fawkes wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 8:34am:



And do you recall what brought that about?

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:


If it comes freediver, it will be you and your sort who invited it. You're not afraid of facing your comeuppance, are you?

fawkes wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 10:15pm:


You are so far away from getting it Fawkes, that it is almost funny.
The guys who started this whole Islamist garbage did so in reaction to western "culture", not western "imperialism", the local people were starting to enjoy the benefits that came from modernisation, they liked the idea of having a say in their own lives, but the extremist crackpots wedded to fundamentalist Islam could not handle that at all, and sought to crush any free thought in Islamic culture, and decided they needed to demonise all western culture to acvhieve that end.

They are not content to keep their foul actions, which we have plainly seen perpetrated by the likes of the Taliban, and the Iranian despots, contained to their own lands.
Unfortunately, decent folk all over the world, who despise totalitarianism wherever it may rear it's ugly face, are confronted with the growing influx of muslims into western countries, shamelessly demanding their hosts abrogate their own standards in favour of the medieval mindset of mad mullahs.
Now these decent people speak out against the excesses of these lunatic regimes, as well as the excesses of their own governments, and cultures, where appropriate, yet these muslim migrants have the temerity to demand we abrogate our own culture, in favour of outdated and barbaric Islamic ideology, so that they can practice inappropriate behaviours like polygamy, and child marriage, along with the usual raft of anachronistic behaviours.

Go to europe where these extremists have already successfully coeced local authoritiies into granting aspects of sharia law to be practiced, instead of just respecting the laws and customs, as they promised when moving to the countries they chose to settle in.
Go and witness their uncompromising assault on western ideals, and values, and then tell me that they just want to be free to follow their beliefs in their own countries.
Most objective people recognise that for the open deceit that it is.

The fact of the matter is that muslims "actively" seek to have sharia law implemented in every nation on earth, and they do not mind in the least if they have to use violene to achieve that goal.

Even Abu, an aussie who converted to Islam is committed to seeing our way of life overturned in favour of his adopted religion's strict sharia principles.

So just how you see those facts fitting in with the fantasy being peddled, that if muslims are just left to their own devices, they will somehow magically jettison a cornerstone of their ideology, the imposition of a global caliphate, is one proposition you will need to convince me of, with far better arguments than any I have seen so far, from you or anyone else.

Just to show I am not totally without empathy for muslims, I will post a little cartoon that Abu may enjoy.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:


So which of them have had major military forces rampaging around in countries half a world away from their homelands, creating death and destruction for something approaching 10 years?

mozzaok wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:


Why let them in then, if they are so bad?

fawkes wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 9:00am:



As if the reasons for this conflict existed only in the minds of one American President and a British Prime Minister.

How different would the world be after the murder of two of the most important Western political figures? Indescribably worse for Muslims and Islam than it would be today. 

fawkes,

Quote:


I think some groups have just decided that "They do that to our civilians, so it's only fair to give them a taste of their own medicine". Doesn't make it right, but there's some quite obvious logic behind it.

The West are the ones who pioneered the whole idea that if you target the civilian population, and make them suffer, then they might overthrow or at least stop supporting the enemies, and then it's easier to take them out. They did this in the first Iraq war and the sanctions that followed in which they clearly stated that the Iraqi people will now want to rise up against Saddam due to the hardship he's put them under. The Zionists do it regularly in occupied Palestine, this is the whole rationale behind starving the Gazans into dropping their support for Hamas, and it's being used in Afghanistan and Iraq today where they hassle and target civilians and then inform them it's because of the Talibaan, and if they stop supporting them, then they won't get hassled. They imprison people for long periods of time, torture them, torture their family members etc. in order to "enact" such change in the population.

AQ learnt from the best...

The ironic thing is, the West package this strategy as "Winning the hearts and minds", when it does the complete opposite.

helian, I didn't state the logic is necessarily good logic, but there's logic to it. It doesn't seem to have just been done randomly or negligently.

Besides, it's not always the biggest dog that wins.

Rome was sacked by the Goths and Baghdad by the Mongols.. Both ragtag nomads who really seemed like no threat to the mighty empires they were to vanquish.

The day you become an expert on Jihad, Soren, is the day I'll read Kierkergard. In Danish.