Who would have thought an elected politician would be denied his Freedom of Speech on this country

http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2013/02/wilders-perth-speech-cancelled.html

Leftists doing what leftists do. Silence the opposition in anyway possible.

Quote:

scared by the possibility of anti-democratic fringe groups holding a protest outside.

Quote:

We realise anti-democratic hate groups will now be dancing in the streets. But this is not the end of it; and sadly they are blinded and do not realise they are dancing on the grave of free speech. Freedom of speech is an absolute; freedom knows no left or right.

;D ;D Hillarious. What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.

Just so we're clear: freedom of speech, according to these whingers, is for one side to hold a meeting in which one point of view is expressed unopposed. But we can't possibly have democratic protestors, protesting peacefully outside the venue and challenging those views. That, apparently, is "anti-democratic".

Pathetic losers.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:59am:

Quote: scared by the possibility of anti-democratic fringe groups holding a protest outside. [quote]We realise anti-democratic hate groups will now be dancing in the streets. But this is not the end of it; and sadly they are blinded and do not realise they are dancing on the grave of free speech. Freedom of speech is an absolute; freedom knows no left or right.

;D ;D Hillarious. What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.

Just so we're clear: freedom of speech, according to these whingers, is for one side to hold a meeting in which one point of view is expressed unopposed. But we can't possibly have democratic protestors, protesting peacefully outside the venue and challenging those views. That, apparently, is "anti-democratic".

Pathetic losers.[/quote]


It's the threat of violence by Muslim mobs, not 'democratic protest'. By contrast, Christians picket all sorts of movies and events, none of which have been cancelled because nobody thinks that there would be any violence. The worst that ever happens at those pickets is out of tune singing of a dirge or three.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:59am:

Quote: scared by the possibility of anti-democratic fringe groups holding a protest outside. [quote]We realise anti-democratic hate groups will now be dancing in the streets. But this is not the end of it; and sadly they are blinded and do not realise they are dancing on the grave of free speech. Freedom of speech is an absolute; freedom knows no left or right.

;D ;D Hillarious. What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.

Just so we're clear: freedom of speech, according to these whingers, is for one side to hold a meeting in which one point of view is expressed unopposed. But we can't possibly have democratic protestors, protesting peacefully outside the venue and challenging those views. That, apparently, is "anti-democratic".

Pathetic losers.[/quote]

"Protesting peacefully"?! Leftists mobs always invariably turn violent when they protest. Add some Muslims to the mix and you've got a dangerous cocktail.

rubbish, both of you.

There is no evidence that there was any threat of violence, nor was there any suggestion that the venue holder was the subject of intimidation. All the article mentions is the host was " scared by the possibility of anti-democratic fringe groups holding a protest outside."

Interpretation: the venue holder doesn't want to be the subject of bad publicity and scrutiny over why they thought it was a good idea to host a world-renowned bigot and hate monger.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:25am:

rubbish, both of you. There is no evidence that there was any threat of violence, nor was there any suggestion that the venue holder was the subject of intimidation. All the article mentions is the host was " scared by the possibility of anti-democratic fringe groups holding a protest outside." Interpretation: the venue holder doesn't want to be the subject of bad publicity and scrutiny over why they thought it was a good idea to host a world-renowned bigot and hate monger.

Arh, it didn't take long for the compulsory trendy slogans to come out: "I disagree with them so they must be a 'bigot' and 'hate monger'".

Well, two can play that game. You're a bigot for being intolerant of Wilders and anyone you disagree with on any subject.

Bigot has no political affiliation; it's a neutral term that simply means intolerance. It's just trendies like yourself have highjacked the term and claim that anything that disagrees with you is 'bigoted.'

I admit, I am bigoted toward some things. I'll put my position up front and disagree with whomever for everyone to see. Dishonest people like yourself, however, like to hide behind slogans and claim to be fighting for freedom and then tar your opponent with bigot and hate-monger. Well, it won't work with me, buddy.

Wilders has every right to speak of the problem of Islam. The Islamic countries have produced nothing of value for 800 years. Submission to a transcendental deity over earthly concerns will do that. If pointing this out is bigoted, so be it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:25am:

rubbish, both of you. There is no evidence that there was any threat of violence, nor was there any suggestion that the venue holder was the subject of intimidation. All the article mentions is the host was " scared by the possibility of anti-democratic fringe groups holding a protest outside." Interpretation: the venue holder doesn't want to be the subject of bad publicity and scrutiny over why they thought it was a good idea to host a world-renowned bigot and hate monger.

Pathetic, and you know it.

An unnamed four-star CBD hotel had been set to host Wilders but pulled out late on Tuesday.



I wonder what changed overnight.  The hotel only just learned who he was? 

I hate Wilders because he hates me - simple.

He would have me and my kind driven out of western society. He labels my personal beliefs and lifestyle (which I practice peacefully and affects no one but me) as "not a religion but a dangerous ideology".

He hates my religion, and he hates me and all other muslims - and he promotes that hate through his public office. I'm not sure what else you would think would fit the definition of "hate monger". Its the incitement and hatred espoused by him and his ilk that contributes to such acts as the massacre of innocent students by Anders Breivik.

But thats not what this episode is about: this is about you people having double standards about what constitutes democracy. Protesting outside a venue where political ideas are being espoused, is a democratic right - regardless of how embarassed or uneasy that makes the people inside feel. You people would strip away this democratic right and call it "real democracy". For you people, democracy is a one way street - you get to express your views, but everyone else is silenced.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

I hate Wilders because he hates me - simple. He would have me and my kind driven out of western society. He labels my personal beliefs and lifestyle (which I practice peacefully and affects no one but me) as "not a religion but a dangerous ideology". He hates my religion, and he hates me and all other muslims - and he promotes that hate through his public office. I'm not sure what else you would think would fit the definition of "hate monger". Its the incitement and hatred espoused by him and his ilk that contributes to such acts as the massacre of innocent students by Anders Breivik. But thats not what this episode is about: this is about you people having double standards about what constitutes democracy. Protesting outside a venue where political ideas are being espoused, is a democratic right - regardless of how embarassed or uneasy that makes the people inside feel. You people would strip away this democratic right and call it "real democracy". For you people, democracy is a one way street - you get to express your views, but everyone else is silenced.

If Muslims made up close to or over 50% of the population, it would no longer resemble anything like a democracy. Do you think they'll vote for a liberal democratic candidate over an Islamic one? No they won't. And when they vote Islamic candidates in the country will start to resemble one of the backwaters of the Middle east. Submission to Allah will trump political pragmatism.

I am not hypocritical on this, my position is clear. I will not tolerate any Islamic influence in politics, nor any of the extreme leftist views like you find on university campuses and in the Greens.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

I hate Wilders because he hates me - simple. He would have me and my kind driven out of western society. He labels my personal beliefs and lifestyle (which I practice peacefully and affects no one but me) as "not a religion but a dangerous ideology". He hates my religion, and he hates me and all other muslims - and he promotes that hate through his public office. I'm not sure what else you would think would fit the definition of "hate monger". Its the incitement and hatred espoused by him and his ilk that contributes to such acts as the massacre of innocent students by Anders Breivik. But thats not what this episode is about: this is about you people having double standards about what constitutes democracy. Protesting outside a venue where political ideas are being espoused, is a democratic right - regardless of how embarassed or uneasy that makes the people inside feel. You people would strip away this democratic right and call it "real democracy". For you people, democracy is a one way street - you get to express your views, but everyone else is silenced.

Chicken or the egg? You hate him because he hates Muslims. He hates Muslims because of the fact they hate his type and way of life. Since he was living happily in his own country before the Islamic plague moved into his neighbourhood, unlike the chicken paradox, we know in this situation what actually came first.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

I hate Wilders because he hates me - simple. He would have me and my kind driven out of western society. He labels my personal beliefs and lifestyle (which I practice peacefully and affects no one but me) as "not a religion but a dangerous ideology". He hates my religion, and he hates me and all other muslims - and he promotes that hate through his public office. I'm not sure what else you would think would fit the definition of "hate monger". Its the incitement and hatred espoused by him and his ilk that contributes to such acts as the massacre of innocent students by Anders Breivik. But thats not what this episode is about: this is about you people having double standards about what constitutes democracy. Protesting outside a venue where political ideas are being espoused, is a democratic right - regardless of how embarassed or uneasy that makes the people inside feel. You people would strip away this democratic right and call it "real democracy". For you people, democracy is a one way street - you get to express your views, but everyone else is silenced.

You, like every other Muslim, simply want to silence criticism of Islam. That's why Muslims kill people over cartoons, youtube vids, books.
Muslims need to do this a few times only to get everyone scared about making critical remarks about Islam in public or private.


Here's what Mark Stey said about Lars Hegedaraard whom Muslims tried to kill recently, in Denmark, for something he said in private in his own flat:

I received a couple of emails from prominent persons saying wasn't I a bit worried that some of the people here are a bit controversial and it might not be a good idea to be seen in the same room as them. And that's a fair point. Obviously, it would be far safer for one's reputation to appear in the same room as less controversial figures such as the chaps appearing last weekend at the Muslim Council of Calgary's big event in Alberta. Their keynote speaker was the Saudi-educated imam Dr Bilal Phillips, who's on record as saying that every male homosexual should be executed. He later clarified his position: He only wants all male homosexuals in Muslim countries executed. "The media tends to take my words out of context," he said.

Also on the bill was the moderate Muslim Shaykh Hatem Alhaj, who supports the introduction of female genital mutilation to North America. But he's a "moderate" Muslim because he only believes in nicking the clitoris rather than slicing the thing right off. So the head of the Calgary Police Diversity Unit and multiple representatives of the Canadian state had no problem whatsoever being in the same room as Messrs Alhaj and Phillips.

There is literally nothing a prominent Muslim can say – about gays, about Jews, about women – that would render him persona non grata. That's the world we live in: sharing a stage with a man calling for compulsory execution for homosexuals isn't controversial; sharing a stage with Lars Hedegaard is."

He could have said it about Wilders.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

I hate Wilders because he hates me - simple.

He actually loves you. He only hates the sin, not the sinner.  :D

The speech should have gone ahead regardless of the catalyst involved to halt the event.

It's a real kick in the guts to all of our past and present soldiers who think/thought that they were upholding something in this country.

Weak as piss is what it is  >:(

Amadd wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

The speech should have gone ahead regardless of the catalyst involved to halt the event. It's a real kick in the guts to all of our past and present soldiers who think/thought that they were upholding something in this country.

No, it isn't. Wilders was permitted entry. He hasn't been gagged in any way, as his appearance in Melbourne proves. If anybody did indeed threaten the venues or Wilders himself, they will be prosecuted. Sounds like good, solid democracy to me.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:00pm:

Sounds like good, solid democracy to me.

In what way does a venue cancelling a booking at the last minute resemble 'democracy'?

Where is the conflict with democracy? These are privately owned venues where the people responsible for such things are making decisions based on reasons that you and I are not privy to. Like I said before, if there has been some wrong doing in the way of threats of violence, I'm sure they'll be dealt with through the proper channels.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

Where is the conflict with democracy?

No conflict - there is no relationship whatsoever.  But I guess people will draw all sorts of bows to justify their hypocrisy.

Forgiven.


Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

These are privately owned venues where the people responsible for such things are making decisions based on reasons that you and I are not privy to. Like I said before, if there has been some wrong doing in the way of threats of violence, I'm sure they'll be dealt with through the proper channels.

Vague, anonymous threats are not easily prosecutable offences.  You know it, I know it and the rabble knows it - that's why they always do it. 

... wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 1:14pm: Where is the conflict with democracy? No conflict - there is no relationship whatsoever.  But I guess people will draw all sorts of bows to justify their hypocrisy. Forgiven.

I was simply refuting Amadd's statement that venues cancelling Wilders appearances is no "kick in the guts to all of our past and present soldiers who think/thought that they were upholding something in this country."

Freedom is good. Wilders should be allowed to speak, protestors should be free to protest and venues should be able to make decisions about who they host. All is well. Perhaps Wilders might like to forego dealing with venues and spew his hatred in a public park or something.


Quote:

Vague, anonymous threats are not easily prosecutable offences.

Wilders' own freedom supports your point.

Julia Gillard, who ousted Rudd from office in June 2010, stated that she did not support Rudd's position shortly after taking over on the grounds that a "Big Australia" would be unsustainable. LIES

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

Perhaps Wilders might like to forego dealing with venues and spew his hatred in a public park or something.

Perhaps, but I don't think it's too much to ask of the rabble that they needn't concern themselves with what people are saying at functions that they have no interest in attending.  I had no interest in attending the big day out, yet I don't care whether others do.  To each, his own - See how simple that is?   

Islam is a religion of .... love??

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

Where is the conflict with democracy? These are privately owned venues where the people responsible for such things are making decisions based on reasons that you and I are not privy to. Like I said before, if there has been some wrong doing in the way of threats of violence, I'm sure they'll be dealt with through the proper channels.

no conflict in democracy.   ;) i'm just hoping geert has time to drop in and see the old leftie hippy lesbians in canberra who are writing the national curiculum so that the school kids can get a balanced education.  after all, this is a democracy and its important our kids get to hear many different points of view

... wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 2:34pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 1:29pm: Perhaps Wilders might like to forego dealing with venues and spew his hatred in a public park or something. Perhaps, but I don't think it's too much to ask of the rabble that they needn't concern themselves with what people are saying at functions that they have no interest in attending.  I had no interest in attending the big day out, yet I don't care whether others do.  To each, his own - See how simple that is?

I don't disagree with you. The less attention Wilders receives, the better in my opinion. Let him knock himself out.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

... wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 1:21pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 1:14pm: Where is the conflict with democracy? No conflict - there is no relationship whatsoever.  But I guess people will draw all sorts of bows to justify their hypocrisy. Forgiven. I was simply refuting Amadd's statement that venues cancelling Wilders appearances is no "kick in the guts to all of our past and present soldiers who think/thought that they were upholding something in this country." Freedom is good. Wilders should be allowed to speak, protestors should be free to protest and venues should be able to make decisions about who they host. All is well. Perhaps Wilders might like to forego dealing with venues and spew his hatred in a public park or something. Quote: Vague, anonymous threats are not easily prosecutable offences.    Wilders' own freedom supports your point.

Annie, you cannot refute something without proof.

I can refute your statement because I have proof that you provided no proof to refute my statement.

That's fine for a private venue to do as they like, however, they obviously cancelled for fear of something...and that's not what this country used to be about.



Btw, would you like to refute these statements too?


"RestoreAustralia is supporting the work of those trying to get the cowardly RSL executive to allow Geert Wilders the right to speak at their Clubs. We have had a few vocal Muslims opposing the visit by Geert, and the cowardly clubs have caved in and refused the right for true blue Australians to book their halls and listen to what Geert has to say. Where is the right to Freedom of Speech? Why are these RSL executives so afraid of a few fanatics? What the hell did we FIGHT for since World War Two?"


The following is an email exchange between a veteran and a QSociety member working to regain our right to Freedom of Speech:

"Greetings all I have sent this onto the Liberal party who sent out asking for support in the coming campaign.

Greetings Mark – Kerry passed your email onto me and like Kerry I would like to know if Tony or the Liberal Party would make a statement to support the freedoms for which our generation in WW2, and generations since, have fought to preserve, and now fighting against religious fanatics. These freedoms are associated with the right of any organisation to invite speakers who they want to listen to. The Australian Islamic Association were given the right a few months ago to invite and listen to the Secretary of the United Nations Islamic Federation of Islamic States, in Bankstown, without any hindrance or threats – as Geert Wilders tour is now attracting from fanatics associated with them – so we ask your organisation to make a statement to support our freedoms by supporting the tour.



regards Kev Dickson"


http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/muslim-fanatics/

looks like the sri lankans dont like the muslims either.

banning of mosque building and halal meats.

i think they got upset when the saudis threatened to behead some buddhists for idol worship.

not just those pesky ayrian dutch that dont like islam.

seems the asians find problems as well.

http://www.mirror.lk/news/5366-bodu-bala-sena-gives-ultimatum-to-ban-halal-certification

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

Wilders' own freedom supports your point.

Don't be ridiculous.
He is under 24 hour police protection. Nobody who criticises Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism in the West is killed or under police protection. Have you noticed that?
No.




And since when is it 'hatemongering' if someone doesn't like Islam? Why is it that one must either approve of Islam or draw a discreet veil of silence?

Quantum wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 10:47am:

He hates Muslims because of the fact they hate his type and way of life. Since he was living happily in his own country before the Islamic plague moved into his neighbourhood, unlike the chicken paradox, we know in this situation what actually came first.

He is still living happily in his own country - in fact he is doing very well for himself  thank you very much. You make it sound like he himself is affected personally by islam - but he is not - in fact he is personally profitting by it (politically at least) - isn't that ironic! I had far more sympathy for Pym Fortuyn who's anti-islam was at least grounded in something that affected him personally (his homosexuality and the perception that muslim hated him).

No, anti-islam in Europe is overwhelmingly based on fear of what might happen, not what is already evident. I point you to the post directly above yours as a classic example: warning that once muslims become 50% of the population, goodbye freedom and secularism in Europe. But the fact is, muslim immigration to Europe has overwhelmingly been harmonious and peaceful, and has not caused any sort of social or political turmoil. And the only ammunition the fear-mongers have is what might happen in the future as a result of muslim immigration. All of which is completely baseless of course.


Amadd wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

The speech should have gone ahead regardless of the catalyst involved to halt the event. It's a real kick in the guts to all of our past and present soldiers who think/thought that they were upholding something in this country. Weak as piss is what it is

 
go whinge at the owner of the venue that cancelled at the last minute. Ask him why he is "weak as piss" for being scared off by the prospect of a few hippies with placards outside his premises.

This idea that this is a "kick in the guts" for democracy is contemptible to the extreme. This whole episode is the very picture of a working democracy - Geert was allowed to enter our country and spew his hate to Australian audiences; once a venue was agreed upon, opponents made it known that they were going to exercise their democratic right to hold a protest at the venue; finally the venue owner freely decided he wasn't going to host Geert after all.

Everything that happened reflected a healthy democracy in action.

Quote:

go whinge at the owner of the venue that cancelled at the last minute. Ask him why he is "weak as piss" for being scared off by the prospect of a few hippies with placards outside his premises.

I may do, but I'll state my opinion here too. That's what "forums" are for.


Quote:

WA Premier Colin Barnett says he may have "played some role'' in controversial Dutch MP Geert Wilders being forced to cancel his speaking engagements in Perth.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

No, anti-islam in Europe is overwhelmingly based on fear of what might happen, not what is already evident. I point you to the post directly above yours as a classic example: warning that once muslims become 50% of the population, goodbye freedom and secularism in Europe. But the fact is, muslim immigration to Europe has overwhelmingly been harmonious and peaceful, and has not caused any sort of social or political turmoil. And the only ammunition the fear-mongers have is what might happen in the future as a result of muslim immigration. All of which is completely baseless of course.

My suspicions are well founded. Considering almost every piece of advancement in the past 400 years came from Western countries while Islamic countries produced nothing of value (and still don't unless they import Western technology), I think we are well within our rights to be suspicious.

The liberal democratic ideas we live by didn't emerge from Mecca. They emerged from North, West Europe, particularly Britain/England; which themselves were an outgrowth of Protestantism. That's right, Christianity.

Islamic countries produced submission to a transcendental deity over pragmatic, earthly concerns for 800 years. I doubt that this will change any time soon. I think you must believe we are pretty dumb to think Islam will willingly morph into liberal democracy.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

And the only ammunition the fear-mongers have is what might happen in the future as a result of muslim immigration.

How dare they consider irreversible future consequences? 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 10:20am:

I will not tolerate any Islamic influence in politics, nor any of the extreme leftist views like you find on university campuses and in the Greens.

big·ot
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot


Congratulations!!!  You are a perfect example!

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

No, anti-islam in Europe is overwhelmingly based on fear of what might happen, not what is already evident.

So 1400 years of fighting the fookers counts for nothing? The Europeans speak from experience - experience now and historical experience.

Has Islam changed in these 1400 years? No. So why would the respobnse to it change??

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

He is still living happily in his own country - in fact he is doing very well for himself  thank you very much.

Yeah, having around the clock police protection is every budding politicians dream!!!

You bvggers would die in a fooking ditch (as long as it's 'martyrdom') rather than own that you are the reason for Islam's bad rap. 1400 years of history speaks against Islam.
Muslims give a bad name to Islam.
Read that slowly. Sound it out.

Mu s l i m s    g i v e    a    b a d    n a m e    t o    I s l a m .

Your endless switching on the victim schtick is cynical bollocks. Attend to your numerous and grave problems. Deflecting forever onto the 'islamophobic hatemongers' is just cowardly, stupid, cynical, dishonest crap.i

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: I will not tolerate any Islamic influence in politics, nor any of the extreme leftist views like you find on university campuses and in the Greens. big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot Congratulations!!!  You are a perfect example!

Lol. I like how you left out Gandalf's strong partiality to Islam.
Don't worry, as you're a trendy lefty, I know you at the moment lack the cognitive abilities to extend the concept of bigotry to anyone who isn't white or supports non-Western religions and groups.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: I will not tolerate any Islamic influence in politics, nor any of the extreme leftist views like you find on university campuses and in the Greens. big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot Congratulations!!!  You are a perfect example!

As far as religions go, section 116 of our constitution does not allow for religious influence to public office.

Honestly, could you imagine what would happen if Islam was a majority in this country?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: I will not tolerate any Islamic influence in politics, nor any of the extreme leftist views like you find on university campuses and in the Greens. big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot Congratulations!!!  You are a perfect example! Lol. I like how you left out Gandalf's strong partiality to Islam. Don't worry, as you're a trendy lefty, I know you at the moment lack the cognitive abilities to extend the concept of bigotry to anyone who isn't white or supports non-Western religions and groups.

I like how you are strongly partial to your own group, religion, race, and politics and are intolerant of those who differ.

The perfect bigot!

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 10:54pm:

Leftists doing what leftists do. Silence the opposition in anyway possible.

IS THAT WHY I WANT TO GO AND SEE HIM SPEAK?!!?

  :-?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 7:01pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 10:20am: I will not tolerate any Islamic influence in politics, nor any of the extreme leftist views like you find on university campuses and in the Greens. big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot Congratulations!!!  You are a perfect example! Lol. I like how you left out Gandalf's strong partiality to Islam. Don't worry, as you're a trendy lefty, I know you at the moment lack the cognitive abilities to extend the concept of bigotry to anyone who isn't white or supports non-Western religions and groups. I like how you are strongly partial to your own group, religion, race, and politics and are intolerant of those who differ. The perfect bigot!

Well, at least you know where I stand. I bet I'd have to ask about a dozen questions to find out where you stand. Even then you'd probably still be a bit shifty.

Moreover, I'd bet you too have a number of immoveable positions on some issues. Anyone who has principles is a bigot of some description. Only passive nihilists could escape the bigot tag. Which goes to show how retarded the tag is to begin with.

But don't mind me, carry on with your sloganeering.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 10:54pm: Leftists doing what leftists do. Silence the opposition in anyway possible. IS THAT WHY I WANT TO GO AND SEE HIM SPEAK?!!?   :-?

I can make an exception for you, Death.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

I like how you are strongly partial to your own group, religion, race, and politics and are intolerant of those who differ. The perfect bigot!

Is that considered unusual where you come from?   :-?

Im not a fan of Wilders, however my understanding is that Barnett intervened by speaking to the hotel management and implying they may lose state government business if they hosted Wilders. To be quite hionest he shopuld have been allowed to speak here and let his idiocy be exposed. These types of bigots and racists only ever attract a small following (here at least) and its quite often helpful to let them crawl out of the dark and expose themselves.

ian wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 7:55pm:

Im not a fan of Wilders, however my understanding is that Barnett intervened by speaking to the hotel management and implying they may lose state government business if they hosted Wilders. To be quite hionest he shopuld have been allowed to speak here and let his idiocy be exposed. These types of bigots and racists only ever attract a small following (here at least) and its quite often helpful to let them crawl out of the dark and expose themselves.

How is it racist to criticize Islam? It's a set of religious practices; race has nothing to do with it. Does the racism tag work for Christianity too? Have the numerous criticisms of Christianity over the past 200 years in European literature been a form of racism? Does that mean the postmodern left, who criticise Christianity at the drop of a hat, is racist too?

ian wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 7:55pm:

Im not a fan of Wilders, however my understanding is that Barnett intervened by speaking to the hotel management and implying they may lose state government business if they hosted Wilders. To be quite hionest he shopuld have been allowed to speak here and let his idiocy be exposed. These types of bigots and racists only ever attract a small following (here at least) and its quite often helpful to let them crawl out of the dark and expose themselves.

True.  Ignoring is the best option.

If a group of racists want to go and hear some racist talk about being racist - well, good on them.  And good on Tony Abbott for truing to distance himself from the racist and his racist audience.  But it is a shame that there are others in his party who support the racist and his racist audience.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bernardi-tests-abbotts-patience-by-backing-dutch-mp-geert-wilders/story-fn59niix-1226582135815

Tony must be torn.  He wont accept the vote of Thommo in Parliament.  Will he accept the votes of the racists who vote for Bernardi?

Lol. Can you fit the term racist in a sentence or paragraph any more?

Rabbitoh, answer me this: Is it racist to criticize Christianity?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:20pm:

Lol. Can you fit the term racist in a sentence or paragraph any more? Rabbitoh, answer me this: Is it racist to criticize Christianity?

No.  It is not racist to criticise Christianity.
Just as it is not racist to criticise Islam.

It is racist to say - as your mate Geert says:
Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture. I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people.

Calling something "the ideology of a retarded culture. " is not criticism.  It is a bigotted , racist rant.


I'm sure you now want to come back and say "Islam is not a race!" - and you would be correct.  That does not stop this bloke from being a racist however.  He is a bigot of course (just like you, as we have discovered), he is prejudiced - and he is racist.

I can just hear his follows now - on the phone to Jonesy tomorrow - "Gday Alan, love your show...now, I'm not a racist, BUT, I think Islam is the ideology of a retarded culture..."

Anyway - just ignore the bloke.  Just as sensible people ignore Jonesy and Bolt and the morons that listen to them.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:28pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:20pm: Lol. Can you fit the term racist in a sentence or paragraph any more? Rabbitoh, answer me this: Is it racist to criticize Christianity? No.  It is not racist to criticise Christianity. Just as it is not racist to criticise Islam. It is racist to say - as your mate Geert says: Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture. I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people. Calling something "the ideology of a retarded culture. " is not criticism.  It is a bigotted , racist rant. I'm sure you now want to come back and say "Islam is not a race!" - and you would be correct.  That does not stop this bloke from being a racist however.  He is a bigot of course (just like you, as we have discovered), he is prejudiced - and he is racist. I can just hear his follows now - on the phone to Jonesy tomorrow - "Gday Alan, love your show...now, I'm not a racist, BUT, I think Islam is the ideology of a retarded culture..." Anyway - just ignore the bloke.  Just as sensible people ignore Jonesy and Bolt and the morons that listen to them.

A bet each way, huh.
How is saying "Islam is a retarded culture" racist? There's no mention of race in that statement. Islam, to say it again, is a set of practices and beliefs. These practices and beliefs just happen to be "retarded." 

By "retarded" he would mean "backward" or "intellectually deficient." Still nothing to do with race.

the trouble with aussie values is they actually haven't got any.they are changeable according to circum.There is no realistic values or morals,just customs and habits and thus makes the redneck.For australians to form an opinion means asking a few million other people first.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:28pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:20pm: Lol. Can you fit the term racist in a sentence or paragraph any more? Rabbitoh, answer me this: Is it racist to criticize Christianity? No.  It is not racist to criticise Christianity. Just as it is not racist to criticise Islam. It is racist to say - as your mate Geert says: Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture. I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people. Calling something "the ideology of a retarded culture. " is not criticism.  It is a bigotted , racist rant. I'm sure you now want to come back and say "Islam is not a race!" - and you would be correct.  That does not stop this bloke from being a racist however.  He is a bigot of course (just like you, as we have discovered), he is prejudiced - and he is racist. I can just hear his follows now - on the phone to Jonesy tomorrow - "Gday Alan, love your show...now, I'm not a racist, BUT, I think Islam is the ideology of a retarded culture..." Anyway - just ignore the bloke.  Just as sensible people ignore Jonesy and Bolt and the morons that listen to them. A bet each way, huh. How is saying "Islam is a retarded culture" racist? There's no mention of race in that statement. Islam, to say it again, is a set of practices and beliefs. These practices and beliefs just happen to be "retarded."  By "retarded" he would mean "backward" or "intellectually deficient." Still nothing to do with race.

Tony Abbott says:
He is entitled to his view but I think that the Muslims in this country see themselves rightly as fair dinkum, dinky-di Australians, just as the Catholics and the Jews and Protestants and the atheists, we see ourselves as Australian

So - you obviously cannot vote for the Liberal party.  You are bigotted towards the Greens.

Who will you be voting for next election?

Is there a Racist Party?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:14pm:

ian wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 7:55pm: Im not a fan of Wilders, however my understanding is that Barnett intervened by speaking to the hotel management and implying they may lose state government business if they hosted Wilders. To be quite hionest he shopuld have been allowed to speak here and let his idiocy be exposed. These types of bigots and racists only ever attract a small following (here at least) and its quite often helpful to let them crawl out of the dark and expose themselves. True.  Ignoring is the best option. If a group of racists want to go and hear some racist talk about being racist - well, good on them.  And good on Tony Abbott for truing to distance himself from the racist and his racist audience.  But it is a shame that there are others in his party who support the racist and his racist audience. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bernardi-tests-abbotts-patience-by-backing-dutch-mp-geert-wilders/story-fn59niix-1226582135815 Tony must be torn.  He wont accept the vote of Thommo in Parliament.  Will he accept the votes of the racists who vote for Bernardi?

Abbott should go and meet Wilders, shake his hand and declare his support for his stance for freedom and debate him on any points he disagrees with him.

Same for Gillard.

Anything less is pandering to the god-awful fooking morons.


For the life of me, I don't see what Wilders has said that is so terrible.

Wherever there is more Islam, there is less of everything else, especially freedom. Why can't people say that?
If non-Europeans can speak out against European colonisation, why can't a white Dutch guys also speak out against colonisation by non-Europeans?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:38pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:34pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:28pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:20pm: Lol. Can you fit the term racist in a sentence or paragraph any more? Rabbitoh, answer me this: Is it racist to criticize Christianity? No.  It is not racist to criticise Christianity. Just as it is not racist to criticise Islam. It is racist to say - as your mate Geert says: Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture. I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people. Calling something "the ideology of a retarded culture. " is not criticism.  It is a bigotted , racist rant. I'm sure you now want to come back and say "Islam is not a race!" - and you would be correct.  That does not stop this bloke from being a racist however.  He is a bigot of course (just like you, as we have discovered), he is prejudiced - and he is racist. I can just hear his follows now - on the phone to Jonesy tomorrow - "Gday Alan, love your show...now, I'm not a racist, BUT, I think Islam is the ideology of a retarded culture..." Anyway - just ignore the bloke.  Just as sensible people ignore Jonesy and Bolt and the morons that listen to them. A bet each way, huh. How is saying "Islam is a retarded culture" racist? There's no mention of race in that statement. Islam, to say it again, is a set of practices and beliefs. These practices and beliefs just happen to be "retarded."  By "retarded" he would mean "backward" or "intellectually deficient." Still nothing to do with race. Tony Abbott says: He is entitled to his view but I think that the Muslims in this country see themselves rightly as fair dinkum, dinky-di Australians, just as the Catholics and the Jews and Protestants and the atheists, we see ourselves as Australian So - you obviously cannot vote for the Liberal party.  You are bigotted towards the Greens. Who will you be voting for next election? Is there a Racist Party?

Whoever you vote for will exemplify your bigotry. If you vote for Labor or Greens on principle, then you're being bigoted toward the Liberals and all the other parties. Funny how it works both ways, huh.

That's the problem if you think in slogans or just write based on whatever emotion rises to the surface at the time, you end up contradicting yourself.

Just another "useful idiot."

Amadd wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 4:53pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 1:29pm: ... wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 1:21pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 1:14pm: Where is the conflict with democracy? No conflict - there is no relationship whatsoever.  But I guess people will draw all sorts of bows to justify their hypocrisy. Forgiven. I was simply refuting Amadd's statement that venues cancelling Wilders appearances is no "kick in the guts to all of our past and present soldiers who think/thought that they were upholding something in this country." Freedom is good. Wilders should be allowed to speak, protestors should be free to protest and venues should be able to make decisions about who they host. All is well. Perhaps Wilders might like to forego dealing with venues and spew his hatred in a public park or something. Quote: Vague, anonymous threats are not easily prosecutable offences.    Wilders' own freedom supports your point. Annie, you cannot refute something without proof. I can refute your statement because I have proof that you provided no proof to refute my statement. That's fine for a private venue to do as they like, however, they obviously cancelled for fear of something...and that's not what this country used to be about. Btw, would you like to refute these statements too? "RestoreAustralia is supporting the work of those trying to get the cowardly RSL executive to allow Geert Wilders the right to speak at their Clubs. We have had a few vocal Muslims opposing the visit by Geert, and the cowardly clubs have caved in and refused the right for true blue Australians to book their halls and listen to what Geert has to say. Where is the right to Freedom of Speech? Why are these RSL executives so afraid of a few fanatics? What the hell did we FIGHT for since World War Two?" The following is an email exchange between a veteran and a QSociety member working to regain our right to Freedom of Speech: "Greetings all I have sent this onto the Liberal party who sent out asking for support in the coming campaign. Greetings Mark – Kerry passed your email onto me and like Kerry I would like to know if Tony or the Liberal Party would make a statement to support the freedoms for which our generation in WW2, and generations since, have fought to preserve, and now fighting against religious fanatics. These freedoms are associated with the right of any organisation to invite speakers who they want to listen to. The Australian Islamic Association were given the right a few months ago to invite and listen to the Secretary of the United Nations Islamic Federation of Islamic States, in Bankstown, without any hindrance or threats – as Geert Wilders tour is now attracting from fanatics associated with them – so we ask your organisation to make a statement to support our freedoms by supporting the tour. regards Kev Dickson" http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/muslim-fanatics/

What's to refute in those emails? They contain both valid points and a load of ranting crap.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:04pm:

How is it racist to criticize Islam? It's a set of religious practices; race has nothing to do with it. Does the racism tag work for Christianity too? Have the numerous criticisms of Christianity over the past 200 years in European literature been a form of racism? Does that mean the postmodern left, who criticise Christianity at the drop of a hat, is racist too?

Wilders is presenting Islam as an idealology not a religion and basing his criticisms on that. When he talks about Muslim immigration he is actually refering to middle eastern and african immigration. Not only does this ignore the majority of Muslim people in the world but tars them with the same cultural brush.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

My suspicions are well founded. Considering almost every piece of advancement in the past 400 years came from Western countries while Islamic countries produced nothing of value (and still don't unless they import Western technology), I think we are well within our rights to be suspicious. The liberal democratic ideas we live by didn't emerge from Mecca. They emerged from North, West Europe, particularly Britain/England; which themselves were an outgrowth of Protestantism. That's right, Christianity. Islamic countries produced submission to a transcendental deity over pragmatic, earthly concerns for 800 years. I doubt that this will change any time soon. I think you must believe we are pretty dumb to think Islam will willingly morph into liberal democracy.

Right, so lets just pause and think about what you are actually saying: islamic countries are backward and oppressive - no argument here. But are we talking about these countries? No - we are talking about the people who are exiting these countries - of which there are two types: people looking for a better life, and people fleeing from the oppressive regimes in said islamic countries. So what do you think is the one thing that unites these two types of migrants? How about they don't want to continue living under the oppressive and backward regimes? So clearly, you and these immigrants are in agreement about these countries being thoroughly distasteful - so why you hatin' them?


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:04pm:

How is it racist to criticize Islam? It's a set of religious practices; race has nothing to do with it.

Because the vast majority of muslims in Australia (and the western world) are non-whites. Numerous studies have demonstrated that most islamophobes associate "muslim" with an imaginary "race" of people. Even the fact that muslims come from a wide range of cultural and ethnic origins doesn't seem to matter - "muslim" is overwhelmingly perceived as a homogenous "race" of people. Classic case of "outgroup homogeneity". Yes there is the intellectual aspect of anti-islam that argues on an ideological and doctrinal level, but this is in no way representative of your run-of-the-mill islamophobe.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:36pm:

islamic countries are backward and oppressive - no argument here. But are we talking about these countries? No - we are talking about the people who are exiting these countries - of which there are two types: people looking for a better life, and people fleeing from the oppressive regimes in said islamic countries. So what do you think is the one thing that unites these two types of migrants? How about they don't want to continue living under the oppressive and backward regimes? So clearly, you and these immigrants are in agreement about these countries being thoroughly distasteful - so why you hatin' them?

You never hear of Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists plotting bloody mayhem in London or Holsworthy or Chicago.

But there is no shortage of Muslims 'fleeing' so called Muslim countries only to engage in jihad once they are safely taken in. Whose responsibility are those bastards?

They are your responsibility. You are not victims. You are given every chance and every freedom, yet it is Muslims who will murder, in the name of Islam, the people who have given them every chance and every freedom.

ian wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:04pm: How is it racist to criticize Islam? It's a set of religious practices; race has nothing to do with it. Does the racism tag work for Christianity too? Have the numerous criticisms of Christianity over the past 200 years in European literature been a form of racism? Does that mean the postmodern left, who criticise Christianity at the drop of a hat, is racist too? Wilders is presenting Islam as an idealology not a religion and basing his criticisms on that. When he talks about Muslim immigration he is actually refering to middle eastern and african immigration. Not only does this ignore the majority of Muslim people in the world but tars them with the same cultural brush.

Whether it is an ideology or religion doesn't matter as they both have a set of practices and a doctrine that is adhered to. It's a 7th century religion that is incompatible with liberal democracy. The insertion of race into the argument is done by the left to try and gain some traction over the existing arguments. They can't argue for Islam on cultural grounds, so they use the racist tag to demean opposition, as if this somehow makes their 7th century religion more acceptable to modern standards.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:36pm:

Right, so lets just pause and think about what you are actually saying: islamic countries are backward and oppressive - no argument here. But are we talking about these countries? No - we are talking about the people who are exiting these countries - of which there are two types: people looking for a better life, and people fleeing from the oppressive regimes in said islamic countries. So what do you think is the one thing that unites these two types of migrants? How about they don't want to continue living under the oppressive and backward regimes? So clearly, you and these immigrants are in agreement about these countries being thoroughly distasteful - so why you hatin' them?

I don't believe for a second Islam will be compatible with liberal democracy. They will play the game while their numbers are in the minority, but once they get near the majority, then radical changes will occur. Transcendental ideologies that have submission to a deity as its central tenet are not compatible with the politics or societies of the modern world.



Quote:

Because the vast majority of muslims in Australia (and the western world) are non-whites. Numerous studies have demonstrated that most islamophobes associate "muslim" with an imaginary "race" of people. Even the fact that muslims come from a wide range of cultural and ethnic origins doesn't seem to matter - "muslim" is overwhelmingly perceived as a homogenous "race" of people. Classic case of "outgroup homogeneity". Yes there is the intellectual aspect of anti-islam that argues on an ideological and doctrinal level, but this is in no way representative of your run-of-the-mill islamophobe.

The only people inserting race into the argument are the Muslims and the leftists. Islam can't be defended on cultural or intellectual grounds, so its apologists have to try other tactics to silence opposition.

The only other reason why race is used is because some leftists are so dumb that they think any criticism of something non-Western is racist.

I think that it should also be said that the likelihood of being involved in a terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamic radicals is extremely slim.

Of the roughly 2 billion muslims worldwide, there is an extremely minute percentage of those who dedicate themselves to hating and killing westerners.
The overwhelming likelihood of being murdered will be from somebody who is personally known.

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:51pm:

[quote author=gandalf link=1361276378/53#53 date=1361360195] You never hear of Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists plotting bloody mayhem in London or Holsworthy or Chicago.

Thats true. Just like we never hear of the overwhelming majority of muslims in those cities who are sincere about coexisting and integrating into society. Nor do we hear much about muslim leaders who come out and condemn those plotters.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 10:16pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 9:51pm: [quote author=gandalf link=1361276378/53#53 date=1361360195] You never hear of Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists plotting bloody mayhem in London or Holsworthy or Chicago. Thats true. Just like we never hear of the overwhelming majority of muslims in those cities who are sincere about coexisting and integrating into society. Nor do we hear much about muslim leaders who come out and condemn those plotters.

And how is that not your responsibility? How is that something for me to worry about?

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 10:18pm:

And how is that not your responsibility? How is that something for me to worry about?

you claim muslims are not taking responsibility for the extremists among us. I counter by pointing out that every single time some muslim attrocity occurs, mainstream muslim leaders will come out condemning it and imploring muslims to reject that brand of islam. You also have no idea about the internal struggle going on in islam to counter the extremists and promote the right, peaceful path of islam.

I'm not saying the state of islam in the west is perfect, or that much more can't be done, but don't insult my intelligence by claiming no responsibility is being taken by mainstream islam, or that proactive measures are not being taken to erradicate extremism from the muslim communities.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 10:29pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 10:18pm: And how is that not your responsibility? How is that something for me to worry about? you claim muslims are not taking responsibility for the extremists among us. I counter by pointing out that every single time some muslim attrocity occurs, mainstream muslim leaders will come out condemning it and imploring muslims to reject that brand of islam. You also have no idea about the internal struggle going on in islam to counter the extremists and promote the right, peaceful path of islam. I'm not saying the state of islam in the west is perfect, or that much more can't be done, but don't insult my intelligence by claiming no responsibility is being taken by mainstream islam, or that proactive measures are not being taken to erradicate extremism from the muslim communities.

I am sorry to insult your intelligence, but whatever 'proactive measures' you are taking, they are not working.

There is no 'moderate' Muslim crowd at the Paki, Afghan, Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian, Omani, Algerian, Pallo Embassies, protesting suicide bombings, attrocities, disgraceful behaviour. There is no peaceful demo by Muslim demanding an end to the Syrian civil war. There is no Muslim voice raised on the streets against Iran's push for nuclear weapons.

But make a youtube vid about Mohammed and you will have all the motivated Muslims demanding the beheading of all and sundry on the streets of every major city, East and West.

Whatever you are doing, pal, is ineffective. But mostly, you do nothing except stand by and do some special bleating afterwards. And that's because you are even more afraid of the 'motivated' Muslims than your garden variety infidel like me, because they know who you are- you go to mosque with them, you are part of their network.
You are the sea they swim in.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:20pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:38pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:34pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:28pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:20pm: Lol. Can you fit the term racist in a sentence or paragraph any more? Rabbitoh, answer me this: Is it racist to criticize Christianity? No.  It is not racist to criticise Christianity. Just as it is not racist to criticise Islam. It is racist to say - as your mate Geert says: Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture. I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people. Calling something "the ideology of a retarded culture. " is not criticism.  It is a bigotted , racist rant. I'm sure you now want to come back and say "Islam is not a race!" - and you would be correct.  That does not stop this bloke from being a racist however.  He is a bigot of course (just like you, as we have discovered), he is prejudiced - and he is racist. I can just hear his follows now - on the phone to Jonesy tomorrow - "Gday Alan, love your show...now, I'm not a racist, BUT, I think Islam is the ideology of a retarded culture..." Anyway - just ignore the bloke.  Just as sensible people ignore Jonesy and Bolt and the morons that listen to them. A bet each way, huh. How is saying "Islam is a retarded culture" racist? There's no mention of race in that statement. Islam, to say it again, is a set of practices and beliefs. These practices and beliefs just happen to be "retarded."  By "retarded" he would mean "backward" or "intellectually deficient." Still nothing to do with race. Tony Abbott says: He is entitled to his view but I think that the Muslims in this country see themselves rightly as fair dinkum, dinky-di Australians, just as the Catholics and the Jews and Protestants and the atheists, we see ourselves as Australian So - you obviously cannot vote for the Liberal party.  You are bigotted towards the Greens. Who will you be voting for next election? Is there a Racist Party? Whoever you vote for will exemplify your bigotry. If you vote for Labor or Greens on principle, then you're being bigoted toward the Liberals and all the other parties. Funny how it works both ways, huh. That's the problem if you think in slogans or just write based on whatever emotion rises to the surface at the time, you end up contradicting yourself. Just another "useful idiot."

I am not the one that wrote:

I will not tolerate any Islamic influence in politics, nor any of the extreme leftist views like you find on university campuses and in the Greens.

that was you, bigot

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:47pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:14pm: ian wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 7:55pm: Im not a fan of Wilders, however my understanding is that Barnett intervened by speaking to the hotel management and implying they may lose state government business if they hosted Wilders. To be quite hionest he shopuld have been allowed to speak here and let his idiocy be exposed. These types of bigots and racists only ever attract a small following (here at least) and its quite often helpful to let them crawl out of the dark and expose themselves. True.  Ignoring is the best option. If a group of racists want to go and hear some racist talk about being racist - well, good on them.  And good on Tony Abbott for truing to distance himself from the racist and his racist audience.  But it is a shame that there are others in his party who support the racist and his racist audience. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bernardi-tests-abbotts-patience-by-backing-dutch-mp-geert-wilders/story-fn59niix-1226582135815 Tony must be torn.  He wont accept the vote of Thommo in Parliament.  Will he accept the votes of the racists who vote for Bernardi? Abbott should go and meet Wilders, shake his hand and declare his support for his stance for freedom and debate him on any points he disagrees with him.

Yes.  yes He should.

And if he won't - he should explain to us why Cory Bernardi is still in his party


Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:47pm:

Same for Gillard.

Cory Bernardi is not a member of Gillard's party, is he?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:28pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:20pm: Lol. Can you fit the term racist in a sentence or paragraph any more? Rabbitoh, answer me this: Is it racist to criticize Christianity? No.  It is not racist to criticise Christianity. Just as it is not racist to criticise Islam. It is racist to say - as your mate Geert says: Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture. I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people. Calling something "the ideology of a retarded culture. " is not criticism.  It is a bigotted , racist rant. I'm sure you now want to come back and say "Islam is not a race!" - and you would be correct.  That does not stop this bloke from being a racist however.  He is a bigot of course (just like you, as we have discovered), he is prejudiced - and he is racist. I can just hear his follows now - on the phone to Jonesy tomorrow - "Gday Alan, love your show...now, I'm not a racist, BUT, I think Islam is the ideology of a retarded culture..." Anyway - just ignore the bloke.  Just as sensible people ignore Jonesy and Bolt and the morons that listen to them.

Re the controversy 'of' Geert Wilders.

It is an issue of truth;

Geert Wilders is speaking the truth, in his description of ISLAM, and ISLAMIC doctrine.
[...and if Geert Wilders is not speaking the truth, then let his critics debate with him, as to what Geert Wilders error is.
And let his critics prove to us all, that Geert Wilders is NOT speaking the truth.
If he is not.

....But oh no! The critics of Geert Wilders do not want to debate him, and prove his error.

NO, WHAT HIS CRITICS WANT, IS TO SILENCE THE TRUTH SPEAKER. ]




rabbitoh07 is NOT speaking the truth. #1,
He falsely calls a person a racist, but rabbitoh07 [and those like him] refuse to demonstrate to us, how speaking the truth [about a vicious fascist ideology, and its deceitful and vicious adherents] is 'racism'.


rabbitoh07 is NOT speaking the truth. #2,
Bigotry ???
Well, speaking the truth [about a vicious fascist ideology, and its deceitful and vicious adherents] is not 'bigotry'.
It is rabbitoh07 and his ilk who are proving to be the bigots.



Who are the real bigots?

Open a dictionary;
bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

Bigots, are those people who are,
".....intolerant of the opinions of others."



Speaking the truth, does not qualify as an act of bigotry, unless your 'nick' is rabbitoh07.i"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

Yadda wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 5:09am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:28pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:20pm: Lol. Can you fit the term racist in a sentence or paragraph any more? Rabbitoh, answer me this: Is it racist to criticize Christianity? No.  It is not racist to criticise Christianity. Just as it is not racist to criticise Islam. It is racist to say - as your mate Geert says: Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture. I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people. Calling something "the ideology of a retarded culture. " is not criticism.  It is a bigotted , racist rant. I'm sure you now want to come back and say "Islam is not a race!" - and you would be correct.  That does not stop this bloke from being a racist however.  He is a bigot of course (just like you, as we have discovered), he is prejudiced - and he is racist. I can just hear his follows now - on the phone to Jonesy tomorrow - "Gday Alan, love your show...now, I'm not a racist, BUT, I think Islam is the ideology of a retarded culture..." Anyway - just ignore the bloke.  Just as sensible people ignore Jonesy and Bolt and the morons that listen to them. Re the controversy 'of' Geert Wilders. It is an issue of truth; Geert Wilders is speaking the truth, in his description of ISLAM, and ISLAMIC doctrine. [...and if Geert Wilders is not speaking the truth, then let his critics debate with him, as to what Geert Wilders error is. And let his critics prove to us all, that Geert Wilders is NOT speaking the truth. If he is not. ....But oh no! The critics of Geert Wilders do not want to debate him, and prove his error. NO, WHAT HIS CRITICS WANT, IS TO SILENCE THE TRUTH SPEAKER. ] rabbitoh07 is NOT speaking the truth. #1, He falsely calls a person a racist, but rabbitoh07 [and those like him] refuse to demonstrate to us, how speaking the truth [about a vicious fascist ideology, and its deceitful and vicious adherents] is 'racism'. rabbitoh07 is NOT speaking the truth. #2, Bigotry ??? Well, speaking the truth [about a vicious fascist ideology, and its deceitful and vicious adherents] is not 'bigotry'. It is rabbitoh07 and his ilk who are proving to be the bigots. Who are the real bigots? Open a dictionary; bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others. Bigots, are those people who are, ".....intolerant of the opinions of others." Speaking the truth, does not qualify as an act of bigotry, unless your 'nick' is rabbitoh07.i"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

Could you point out where I suggested he be silenced?
I have simply said he is bigot and should be ignored

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:45pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 9:20pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:38pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:34pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:28pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:20pm: Lol. Can you fit the term racist in a sentence or paragraph any more? Rabbitoh, answer me this: Is it racist to criticize Christianity? No.  It is not racist to criticise Christianity. Just as it is not racist to criticise Islam. It is racist to say - as your mate Geert says: Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture. I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people. Calling something "the ideology of a retarded culture. " is not criticism.  It is a bigotted , racist rant. I'm sure you now want to come back and say "Islam is not a race!" - and you would be correct.  That does not stop this bloke from being a racist however.  He is a bigot of course (just like you, as we have discovered), he is prejudiced - and he is racist. I can just hear his follows now - on the phone to Jonesy tomorrow - "Gday Alan, love your show...now, I'm not a racist, BUT, I think Islam is the ideology of a retarded culture..." Anyway - just ignore the bloke.  Just as sensible people ignore Jonesy and Bolt and the morons that listen to them. A bet each way, huh. How is saying "Islam is a retarded culture" racist? There's no mention of race in that statement. Islam, to say it again, is a set of practices and beliefs. These practices and beliefs just happen to be "retarded."  By "retarded" he would mean "backward" or "intellectually deficient." Still nothing to do with race. Tony Abbott says: He is entitled to his view but I think that the Muslims in this country see themselves rightly as fair dinkum, dinky-di Australians, just as the Catholics and the Jews and Protestants and the atheists, we see ourselves as Australian So - you obviously cannot vote for the Liberal party.  You are bigotted towards the Greens. Who will you be voting for next election? Is there a Racist Party? Whoever you vote for will exemplify your bigotry. If you vote for Labor or Greens on principle, then you're being bigoted toward the Liberals and all the other parties. Funny how it works both ways, huh. That's the problem if you think in slogans or just write based on whatever emotion rises to the surface at the time, you end up contradicting yourself. Just another "useful idiot." I am not the one that wrote: I will not tolerate any Islamic influence in politics, nor any of the extreme leftist views like you find on university campuses and in the Greens. that was you, bigot

Useful idiot, if I were to go through your posting history I'd find many things you're intolerant of.

If you had any intellectual honesty, you'd admit the bigotry tag could be applied to any one with an opinion or principles. But when you don't have arguments, slogans is the best you can muster I s'pose.

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 10:50pm:

I am sorry to insult your intelligence, but whatever 'proactive measures' you are taking, they are not working.

what does that even mean - 'not working'? What possible measure is this based on? Its just a completely meaningless and ridiculous thing to say. For all you know, potentially hundreds of terrorist attacks have been prevented by proactive measures from muslims themselves: education at mosques, clerics and imams counseling impressionable young muslims, muslim leaders working with authorities (such a program has been running in the UK with great success). Please enlighten me as to what measure you are basing your claim that muslims are failing to rein in the extremists. Just because a handful still exist? That means nothing. You should be asking how many that handful has been reduced from, and how much extremist activity has actually been prevented from proactive work by the muslim community.


Quote:

There is no 'moderate' Muslim crowd at the Paki, Afghan, Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian, Omani, Algerian, Pallo Embassies, protesting suicide bombings, attrocities, disgraceful behaviour. There is no peaceful demo by Muslim demanding an end to the Syrian civil war.

you are wrong - all these things have happened, and continue to happen. The US islamic community is particularly active in this sort of self-criticism.

But yes, it is true, they are not very prominent or particularly big. There are two fundamental reasons for this: First and foremostly, the struggle is internal; inside the mosques, inside the muslim community and inside the family. This obviously comes before a symbolic public protest - which, if understood as a gesture towards the non-muslim community to "prove" our rejection of violence and extremism (eg people like you who constantly demand such symbolism) - should be considered redundant. Muslim leaders make it abundantly clear that violence and extremism is unacceptable to islam.

Secondly, muslims are fighting a war on two fronts. They understand perfectly well what drives extremism, and it is the actions of the west in muslim world: 9/11 (as well as the USS Cole and embassy bombing in Kenya before it), was expressly stated as a response to the setting up of US bases in the Gulf. London 7/7 and Madrid bombings were expressly stated as a response to Britain and Spain's contribution to the invasion of Iraq. Every single muslim terrorist or attempted-terrorist's modus operandi is revenge over occupation of muslim lands and killing of muslims. So of course all muslims have a duty to protest against these attrocities as a way of combating the terrorism that results from it. From the muslim point of view, it doesn't make much sense to protest the symptom and not the cause. Yes, of course we condemn terrorism, but we also acknowledge they are fueled by other attrocities - and its these attrocities that need to challenged as the best way of combating islamic terrorism.



Quote:

Whatever you are doing, pal, is ineffective.

once again - this means absolutely nothing. What measure determines what is "effective" and what is "ineffective"? How many terrorist attacks has the muslim community prevented through various measures? You have absolutely no idea.


Quote:

But mostly, you do nothing except stand by and do some special bleating afterwards.

Completely baseless. I suggest you look at the program in the UK that has muslim leaders working with police to prevent crime; similar schemes in the US, not to mention education programs where muslims work hand in hand with governments. And thats not even going in to the daily education and mentoring that goes on in mosques all over the western world. How much crime and extremism is being prevented from these every day measures? You have absolutely no idea.

Having programs to help Muslims is basically admitting that their is a problem with them. How many locals have to be bashed/raped/murdered while these Muslims are being educated to fit into society? How many suburbs and communities have to be turned into replicas of middle eastern slums before these programs accomplish their goals? Why should western nations turn themselves inside out to make a home for these people who would obviously be happier back where they came from?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:14pm:

ian wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 7:55pm: Im not a fan of Wilders, however my understanding is that Barnett intervened by speaking to the hotel management and implying they may lose state government business if they hosted Wilders. To be quite hionest he shopuld have been allowed to speak here and let his idiocy be exposed. These types of bigots and racists only ever attract a small following (here at least) and its quite often helpful to let them crawl out of the dark and expose themselves. True.  Ignoring is the best option. If a group of racists want to go and hear some racist talk about being racist - well, good on them.  And good on Tony Abbott for truing to distance himself from the racist and his racist audience.  But it is a shame that there are others in his party who support the racist and his racist audience. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bernardi-tests-abbotts-patience-by-backing-dutch-mp-geert-wilders/story-fn59niix-1226582135815 Tony must be torn.  He wont accept the vote of Thommo in Parliament.  Will he accept the votes of the racists who vote for Bernardi?

It's probably a bit ironic that you inadvertently got that right in that Islam sees itself as an idealistic nation.

Of course ordinarily, the word "racism" would not apply when speaking of religions as there is no particular race involved.

But yes, it is true that many muslims are more loyal to their Islamic nation than their country of citizenship.

It's hard to tell if there are in fact any muslims who would be loyal to a western nation such as Australia as the quran calls for lies to the infidel (us and our government) to further Islam.

Quantum wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 2:18pm:

Having programs to help Muslims is basically admitting that their is a problem with them. How many locals have to be bashed/raped/murdered while these Muslims are being educated to fit into society? How many suburbs and communities have to be turned into replicas of middle eastern slums before these programs accomplish their goals? Why should western nations turn themselves inside out to make a home for these people who would obviously be happier back where they came from?

My sentiments entirely.  Why embark on all this education and outreach, why buy into and import Islam's internal struggle so it has now become our problem as well - when we could just say No?

What is gained by spending countless treasure and limitless effort on trying to fit Muslims into what is fundamentally against every tenet of their religion?

It is a one way street - there is no open door to non-Muslim influence and presence in 'Muslim lands' - they will blow up anyone who tries to adjust them to the 21st century.

We might as well try to accommodate stone age people to the 21st century!

(Oh!?! We are?!? )

Soren wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 9:07pm:

My sentiments entirely.  Why embark on all this education and outreach, why buy into and import Islam's internal struggle so it has now become our problem as well - when we could just say No?

highlighted for irony.

;D ;D Soren, I couldn't agree more! Why meddle in muslims lands and import their greivances and problems here? - why illegally invade sovereign muslim countries for oil? why support Israel unconditionally in their wars of aggression and ethnic cleansing? THAT is what creates the terrorist threat in the west Soren - no matter how much we try and convince ourselves its about them "hating our freedom" or whatever.

As it stands, the majority of law abiding muslims in the west are stuck between a rock and a hard place - fighting a war on two fronts. On the one hand they are doing absolutely the right and proper thing by protesting strongly against western meddling and aggression in muslim lands - because they know this is the root cause of terrorism - and on the other hand trying to keep a lid on emotional reactions to this western meddling from a minority of hot-headed impressionable muslims.

So yeah Soren, please promote this surprisingly enlightened message of yours to our political leaders loud and clear: stop the meddling in the internal affairs of the muslim world and importing their greivances and making it our problem as well!

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

ian wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:04pm: How is it racist to criticize Islam? It's a set of religious practices; race has nothing to do with it. Does the racism tag work for Christianity too? Have the numerous criticisms of Christianity over the past 200 years in European literature been a form of racism? Does that mean the postmodern left, who criticise Christianity at the drop of a hat, is racist too? Wilders is presenting Islam as an idealology not a religion and basing his criticisms on that. When he talks about Muslim immigration he is actually refering to middle eastern and african immigration. Not only does this ignore the majority of Muslim people in the world but tars them with the same cultural brush. Whether it is an ideology or religion doesn't matter as they both have a set of practices and a doctrine that is adhered to. It's a 7th century religion that is incompatible with liberal democracy. The insertion of race into the argument is done by the left to try and gain some traction over the existing arguments. They can't argue for Islam on cultural grounds, so they use the racist tag to demean opposition, as if this somehow makes their 7th century religion more acceptable to modern standards.

Nonsense, to start with, you dont even understand that the majority of the worlds Muslims do not live in the middle east and are as moderate as most Christians in western countries. All you are doing is spewing right wing rhetoric you probably heard on the talk back radio. If you cant distinguish between culture and religion then you shouldnt even be in this debate.

ian wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 10:00pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 9:55pm: ian wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:04pm: How is it racist to criticize Islam? It's a set of religious practices; race has nothing to do with it. Does the racism tag work for Christianity too? Have the numerous criticisms of Christianity over the past 200 years in European literature been a form of racism? Does that mean the postmodern left, who criticise Christianity at the drop of a hat, is racist too? Wilders is presenting Islam as an idealology not a religion and basing his criticisms on that. When he talks about Muslim immigration he is actually refering to middle eastern and african immigration. Not only does this ignore the majority of Muslim people in the world but tars them with the same cultural brush. Whether it is an ideology or religion doesn't matter as they both have a set of practices and a doctrine that is adhered to. It's a 7th century religion that is incompatible with liberal democracy. The insertion of race into the argument is done by the left to try and gain some traction over the existing arguments. They can't argue for Islam on cultural grounds, so they use the racist tag to demean opposition, as if this somehow makes their 7th century religion more acceptable to modern standards. Nonsense, to start with, you dont even understand that the majority of the worlds Muslims do not live in the middle east and are as moderate as most Christians in western countries. All you are doing is spewing right wing rhetoric you probably heard on the talk back radio. If you cant distinguish between culture and religion then you shouldnt even be in this debate.

Ideology, religion, and culture are all intertwined. Each partly effects the other.
What does Islam have to offer the West? What of value can it give us that we don't already have? They've produced nothing of value in 800 years. There's a reason for that. Submission to a deity trumps pragmatic political and social concerns.
I wonder if you'd have any problem of Australia/Europe returning to conservative Catholicism? You probably would. And there we'd see your double standards.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 7:39am:

They've produced nothing of value in 800 years

Stop embarassing yourself. If it wasn't for the islamic world, Europe would still be stuck in the dark ages. While the Europeans were wallowing in war, disease and ignorance, the islamic world was busily translating and protecting all the most important Greek works - works that today we consider the pillars of our civilization and knowledge. During the time, islam had the only centres for science and learning, while in Europe the only places that had any semblance of learning was in the monasteries.

To get an idea of how reliant our modern day prosperity has been determined by the islamic world, consider:

- have you ever used numbers? Thank the islamic world (not developed by arabs, but introduced to Europe by the arabs)
- does modern medicine have a firm knowledge of the human anatomy? thank the islamic world
- do we know how to combat infectious diseases? Thank the islamic world
- do we have a basic concept of washing and personal hygiene that is so crucial to our health? thank the islamic world
- like listening to the violin or guitar? thank the islamic world.

And on and on the list goes...

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 9:21am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 7:39am: They've produced nothing of value in 800 years Stop embarassing yourself. If it wasn't for the islamic world, Europe would still be stuck in the dark ages. While the Europeans were wallowing in war, disease and ignorance, the islamic world was busily translating and protecting all the most important Greek works - works that today we consider the pillars of our civilization and knowledge. During the time, islam had the only centres for science and learning, while in Europe the only places that had any semblance of learning was in the monasteries.

And when was that time?  Around 800 years ago, perchance?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 9:59pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 21st, 2013 at 9:07pm: My sentiments entirely.  Why embark on all this education and outreach, why buy into and import Islam's internal struggle so it has now become our problem as well - when we could just say No? highlighted for irony. ;D ;D Soren, I couldn't agree more! Why meddle in muslims lands and import their greivances and problems here? - why illegally invade sovereign muslim countries for oil? why support Israel unconditionally in their wars of aggression and ethnic cleansing? THAT is what creates the terrorist threat in the west Soren - no matter how much we try and convince ourselves its about them "hating our freedom" or whatever. As it stands, the majority of law abiding muslims in the west are stuck between a rock and a hard place - fighting a war on two fronts. On the one hand they are doing absolutely the right and proper thing by protesting strongly against western meddling and aggression in muslim lands - because they know this is the root cause of terrorism - and on the other hand trying to keep a lid on emotional reactions to this western meddling from a minority of hot-headed impressionable muslims. So yeah Soren, please promote this surprisingly enlightened message of yours to our political leaders loud and clear: stop the meddling in the internal affairs of the muslim world and importing their greivances and making it our problem as well!

In Islam there is:

No freedom of speech
No freedom of association
No freedom of the press
No equality before the law
No freedom of conscience
Polygamy and gender segregation


Are these all due to western meddling?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 9:21am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 7:39am: They've produced nothing of value in 800 years Stop embarassing yourself. If it wasn't for the islamic world, Europe would still be stuck in the dark ages. While the Europeans were wallowing in war, disease and ignorance, the islamic world was busily translating and protecting all the most important Greek works - works that today we consider the pillars of our civilization and knowledge. During the time, islam had the only centres for science and learning, while in Europe the only places that had any semblance of learning was in the monasteries. To get an idea of how reliant our modern day prosperity has been determined by the islamic world, consider: - have you ever used numbers? Thank the islamic world (not developed by arabs, but introduced to Europe by the arabs) - does modern medicine have a firm knowledge of the human anatomy? thank the islamic world - do we know how to combat infectious diseases? Thank the islamic world - do we have a basic concept of washing and personal hygiene that is so crucial to our health? thank the islamic world - like listening to the violin or guitar? thank the islamic world. And on and on the list goes...

First of all, it was the Muslims who blocked the West's access to ancient Greek knowldge when they overran the Eastern Roman Empire. The Islamic hordes were, in reality, the greatest barbarian force that finally destroyed the Empire.They sacked Rome and were halted in 732 in southern France.

Secondly, the translations into Arabic were done by the conquered peoples, not the invading Arabs.

Thirdly, the translations were stricktly limited to texts that were compatible with Islam. Nothing that may have been construed as a challenge was translated - so no literature, poetry, poetics, histories, drama. These were finally taken to the West when Islam conquered Byzantium and there was an influx of Greek scholars and texts to the West, to the Italian city states and princedoms in particular, triggering the renaissance in the second half of the 15th century.

Even the limited translation program was seen by strict Islamic rules as incompatible with Islam so it was halted. What kepts it strong was its the military, expansionist, conquering spirit. And when that was finally broken at Vienne in 1683, Islam sank into stupor and stagnation we know it for today. We can see today that its revival is fuelled by an attempt to recover its expansionist, conquering mojo.
It has no taste or motivation for scientific, artistic, social or any other kind of innovation.

stop strawmaning soren, you're smarter than that.

We were talking about the security threat posed by muslims in the west. Only someone with their head buried deep in the sand would think that this wasn't due to western aggression and meddling in the muslim world - as OBL, the london bombers and the Madrid bombers made abundantly clear.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 9:51am:

stop strawmaning soren, you're smarter than that. We were talking about the security threat posed by muslims in the west. Only someone with their head buried deep in the sand would think that this wasn't due to western aggression and meddling in the muslim world - as OBL, the london bombers and the Madrid bombers made abundantly clear.

So Islam's opposition to all our fundamental freedoms and legal and political customs is due to Western agrression??

Who knew!

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 9:21am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 7:39am: They've produced nothing of value in 800 years Stop embarassing yourself. If it wasn't for the islamic world, Europe would still be stuck in the dark ages. While the Europeans were wallowing in war, disease and ignorance, the islamic world was busily translating and protecting all the most important Greek works - works that today we consider the pillars of our civilization and knowledge. During the time, islam had the only centres for science and learning, while in Europe the only places that had any semblance of learning was in the monasteries. To get an idea of how reliant our modern day prosperity has been determined by the islamic world, consider: - have you ever used numbers? Thank the islamic world (not developed by arabs, but introduced to Europe by the arabs) - does modern medicine have a firm knowledge of the human anatomy? thank the islamic world - do we know how to combat infectious diseases? Thank the islamic world - do we have a basic concept of washing and personal hygiene that is so crucial to our health? thank the islamic world - like listening to the violin or guitar? thank the islamic world. And on and on the list goes...

I am fully cognizant of Islam's gains in the sciences, yet that was about 800 years ago. Something fundamental has changed in the nature of Islam since then. So I'll ask again, what does it have to offer us now?

true morning m,ist, where is the islamic car, plane or train.

MM, I'm quite ignorant of Islamic history so I'm somewhat hesitant to put this out there, but haven't most countries with Muslim majorities been colonised or suffered from significant Western meddling? And aren't most post-colonial countries left in states of chaos and instability?

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 9:48am:

First of all, it was the Muslims who blocked the West's access to ancient Greek knowldge when they overran the Eastern Roman Empire. The Islamic hordes were, in reality, the greatest barbarian force that finally destroyed the Empire.They sacked Rome and were halted in 732 in southern France. Secondly, the translations into Arabic were done by the conquered peoples, not the invading Arabs. Thirdly, the translations were stricktly limited to texts that were compatible with Islam. Nothing that may have been construed as a challenge was translated - so no literature, poetry, poetics, histories, drama. These were finally taken to the West when Islam conquered Byzantium and there was an influx of Greek scholars and texts to the West, to the Italian city states and princedoms in particular, triggering the renaissance in the second half of the 15th century. Even the limited translation program was seen by strict Islamic rules as incompatible with Islam so it was halted. What kepts it strong was its the military, expansionist, conquering spirit. And when that was finally broken at Vienne in 1683, Islam sank into stupor and stagnation we know it for today. We can see today that its revival is fuelled by an attempt to recover its expansionist, conquering mojo. It has no taste or motivation for scientific, artistic, social or any other kind of innovation.

Whitewash islamic achievements all you want Soren, the fact is without islam, the western world wouldn't be as prosperous as it is today.

Yes, the islamic world was a cultural and learning hub: situated at the crossroads of several cultural centres including the hindu world, china and the Greek sphere. But your contention that the arabs retained and advanced science and culture despite islam, and not because of it simply doesn't hold water. The great cultural centres in the arab world only became great after islam took over: Baghdad became the largest city in the world, and during the cultural flowering under the Abbasids, science and arts were not merely tolerated, they were actively promoted and expanded. Also, under islamic rule, Spain was alone in Europe in being a thriving cosmopolitan cultural centre. Of course this all changed after the christian reconquest, and jews were driven out and fled to - guess where? - thats right, the muslim world.

The standard meme that you are repeating about the "islamic hordes" smashing their way into the civilized Greek world is revisionist nonsense. One historian, Dr. Gustav LeBon, describes the muslim conquests thusly:


Quote:

However, the early Caliphs, who enjoyed a rare ingenuity which was unavailable to the propagandists of new faiths, realized that laws and religion cannot be imposed by force. Hence they were remarkably kind in the way they treated the peoples of Syria, Egypt, Spain and every other country they subdued, leaving them to practice their laws and regulations and beliefs and imposing only a small Jizya in return for their protection and keeping peace among them. In truth, nations have never known merciful and tolerant conquerors like the Arabs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Alexandria_%28641%29

The reality is, islam created the most tolerant, cosmopolitan societies of its time - and this was the key to the great cultural flowering that occured in the muslim world, which was so instrumental in creating western prosperity later on.

A lot of hot air and empty bluster.  Islam creates backward societies. Muslims are leaving these backward societies for the West. The West creates open societies. No Westerners are permanently leaving the West for Muslim societies.

Muslims are leaving Muslim lands as refugees and seek refuge in the West. Thwey have given up on 'Muslim lands'.


No Westerner seeks refuge in Islam. Islam is creating societies people want to flee. Nobody wants to flee Western societies.

thats not what I'm debating soren. No one in their right mind can dispute that the west today is a more prosperous and free place than the islamic world.

I was merely disputing your bullshit claim that islam deserves no credit for the advancement of knowledge that made the west what it is today.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 10:34am:

MM, I'm quite ignorant of Islamic history so I'm somewhat hesitant to put this out there, but haven't most countries with Muslim majorities been colonised or suffered from significant Western meddling? And aren't most post-colonial countries left in states of chaos and instability?

Islam was hassling, menacing and monstering the West and the East for all but the last 300 years. Nobody in the West has ever used this as an excuse for their shortcomings.

Muslims lorded it over all and sundry for a thousand years but now  kvetch, complain and whinge about the 300 years when they were put back in their box and were dragged, kicking and screaming, into modernity.

if it wasn't for 'colonisation', Islamic countries would still be living in the 14th century. And anyway, you never hear the Muslims apologising for conquering and colonising the whole of the Eastern Roman Empire. Why is that? Why aren't the Muslims apologising for conquering all that land, subjugating all those people,  between India and Spain?

Why not prostate yourselves and grovel and apologise profusely? Why are you always, always, always making yourselves out to be the victims when you have been the most notorious, most ruthless, most chauvinistic conquerors in history? When will Muslims apologise for colonising everything outside Mecca and Medina?

Your two-faced, utterly opportunistic hypocrisy is frankly breathtaking.


So, Annie, with all respect, a "wake the fook up" is the correct response to you and all other Muslims peddling your sort of self-serving bvllshit.

Respect - you are not earning any.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 10:34am:

MM, I'm quite ignorant of Islamic history so I'm somewhat hesitant to put this out there, but haven't most countries with Muslim majorities been colonised or suffered from significant Western meddling? And aren't most post-colonial countries left in states of chaos and instability?

I don't buy that angle.
The problem with all Islamic countries is its metaphysics. Look at what they hold as important; what is it they value? Submission to a transcendent god. And they're willing to enforce this brutally. If submitting to a god is held as the highest value, and all other considerations play second fiddle, then their societies will reflect that. Infrastructure, science, and the arts will hardly rate a mention.

Contrast this with what the west values.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 8:01pm:

thats not what I'm debating soren. No one in their right mind can dispute that the west today is a more prosperous and free place than the islamic world. I was merely disputing your bullshit claim that islam deserves no credit for the advancement of knowledge that made the west what it is today.

To what end? If the west today has the east to thank for its advances a millennium ago, should not the east likewise thank the west for the advances it gave a millennium earlier?

A leads to B which leads to C. Saying that C (west today) should thank B (Islam 1000AD) while ignoring A (Hellenization 300BC) seems to be rather arbitrary. Of course admittedly we could go back further to the developments of the Persian, Assyrian, Babylonian times throughout Mesopotamia, but there is a less obvious connection of these civilizations to the latter development of Macedonia. The point being that when Islam left its caves and sand dunes it swallowed a civilization already very advanced due to the spreading of technology and philosophy from Europe. The east simply took what the west had and developed it quicker than the west for a short time. It was hardly the beginning itself.

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 8:03pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 10:34am: MM, I'm quite ignorant of Islamic history so I'm somewhat hesitant to put this out there, but haven't most countries with Muslim majorities been colonised or suffered from significant Western meddling? And aren't most post-colonial countries left in states of chaos and instability? Islam was hassling, menacing and monstering the West and the East for all but the last 300 years. Nobody in the West has ever used this as an excuse for their shortcomings. Muslims lorded it over all and sundry for a thousand years but now  kvetch, complain and whinge about the 300 years when they were put back in their box and were dragged, kicking and screaming, into modernity. if it wasn't for 'colonisation', Islamic countries would still be living in the 14th century. And anyway, you never hear the Muslims apologising for conquering and colonising the whole of the Eastern Roman Empire. Why is that? Why aren't the Muslims apologising for conquering all that land, subjugating all those people,  between India and Spain? Why not prostate yourselves and grovel and apologise profusely? Why are you always, always, always making yourselves out to be the victims when you have been the most notorious, most ruthless, most chauvinistic conquerors in history? When will Muslims apologise for colonising everything outside Mecca and Medina?

I say, old chap, that’s a bit rough. Medina produced some marvellous wine if I’m not mistaken - not to mention that wonderful Persian shiraz. Those Muselmen were merely bringing us civilization, what. In vino veritas, eh?

Some wine, a piece of cheese, and thee, eh?

Marvellous stuff.

Not a teetotaler, are you, old boy?

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 8:03pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 10:34am: MM, I'm quite ignorant of Islamic history so I'm somewhat hesitant to put this out there, but haven't most countries with Muslim majorities been colonised or suffered from significant Western meddling? And aren't most post-colonial countries left in states of chaos and instability? Islam was hassling, menacing and monstering the West and the East for all but the last 300 years. Nobody in the West has ever used this as an excuse for their shortcomings. Muslims lorded it over all and sundry for a thousand years but now  kvetch, complain and whinge about the 300 years when they were put back in their box and were dragged, kicking and screaming, into modernity. if it wasn't for 'colonisation', Islamic countries would still be living in the 14th century. And anyway, you never hear the Muslims apologising for conquering and colonising the whole of the Eastern Roman Empire. Why is that? Why aren't the Muslims apologising for conquering all that land, subjugating all those people,  between India and Spain? Why not prostate yourselves and grovel and apologise profusely? Why are you always, always, always making yourselves out to be the victims when you have been the most notorious, most ruthless, most chauvinistic conquerors in history? When will Muslims apologise for colonising everything outside Mecca and Medina?

I say, old chap, that’s a bit rough. Medina produced some marvellous wine if I’m not mistaken - not to mention that wonderful Persian shiraz. Those Muselmen were merely bringing us civilization, what. In vino veritas, eh?

Some wine, a piece of cheese, and thee, eh?

Marvellous stuff.

Not a teetotaler, are you, old boy? I’ve never met a cheese dealer I could trust.

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 9:29am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 21st, 2013 at 9:59pm: Soren wrote on Feb 21st, 2013 at 9:07pm: My sentiments entirely.  Why embark on all this education and outreach, why buy into and import Islam's internal struggle so it has now become our problem as well - when we could just say No? highlighted for irony. ;D ;D Soren, I couldn't agree more! Why meddle in muslims lands and import their greivances and problems here? - why illegally invade sovereign muslim countries for oil? why support Israel unconditionally in their wars of aggression and ethnic cleansing? THAT is what creates the terrorist threat in the west Soren - no matter how much we try and convince ourselves its about them "hating our freedom" or whatever. As it stands, the majority of law abiding muslims in the west are stuck between a rock and a hard place - fighting a war on two fronts. On the one hand they are doing absolutely the right and proper thing by protesting strongly against western meddling and aggression in muslim lands - because they know this is the root cause of terrorism - and on the other hand trying to keep a lid on emotional reactions to this western meddling from a minority of hot-headed impressionable muslims. So yeah Soren, please promote this surprisingly enlightened message of yours to our political leaders loud and clear: stop the meddling in the internal affairs of the muslim world and importing their greivances and making it our problem as well! In Islam there is: No freedom of speech No freedom of association No freedom of the press No equality before the law No freedom of conscience Polygamy and gender segregation Are these all due to western meddling?

Rubbish.

Don’t forget cheese. Your Muselman, see, has strict cheese laws in place. Rennet is strictly verboten.

It does make one question the loyalties of various cheese-fanciers among us, what.

I’ve never met a cheese lobbyist I could trust.

I take it Geerty’s an Edam man. Of the soil, what. Like Adam.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 9:33pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 10:34am: MM, I'm quite ignorant of Islamic history so I'm somewhat hesitant to put this out there, but haven't most countries with Muslim majorities been colonised or suffered from significant Western meddling? And aren't most post-colonial countries left in states of chaos and instability? I don't buy that angle. The problem with all Islamic countries is its metaphysics. Look at what they hold as important; what is it they value? Submission to a transcendent god. And they're willing to enforce this brutally. If submitting to a god is held as the highest value, and all other considerations play second fiddle, then their societies will reflect that. Infrastructure, science, and the arts will hardly rate a mention. Contrast this with what the west values.

That's a fair point, but wasn't that submission still the be all and end all a thousand years ago when Muslims were making extensive valuable contributions to progress at that time?

Quantum wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 11:04pm:

A leads to B which leads to C. Saying that C (west today) should thank B (Islam 1000AD) while ignoring A (Hellenization 300BC) seems to be rather arbitrary.

Thats not what I said at all. Both definitely deserve credit.


Quote:

The point being that when Islam left its caves and sand dunes it swallowed a civilization already very advanced due to the spreading of technology and philosophy from Europe.

You're merely parotting soren's argument, which I have already addressed. Culture and knowledge didn't merely thrive under islam despite islam - islam was very much an active driver. Especially under the Abbasids, science and art was actively pursued and encouraged under islam. Baghdad was only founded under islam, and quickly became the largest city in the world - and a thriving cultural hub. Says wikipedia:

Quote:

Within a generation of its founding, Baghdad became a hub of learning and commerce. The House of Wisdom was an establishment dedicated to the translation of Greek, Middle Persian and Syriac works. Scholars headed to Baghdad from all over the Abbasid empire, facilitating the introduction of Persian, Greek and Indian science into the Arabic and Islamic world at that time. Baghdad was likely the largest city in the world from shortly after its foundation until the 930s, when it was tied by Córdoba.[28] Several estimates suggest that the city contained over a million inhabitants at its peak.[29] Many of the One Thousand and One Nights tales are set in Baghdad during this period.

And as mentioned before, Spain was a thriving cosmopolitan cultural hub under islam.


Quote:

The east simply took what the west had and developed it quicker than the west for a short time. It was hardly the beginning itself.

not quite. Islam made significant advances of their own - especially in medicine and other sciences, which was of instrumental importance for the later advancement of the west.

But even as "protectors" of ancient knowledge, they deserve credit. Its certainly makes a mockery of your and soren's depiction of islam "crawling out of their caves" and smashing their way through the civilised world like a wrecking ball. (see my previous quote from historian LeBon). A real example of this sort of wrecking ball would be the Mongols crashing through the islamic world in the 13th century - and arguably the biggest single factor leading to the ending of islam's golden age and the start of a long decline.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 10:06am:

but wasn't that submission still the be all and end all a thousand years ago when Muslims were making extensive valuable contributions to progress at that time?

Of course it was. What is MM trying to say - that muslim became more "devout" in the last 800 years than they were during period of the golden age? Sounds like baseless nonsense - but even if he's right, what is the evidence that this led to islam's decline?

Islam's caliphate declined for the same reasons all expansive empires ruled by a central authority decline - it fragmented, became plagued by civil war - leading eventually to attack by foreign powers - most spectacularly the Mongols (and its interesting to note that the islamic world almost certainly provided a buffer that saved the west from destruction). Even so, what should be acknowledged is that for such a vast empire - stretching from Persia to Spain - it remained unified and prosperous for a remarkably long time.

So when is the next hate prophet doing a speaking tour of the mosques? The same muslims protesting about Geert Wilders will be up the front row.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 10:30am:

not quite. Islam made significant advances of their own - especially in medicine and other sciences, which was of instrumental importance for the later advancement of the west. But even as "protectors" of ancient knowledge, they deserve credit. Its certainly makes a mockery of your and soren's depiction of islam "crawling out of their caves" and smashing their way through the civilised world like a wrecking ball. (see my previous quote from historian LeBon). A real example of this sort of wrecking ball would be the Mongols crashing through the islamic world in the 13th century - and arguably the biggest single factor leading to the ending of islam's golden age and the start of a long decline.

There was undoubtedly a period in Islam when it was more benign. But it was ended by Muslims, in the name of Islam.
That the Mongols were a calamity (and not just for the Muslims)  is true but to blame them for the decline is the usual Muslim self-serving distortion. Islam was expanding after the Mongols. The Ottoman Empire spread as far as the gates of Vienna in the 17th century. (Incidentally, the Mongols also spread almost as far as Vienna yet you don't hear the Austrians blaming them for their loss of geopolitical significance. They do have the maturity and sense not to blame the present on what happened 800 years ago. Can't say that the same maturity and common sense can be attributed to Muslim like you.)

Muslims want to dine out forever on the brief period 800 years ago when they were not the byword for incurious, dogmatic, fanatical and reactionary. But that brief period will not counter the subsequent long march to down the fatalistic rabbit hole of Islam, in the burrows of which legendary decadence and sensuality is wrestling with grim, grizzly punitive fanaticism.


Islam has always painted itself into an oppositional corner. It always opposes whatever is the going thing because it will always 1/ insist on idealising the 7th century and 2/ insist on remaining unchanged and unchangable. In a world that is neither tribal nor feudal, thi sort of thing is startling and anachronistic.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 10:30am:

Quantum wrote on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 11:04pm: A leads to B which leads to C. Saying that C (west today) should thank B (Islam 1000AD) while ignoring A (Hellenization 300BC) seems to be rather arbitrary. Thats not what I said at all. Both definitely deserve credit. Quote: The point being that when Islam left its caves and sand dunes it swallowed a civilization already very advanced due to the spreading of technology and philosophy from Europe. You're merely parotting soren's argument, which I have already addressed. Culture and knowledge didn't merely thrive under islam despite islam - islam was very much an active driver. Especially under the Abbasids, science and art was actively pursued and encouraged under islam. Baghdad was only founded under islam, and quickly became the largest city in the world - and a thriving cultural hub. Says wikipedia: [quote]Within a generation of its founding, Baghdad became a hub of learning and commerce. The House of Wisdom was an establishment dedicated to the translation of Greek, Middle Persian and Syriac works. Scholars headed to Baghdad from all over the Abbasid empire, facilitating the introduction of Persian, Greek and Indian science into the Arabic and Islamic world at that time. Baghdad was likely the largest city in the world from shortly after its foundation until the 930s, when it was tied by Córdoba.[28] Several estimates suggest that the city contained over a million inhabitants at its peak.[29] Many of the One Thousand and One Nights tales are set in Baghdad during this period.

And as mentioned before, Spain was a thriving cosmopolitan cultural hub under islam.


Quote:

The east simply took what the west had and developed it quicker than the west for a short time. It was hardly the beginning itself.

not quite. Islam made significant advances of their own - especially in medicine and other sciences, which was of instrumental importance for the later advancement of the west.

But even as "protectors" of ancient knowledge, they deserve credit. Its certainly makes a mockery of your and soren's depiction of islam "crawling out of their caves" and smashing their way through the civilised world like a wrecking ball. (see my previous quote from historian LeBon). A real example of this sort of wrecking ball would be the Mongols crashing through the islamic world in the 13th century - and arguably the biggest single factor leading to the ending of islam's golden age and the start of a long decline.
[/quote]

Which all seems to be ignoring my main point;


Quote:

The east simply took what the west had and developed it quicker than the west for a short time. It was hardly the beginning itself.

I am certainly not ignoring the contribution Islam has made to our understanding of the world. But you seem to be overstating that benefit by saying;


Quote:

"Islam made significant advances of their own - especially in medicine and other sciences, which was of instrumental importance for the later advancement of the west."

Which to me is ignoring the foundations in which Islam itself built from. "Instrumental importance" would be more along the lines of; if not for Islam we wouldn't have cars, aeroplane, computers, or skyscrapers. If someone hammers a few nails halfway through the construction of a new house they have certainly helped build it, but it a big claim that if not for them the house would never have been built.

Where do you think the west would be today if not for Islam's influences? would we have penicillin and the steam engine, or would the west today look like a scene out of Robin Hood?

Quantum wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:20am:

Which all seems to be ignoring my main point; Quote: The east simply took what the west had and developed it quicker than the west for a short time. It was hardly the beginning itself.

no, I addressed this, as well as the same point raised by soren.

Once again, the cultural flowering that happened under the Abbasids in hubs like Baghdad and Cordoba cannot be dismissed as merely "swallowing a civilization already very advanced", and "simply taking what the west had already developed" - but as the creation of an entire civilization itself - the islamic civilization. You don't create such significant cultural hubs as Baghdad from scratch, which became the largest and most prosperous city in the world - and just dismiss it as "swallowing a civilization already very advanced".


Quantum wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:20am:

I am certainly not ignoring the contribution Islam has made to our understanding of the world.

perhaps not, but certainly defamatory phrases like islam "crawled out of their caves and sandunes" and merely "swallowed up" what was already developed - is a distortion of history. Islam had an astonishing golden era, in which an entire civilization was created that indisputably had a profound impact on the development of our modern world. Its this point that you and soren have so much difficulty acknowledging - even when you say you do, you still want to hark back to your wrecking ball meme, and claim islam merely 'swallowed up' what others had developed before.

And finally, I don't dismiss the decline the islamic world over the last 800 years or so - which has created stagnation in knowledge and culture. But it should also be acknowledged that islam's "golden era" spanned a period that is pretty standard for empires that large before they enter a period of decline - 500 years, which is certainly longer than many of the largest empires - longer than the ancient persian empire, longer than Alexander's Greek empire, and longer even than the British empire. Keeping in mind that the "age of the west" that we are currently in has only lasted about 500 years too - and virtually no one disputes that we are already in decline. Almost certainly it will be islam's time again, and of course when it re-emerges, it will be "standing on the shoulders" to a very large degree, of the contributions made by western european society - just as europe did with islam when it emerged out of the dark ages about 500 years ago.

I wonder how many Muslims will cry freedom of speech when the next touring hate prophet calls for the destruction of Israel at some Australian mosque. Will you do the same thing Gandalf? Or will you just pass it over like most muslims do.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Once again, the cultural flowering that happened under the Abbasids in hubs like Baghdad and Cordoba cannot be dismissed as merely "swallowing a civilization already very advanced", and "simply taking what the west had already developed" - but as the creation of an entire civilization itself - the islamic civilization. You don't create such significant cultural hubs as Baghdad from scratch, which became the largest and most prosperous city in the world - and just dismiss it as "swallowing a civilization already very advanced".

Timeline. Baghdad was created after much of the Byzantine lands had fallen to Islam. Cities such as Jerusalem, Alexandria, as well as the many other cities of the Levant were all conquered before Baghdad was created. On top of this was also the conquest of the Persians during this time. Whilst the Persians are not "western", they were certainly not Islamic.

In the 7th century Islam by force conquers two of the greatest civilizations to have existed; The Persians and the eastern half of the Roman empire. In the 8th century they create Baghdad in what was former Persian territory. How is this not swallowing civilizations that were already very advanced and building off of what others have developed? The knowledge of Baghdad hardly arose from a clean sheet.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:22pm:

And finally, I don't dismiss the decline the islamic world over the last 800 years or so - which has created stagnation in knowledge and culture.

Actually, closing of the Islamic mind 800 years ago did not lead to its decline. It continued to expand under the Ottomans.
The decline started when the expansion stopped under the walls of Vienna.

For Islam, conquest was its sustenance, not learning, innovation, culture. It has re-ignited its expansionist energies on the back of oil money and the spread of Muslim migrants around the world.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 10:46am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 10:06am: but wasn't that submission still the be all and end all a thousand years ago when Muslims were making extensive valuable contributions to progress at that time? Of course it was. What is MM trying to say - that muslim became more "devout" in the last 800 years than they were during period of the golden age? Sounds like baseless nonsense - but even if he's right, what is the evidence that this led to islam's decline? Islam's caliphate declined for the same reasons all expansive empires ruled by a central authority decline - it fragmented, became plagued by civil war - leading eventually to attack by foreign powers - most spectacularly the Mongols (and its interesting to note that the islamic world almost certainly provided a buffer that saved the west from destruction). Even so, what should be acknowledged is that for such a vast empire - stretching from Persia to Spain - it remained unified and prosperous for a remarkably long time.

Apparently the Ottomans also banned the printing press. The religious leaders were fetishists of caligraphy. The sultans overturned this when they realised the military importance of the scientific revolution, and imported texts from Western Europe.

So once, where the Ottomans were responsible for exporting Aristotle and others to the West, they were now importing Western ideas. And yes, a corrupt, oligarchical political system was also to blame. Rich families bought their way into positions of power - a practice I would have thought antithetical to Islam and much more in line with the Romans during their decline.

I agree. The Ottomans didn’t decline under the weight of Islam, but the inflexible burden of empire and centralised power.

Soren wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

For Islam, conquest was its sustenance, not learning, innovation, culture.

except when it wasn't  ::)

Firstly, I am not talking about, nor was I ever talking about the Ottoman empire. The golden period I have been talking about lasted for a good 500 years - and most of those years did not involve any conquering (all the conquesting happened very early on). Thus it absolutely *WAS* the case that this great civilization was sustained by learning, innovation and culture.

Secondly, the period of spectacular islamic conquest deserves more analysis than the dismissive "emerged out of their caves like a wrecking ball" footnote we get in western textbooks. Think about it, an ill equipped amateur army of no more than 10 000 at any give time conquered the entire middle east - including Egypt and much of North Africa - in the space of just 30 years - and we're supposed to buy the standard 'barbaric wrecking ball' explanation?? Ridiculous. Islam could only have been that successful if it offered something that the inhabitants of those conquered lands would welcome the islamic armies as liberators.

That they did. Islam's legal code including the dhimmi system was revolutionary in the way it treated their non-muslim subjects. In fact, the dhimmi system, with the revenue it created for the caliphate, gave the muslim conquerers the best incentive not to force convert their subjects, and allowing them to continue worshipping and going about their business. Little wonder that cities all over the Persian and Byzantine empires opened their gates to the muslim liberators

What does this mean for the development of islamic civilization? All the non-muslim subjects - which included scholars, translators etc, were free to go about their business, contributing to the cultural flowering and advancement of islamic civilization. This included a significant jewish population (up to 1/3 of the population of Baghdad was jewish) - who as we all know were ostrasised and suffering periodic pogroms in Europe.

But not only were the existing non-muslim population relatively free under islamic rule, but under the golden age, the caliphs actively encouraged foreigners in to exchange ideas and knowledge - and add to the advancement of their civilization.


Quote:

In the 7th century Islam by force conquers two of the greatest civilizations to have existed; The Persians and the eastern half of the Roman empire. In the 8th century they create Baghdad in what was former Persian territory. How is this not swallowing civilizations that were already very advanced and building off of what others have developed?

Well yes, they did swallow other civilizations and build on what was already developed - but understand that you are describing every single other civilization throughout history. Thats how ALL civilizations develop - off the back of what was there previously. It is a fallacy for you to say islam could not have created its own rich civilization - simply because it picked up what was already there and developed it further. No civilization in all of history has been created completely from scratch.

What you are and soren (and the standard western myth about the spread of islam) claim happens is more accurately describing the Mongol conquests of the 13th century. When the Mongols crashed through most of the islamic world - including the capture of Baghdad - what great cultural legacy did they leave? What great cultural and learning hubs did they create at the very crossroads of Greek, Persian, hindu, jewish - not to mention islamic civilizations? They left nothing except permanent cultural decline in those areas. Note that this is the exact opposite of what happened when the "islamic hordes" "crashed" through the middle east in the 8th century.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 10:06am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 9:33pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 10:34am: MM, I'm quite ignorant of Islamic history so I'm somewhat hesitant to put this out there, but haven't most countries with Muslim majorities been colonised or suffered from significant Western meddling? And aren't most post-colonial countries left in states of chaos and instability? I don't buy that angle. The problem with all Islamic countries is its metaphysics. Look at what they hold as important; what is it they value? Submission to a transcendent god. And they're willing to enforce this brutally. If submitting to a god is held as the highest value, and all other considerations play second fiddle, then their societies will reflect that. Infrastructure, science, and the arts will hardly rate a mention. Contrast this with what the west values. That's a fair point, but wasn't that submission still the be all and end all a thousand years ago when Muslims were making extensive valuable contributions to progress at that time?

I can't say for sure as I am not an Islamic historian. But I doubt it was. Advancements and/or progress of any kind requires questioning, curiousness, experimentation, and the freedom to be able to do this (negative freedom). How can one submit to the laws of a single god or book (Koran) and make progress at the same time? There's an element of rebellion in all progress.

The scientific revolution in Europe occurred when Platonic metaphysics was overturned. The truth wasn't found in abstract "forms" via meditation any more. "The New Method," as Francis Bacon claimed, was to be found in scientific method or natural philosophy - observation, cognition, theory, experiment, data collection, collation of data, hypothesis. Truths were brought down to earth.

Islam today is still a form of Platonism (and ironically partly Jewish). Truths that exist in an "other-worldy" realm and not of this earth are Platonized metaphysics (of which he probably inherited from Jews and Egyptians). Until Muslims change their metaphysics, and re-order their priorities and values they will remain backward.

Ah - how can you submit to the laws of Gud and study the natural laws of  science?

When your scriptures teach that those laws are one and the same.

In the Muslim world, all that study of maths, astronomy and geometry was about uncovering the mind of Gud. This wasn’t "out there" somewhere, but here in the social, celestial and natural world. Islam is far more Aristotelian than Platonic.

Karnal wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:39pm:

Ah - how can you submit to the laws of Gud and study the natural laws of  science? When your scriptures teach that those laws are one and the same. In the Muslim world, all that study of maths, astronomy and geometry was about uncovering the mind of Gud. This wasn’t "out there" somewhere, but here in the social, celestial and natural world. Islam is far more Aristotelian than Platonic.

I would surmise you are correct in that 800 years ago it was more Aristotelian. That is the only rational explanation for why there could have been discoveries. The early sciences in Europe started out exactly the same way. 

True. They got their inspiration from the same place - the Greek texts that came out of Byzantium/Constantinople.

Shakespeare, for example, made Othello a Moor for a reason. The Elizabethans looked at the Islamic world as a place of science, reason and logic. Venice at the time was the centre of Western trade with the East - hence the Islamic influence and the presence of Muslim immigrants like Othello.

Shakespeare, of course, didn’t choose an Ottoman, but a Moor - a civilization that was in decline during Shakespeare’s time. There were no doubt political reasons for this, although I’m not sure where England’s alliances lay at the time.

Who knows? England may very well have supported an Ottoman conquest of its enemies.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 4:12pm:

That they did. Islam's legal code including the dhimmi system was revolutionary in the way it treated their non-muslim subjects. In fact, the dhimmi system, with the revenue it created for the caliphate, gave the muslim conquerers the best incentive not to force convert their subjects, and allowing them to continue worshipping and going about their business. Little wonder that cities all over the Persian and Byzantine empires opened their gates to the muslim liberators What does this mean for the development of islamic civilization? All the non-muslim subjects - which included scholars, translators etc, were free to go about their business, Quote: In the 7th century Islam by force conquers two of the greatest civilizations to have existed; The Persians and the eastern half of the Roman empire. In the 8th century they create Baghdad in what was former Persian territory. How is this not swallowing civilizations that were already very advanced and building off of what others have developed?

The dhimmi paid the jizya which is a tax on non muslims, think of it like the protection money paid to the mafia.
The mafia and Islam are the only 2 cults with the death penalty for leaving in 2013/

Cyrus the great abolished slavery around 530BC only for it to return when those taazi camel jockeys invaded from Arabia and spread desolation and delusion known as Islam.
Cyrus the great outlawed slavery and Mohammad sold people into slavery to get money for weapons and horses.

ian wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 10:00pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 9:55pm: Whether it is an ideology or religion doesn't matter as they both have a set of practices and a doctrine that is adhered to. It's a 7th century religion that is incompatible with liberal democracy. The insertion of race into the argument is done by the left to try and gain some traction over the existing arguments. They can't argue for Islam on cultural grounds, so they use the racist tag to demean opposition, as if this somehow makes their 7th century religion more acceptable to modern standards. Nonsense, to start with, you dont even understand that the majority of the worlds Muslims do not live in the middle east and are as moderate as most Christians in western countries. All you are doing is spewing right wing rhetoric you probably heard on the talk back radio. If you cant distinguish between culture and religion then you shouldnt even be in this debate.

"....the majority of the worlds Muslims....are as moderate as most Christians..."

Not so.

In fact it is an outright lie, and your worthless assertion is utter 'nonsense'.

In fact in this world, a person cannot tell a BIGGER lie, than to state that a moslem can be a moderate, tolerant, peaceful person [and still remain an 'obedient' moslem].


THE TRUTH IS THAT;
A moslem chooses to be a moslem.
And a moslem is not a moslem, unless he/she obeys Allah/Koran.
And, no-one, who calls themselves a moslem, can be a 'moderate', or a [sincere and] peaceful person, towards disbelievers.

THE TRUTH IS THAT;
Allah/Koran encourages, and requires [obligates] all moslems to fight in Allah's cause, and to fight to enslave or murder those persons who do not believe as moslems believe [and that, is 'Allah's cause', i.e. to fight/'struggle' against disbelievers].
[If disbelievers are stronger than moslems, moslems are allowed to pretend to be the friends of disbelievers.]

Who is a moslem?
A moslem is both a deceiver, and a deceived person, whose sole [or soul?] purpose ['for being'] in life is to fight/'struggle' in Allah's cause.
Who is a moslem?
A moslem is a cursed soul who hates and rejects truth.

just for moslems....
What Every Christian Needs to Know About Islam (Full)                        goto 12m 30s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvytIrsfkZA




Google;
taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit

Google;
we smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"i


+++

NO MOSLEM CAN BE A FRIEND OF DISBELIEVERS - ALLAH'S COMMAND


"....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


"...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of [i.e. for] those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:.."
Koran 4.74-76


"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


"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him;...."
Koran 3.85


"And fight with them until.....religion should be only for Allah,..."
Koran 2.193


"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
hadithsunnah/bukhari #004.052.196




MOSLEMS CANNOT BE THE FRIENDS OF DISBELIEVERS

ISLAM DOES NOT PERMIT MOSLEMS TO BE THE FRIENDS OF DISBELIEVERS

"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51

i.e.
In Koran 5.51, Allah declares, that a moslem who makes a sincere friendship with an disbelievers, or who truly gives their allegiance to an un-ISLAMIC community;
1/ makes himself/herself an enemy of Allah,
2/ makes himself/herself an 'unbeliever',
3/ becomes an 'apostate'/rebel, and,
4/ is worthy of death, at the hand of obedient moslems.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

jizya is a tax on non muslims

I thought it was the name of that Muslim cultural centre-cum-gay bathhouse they wanted to set up near the WTC site, 'Jizz Ya'. There was a whole debate about it in The New York Times.

Now now, old chap, no need to vilify our gay brothers and sistas for fighting for their right to party, as it were. I thought you of all people would welcome such a tolerant stance towards our hommersexual brethren.