aikmann4 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 9:23pm:

??

I was tackling - if that's the word I want - the open face issue.


The Muslim tendency to cover the face of women and of, er. warriors, is profoundly telling, in my view. These open faces, on the other hand,  speak of openness, actors though they are. The self-revelation of acting is anathema to islam. It invites interpretation and empathy, not blind submission.

Quote:


Yeh this shows just how serious they are about it. Hypocrites.

After all this time soren, you still haven't been able to realise that exposing oneself in public and contravening public decency laws is not the same as trying to force someone to expose themselves...

It's quite ironic that this kind of garbage is usually portrayed as "protecting women's rights", when it reality it's quite clearly eroding them. Forcing a woman to do stuff she doesn't want to. If France bans women from attending school due to her attire, it's liberation and fighting for her rights, if the Talibaan ban women from attending school it's oppressive. It's the same thing if you ask me.

The sad thing is, 20 odd years ago, your ilk would've been fighting the complete opposite fight. You would've been pushing for more individual freedom, rather than less. And the sinister thing is, you don't realise your governments will first use this kind of thing against Muslims, but they won't relinquish it, they'll then use it against the masses. You've compromised your principles, and one day will probably be subject to such restrictions yourself.

Quote:


BRAVO!!

Quote:


The point is not about Western women being forced to expose themselves, but Muslim women.

Your pathetically constructed argument revolves around the idea that "If they force us to cover up in their countries, we should force them to uncover in our countries".

This is just bollocks. Covering to fit within the public decency laws of a country is not the same as forcing someone to expose themselves. It's not a two way street. It's like a Canadian coming here and saying "Well back in my country it's allowed for a woman to walk down the street topless, and because you try to prevent us here, when you come to our country, we're going to force every Australian woman to walk around topless".

Soren wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 8:07pm:


Very interesting point you raise here, Soren. Of course, you're positing this from the vantage point of enemy yourself. And you're hoping for more war; more enemies - more death. It makes sense that you see Islam's purpose as to be your enemy unto death.

This stance on Islam is solely that of enemy. On this topic, there are no subtleties, no shades of grey, only blunt absolutes. This vision is so focused on the "enemy," I can't see how anyone could possibly learn anything new. Just hearing or reading the word "Muslim" must bring about a state of fight/flight where adrenaline floods the system, blood leaves the brain and flows to the outer extremities. Hence, there can be no understanding or knowledge, only a calloused form of attack and defence.

Which perpetuates itself, again and again and again. It certainly does on these pages, anyway.

It doesn't really matter whether the enemy is Islam or not. As it is defined here, it is nothing but an enemy. If there was no Islam, the enemy would need to be invented - as of course it has. The modern project that broadcasts this belief that they're all out to get us - that they would define themselves solely as our enemy - is fundamentally narcisistic.

In actual fact, Islam doesn't really matter at all. Hardly any on this board have much knowledge of it, and certainly no interest in it beyond its existence as an enemy of the West. Anything about Islam, of course; women in veils, bloodthirsty Koran passages, despotic rulers, etc, will be read as proof of its inherent evil.

I think most would propose that we shouldn't try to understand Islam at all, but simply defeat it. Interesting that we've already defeated two global enemies through the 20th Century: fascism and communism. I guess this is proof that it is possible to defeat enemies.

But not to eliminate them. Alas - another always appears!

The war is with Eurasia. The war has always been with Eurasia.

It's never personal, no matter how many emotions  are churned up. The enemy is created for us - it comes as a package, just like a holiday in Bali or a suit off the rack.

The presence of this process is a huge threat to the ego. I know this from personal experience - when enemies are exposed or uncovered, I feel anxious, and this perpetuates the process of defending and justifying and bickering and fighting. Ultimately, this is why we have the enemy: to keep the defenses up - and to keep the focus off ourselves.

We need the enemy because we feel exposed without it. We feel empty and depressed, and we feel this because we realise how futile the whole game is.

Really, the enemy is our best friend, but very few realise this.

The rest are led blindly into war for no other reason than "Islam is the enemy of the West, and has always been the enemy of the West."