Islamic state under Sharia Law you would very quickly learn that you are an infidel in the eyes of those in power and as such are a Dhimmi (or worse).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi


From the above article,

You are seen as a cash-cow... “Dhimmi communities were subjected to the payment of taxes in favour of Muslims — a requirement that was central to dhimma as a whole.”

You would have less legal rights that you enjoy now... “When a case pitched a Muslim against a dhimmi, the word of a Muslim witness nearly always carried more weight than that of a dhimmi.”

You have to make yourself conspicuously visible to display your position in society (I'm sure I don't have to point out the obvious parallel with a certain 20th century leader)... “For dhimmis to be clearly distinguishable from Muslims in public, Muslim rulers often prohibited dhimmis from wearing certain types of clothing”


So I repeat Everton - do you think that the freedoms you currently enjoy would be in any way curtailed if Britain became an Islamic state tomorrow?

[birdie1971]

...legal rights *than* you enjoy...

[birdie1971]

Everton -

Sorry to bang on but I want to know more about your earlier post.

My question is – does your personal account reveal some universal truth about Islam that I am missing? As far as I can tell from what you've posted, three guys (whom I assume were Muslims [otherwise your anecdote on this particular thread makes no sense]) tried to get a free ride on public transport by using fraudulent passes and got a bit loud and obnoxious when they were challenged. Rather than get into more trouble for having fraudulent passes, they left of their own volition.

Your story tells us nothing about religious values other than Muslims, just like everyone else, can be dishonest, loud mouthed, cretins?

[123everton]

I've never defended the beheading of people, or the stoning of people etc, the teddy bear thing was a nonsensense, but there was a political sub text to it, similarly with the beheadings to the people who lived there, those workers were part of a foreign regime sent to steal their oil, it was done to deter others who they view as collaborators.
I don't agree with it, I don't see the justification, but I do understand it within the context of a war, we and our allies have done similar things in past wars, we have no moral high ground on that matter, especially when thousands of people download it onto their phones for their own personal enjoyment.
The men were white, the point I'm trying to make is that they want me to agree with them, by being abusive.
I've never given it much thought Birdie, if an Israel type situation were to occur in Britain I'd resist it because I believe in the union of Britain, I don't want sharia law in the country (even in parrallel to our law), thanks for the rest of your answer, "dhimmi" without a hint of irony QED.

[naomi24]

Everton, You say you have never defended beheading, but by continually offering reasons to excuse it, you are most certainly not condemning it, so just what are you doing? Do you know? And once again you fall back on the same tired old argument that others have committed atrocities and therefore, despite your protests to the contrary, you are very clearly justifying their actions. Well, nothing justifies their actions. As I've said before, two wrongs don't make a right, and one atrocity doesn't negate another. You say the teddy bear incident was nonsense, but was it? I don't think so.

http://www.telegraph....-teacher-is-shot.html

^^ Grown men baying for the execution of a primary school teacher who allowed small children to name a toy Mohammed? Is that rational? Do these people deserve the respect of the civilised world? According to you, apparently so.

You have no valid argument because you cannot defend the indefensible - and what these people do is indefensible - and so you talk nonsense about downloading images to mobile phones and you hide behind your self-righteous, religiously motivated and oh so politically correct condemnation of that vastly over-exploited term - 'abuse' - and it's pathetic. You don't know the meaning of the word. Beheading people, stoning people, and irrationally demanding that the world bows to the utter madness of the tenets of a 7th century philosophy - that is abuse. Let's just hope if you ever fall foul of people like this, they afford you the same respect you are demanding for them - but don't hold your breath because, rest assured, it won't happen.

[123everton]

Ha ha, did you even read what I wrote?
IF you are an Iraqi, you would be quite entitled to view the new government as a "Vichy" government, and anyone working for it a collabarator, I disagree with what they did, I don't justify it, BUT, I understand it.
They want that government OUT, they want the foreign bases OUT, they want foreign interference in their country OUT, they want forign workers who assist the new government OUT, AND, they wat to deter others from coming.
That is where you struggle, you view comprehending an event as tantamount to condoning it.
Have you not seen the clip of the U.S blackwater security guards just shooting passersby, to an Elvis tune?
Civilised?
The teddy bear "nonsense", was about Darfur, it was the only means for an organised group to strike back at the west, whilst it sought on the one hand to condemn the clearances whilst on the other help to Khartoum develop the oil fields there.
The woman was a pawn in a political game.
I view Muslim paranoia in the same vein as Macarthyist "reds under the bed" politicking.

[naomi24]

Yes, Everton, I read your post, and what you fail to comprehend - and to acknowledge - is that regardless of the reasons you offer for these people doing what they do, their actions are barbaric - and if you profess to understand them, and view what you mistakenly call Muslim paranoia as McCarthyism, then I can only say that you are even more naive than you appear to be. The fact is these people do execute by beheading, they do stone people to death, they do insist that the rest of the world bow to their demands, and they do live by the tenets of a 1500 year old philosophy - and all your political side-stepping excuses do not alter that. They are barbarians - and that description, which as a result of their own actions they have brought upon themselves, is an accurate one.

[ummmm]

And they punish rape victims as adulterers....

[123everton]

So are Blackwater guards shooting civilians as they drive along for fun civilized?
With the beheadings what you're failing to comprehend is it's reasons, what you've failed to acknowledge is the veritable orgy of coverage the media gave it.
Ummm the treatment of rape victims you describe is awful, but, no different to here 25, 30 years ago, and that goes for the attitudes too.
Where we barbaric in those days?
Apparently things were better then.

[naomi24]

Everton, you don't appear to realise it, but you're excusing them yet again by telling me I don't understand the reasons they behead people. What valid reason can they possibly have to behave in such a barbaric manner? And yet again you're citing other incidents in order to excuse it. Other people do terrible things so that makes it ok? No, it doesn't make it ok. Wrong is wrong - and these people are wrong. And why shouldn't the media give prime coverage to this disgusting philosophy that has no place in a civilised world? After all, if it wasn't influential, we wouldn't be talking about it here, but clearly you would prefer the media to stick its head in the sand just as you do. After all, it's religion, and we all know we must respect religion regardless of the horrors it promotes.

As for your original question, which you appear to have forgotten, you've been given the answer several times, but nevertheless I'll give it to you again.

In short:

Beheading people is barbaric - fact.

Stoning people to death is barbaric - fact.

Calling for the death of anyone who is perceived to have insulted Islam is barbaric - fact.

People who carry out, or condone, any of the above are barbaric - fact.

continued....

[naomi24]

....continued

And as for rape, read this:

//If a woman is raped, she runs a high risk of being charged with zina [fornication], particularly if she becomes pregnant. In order to prove an absence of consent, however, a woman is required to provide four witnesses to the rape, a near impossible task. //

...and that is from here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...casestudy_art07.shtml

In saying that those attitudes are no different to those here 25 or 30 years ago demonstrates nothing but your appalling ignorance. Educate yourself, Everton, by reading up on Sharia Law - something the people of this country have never been subjected to. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Ignore him Ummmm. He doesn't have a clue.