Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 157 158 159 160 161 ... 188
Send Topic Print
spineless apologetics (Read 371654 times)
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 52842
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2370 - Apr 8th, 2018 at 9:18pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7th, 2018 at 6:15pm:
Fair enough Frank - you think its ok and not inconsistent with our values to deprive a certain group in our society of their freedoms - because they are so awful.

I can perhaps live with the idea of targeting a specific group for genuine security reasons, without affecting anyone else. Lets run with that then.

There still remains though a slippery slope argument, wouldn't you agree? I mean the problem is, you are not merely proposing a ban of things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society. You may argue that we are, but in reality, we are talking about mere items of clothing - which anyone can, and should be allowed to wear. Who decides what is "the uniform of the enemy", and what is merely a regular head covering? How far will the web need to spread to ensure that all targeted items are captured? How many innocents will be affected?

Do you not acknowledge that your proposal threatens a lot more people's freedom than merely the people you are targeting, and is therefore an attack on the values you profess to defend so rigorously?
   

I don't  want to ban you. I want to ridicule and expose you so you wake up,  be ashamed and change.

I do not respect your beliefs. They are ridiculous and dangerous. I want to be free to expose them for what they are.  You are using freedom not found anywhere in Islam to silence the critics and exposers of Islam.

The sunlight of reason exposes the ridiculousnes of Islam. You want that antiseptic to be stifled.





Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 98949
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2371 - Apr 9th, 2018 at 11:18am
 
Frank wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:27pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7th, 2018 at 6:15pm:
Fair enough Frank - you think its ok and not inconsistent with our values to deprive a certain group in our society of their freedoms - because they are so awful.

   

I would deprive everyone who doesn't share and uphold and cherish those freedoms , as Muslims don't.




You are only interested in freedom as long as it allows you to gain the power to abolish it.  Islam = SUBMISSION.



Sounds remarkably like a certain old boy we all know and love, old boy. Freeeeedom.

Rich tapestry, innit.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2372 - Apr 9th, 2018 at 12:22pm
 
Frank wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:20pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7th, 2018 at 6:15pm:
Fair enough Frank - you think its ok and not inconsistent with our values to deprive a certain group in our society of their freedoms - because they are so awful.

I can perhaps live with the idea of targeting a specific group for genuine security reasons, without affecting anyone else. Lets run with that then.

There still remains though a slippery slope argument, wouldn't you agree? I mean the problem is, you are not merely proposing a ban of things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society. You may argue that we are, but in reality, we are talking about mere items of clothing - which anyone can, and should be allowed to wear. Who decides what is "the uniform of the enemy", and what is merely a regular head covering? How far will the web need to spread to ensure that all targeted items are captured? How many innocents will be affected?

Do you not acknowledge that your proposal threatens a lot more people's freedom than merely the people you are targeting, and is therefore an attack on the values you profess to defend so rigorously?
   



Muslims are openly opposed to our society, values, system. have been from the start. Mohammed, illiterate and unlettered that he was, fancied himself as a supplanter of Jesus and all the Old Testament prophets.

He misunderstood everything, he misrepresented everything  -  and you signed up to it all because you wanted to revolt against Catholicism, the bad, stupid, unlettered and lost little Italian boy that you were.


But putting to one side your own silly personal animus - let Muslim men be as pious and covering up pf their sexual swagger as they want their women, all women, to be covered.

All the Muslim men  - big frikken hairy head, smug look, strutting mucking mutts - with their subjugated, sweaty, smelly (god those bints stink in all that heavy gear!!), oppressed and uncomfortable in tow.

Freedom to be a complete atavistic laughing stock.  You have no moral or any other claim to your stupidity and your strutting around like a load of out of place mental patients who have no frikkken idea of where they are.  You are startlingly stupid AND aggressive about your stupidity.

The nazis and the commies were like this and you are their successors.


Come now Frank, you're smarter than that.

Put some effort into it, will you?

Try answering my actual question, rather than simply using every response as an excuse to segue into rant mode.

Do you see any problem in terms of protecting the values you profess to hold so dearly, by supporting a ban (yes you do) on something so broad and ambiguous as a head covering (for example)? Please refer to my signature.

Proving to me that you really can restrict your bans only to these terrible, threatening people, without threatening the freedoms of everyone outside that group - would be an acceptable answer.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 52842
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2373 - Apr 9th, 2018 at 7:25pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 12:22pm:
Frank wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:20pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7th, 2018 at 6:15pm:
Fair enough Frank - you think its ok and not inconsistent with our values to deprive a certain group in our society of their freedoms - because they are so awful.

I can perhaps live with the idea of targeting a specific group for genuine security reasons, without affecting anyone else. Lets run with that then.

There still remains though a slippery slope argument, wouldn't you agree? I mean the problem is, you are not merely proposing a ban of things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society. You may argue that we are, but in reality, we are talking about mere items of clothing - which anyone can, and should be allowed to wear. Who decides what is "the uniform of the enemy", and what is merely a regular head covering? How far will the web need to spread to ensure that all targeted items are captured? How many innocents will be affected?

Do you not acknowledge that your proposal threatens a lot more people's freedom than merely the people you are targeting, and is therefore an attack on the values you profess to defend so rigorously?
   



Muslims are openly opposed to our society, values, system. have been from the start. Mohammed, illiterate and unlettered that he was, fancied himself as a supplanter of Jesus and all the Old Testament prophets.

He misunderstood everything, he misrepresented everything  -  and you signed up to it all because you wanted to revolt against Catholicism, the bad, stupid, unlettered and lost little Italian boy that you were.


But putting to one side your own silly personal animus - let Muslim men be as pious and covering up pf their sexual swagger as they want their women, all women, to be covered.

All the Muslim men  - big frikken hairy head, smug look, strutting mucking mutts - with their subjugated, sweaty, smelly (god those bints stink in all that heavy gear!!), oppressed and uncomfortable in tow.

Freedom to be a complete atavistic laughing stock.  You have no moral or any other claim to your stupidity and your strutting around like a load of out of place mental patients who have no frikkken idea of where they are.  You are startlingly stupid AND aggressive about your stupidity.

The nazis and the commies were like this and you are their successors.


Come now Frank, you're smarter than that.

Put some effort into it, will you?

Try answering my actual question, rather than simply using every response as an excuse to segue into rant mode.

Do you see any problem in terms of protecting the values you profess to hold so dearly, by supporting a ban (yes you do) on something so broad and ambiguous as a head covering (for example)? Please refer to my signature.

Proving to me that you really can restrict your bans only to these terrible, threatening people, without threatening the freedoms of everyone outside that group - would be an acceptable answer.



Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.




There are 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world, most of them in 57 countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

Why the bloody hell don't all those Muslim refugees go to any one of those 57 countries? Why do they all want to go to the infidel, kuffar countries?  Because they know that when Islam is in the political or civic mixt,thee place is bound to be mucked up big time.

But when they get here, they insist on being Islamic!!!! It makes sense only if they are part of an invading force that is planning to take over.  Western people know it, Muslims know it.   Keep Muslims in Muslim countries. Let them develop them according to the glorious   Tongue Roll Eyes Tongue tenets of Islam.

Christians, Jews, Buddhist refugees or migrants do not flock to Muslim countries, asserting their right to ignore or challenge Islamic customs and values.

Come to think of, Muslim refugees are not flocking to Muslim countries because they will not be taken in except as coolies and exploited guest workers.



Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 9th, 2018 at 7:58pm by Frank »  

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51285
At my desk.
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2374 - Apr 9th, 2018 at 8:38pm
 
Gandalf, if Muslims were a mindless collective intent on undermining our society, would it be reasonable to round them all up, inspect their genitals, and behead any found to be guilty?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 52842
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2375 - Apr 9th, 2018 at 8:59pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 8:38pm:
Gandalf, if Muslims were a mindless collective intent on undermining our society, would it be reasonable to round them all up, inspect their genitals, and behead any found to be guilty?



Oooohhhh.... trick question, Gandalf, careful!!


Should we treat Muslims as they treat their 'hinderers' (ie wage jihad on Muslims like you wage jihad on everyone who resists Islam by declaring it 'undermining'?)   Paying you back with your own coin - how would you like that?






Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2376 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 9:34am
 
Frank wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 7:25pm:
Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.


So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51285
At my desk.
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2377 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 12:19pm
 
Gandalf, if Muslims were a mindless collective intent on undermining our society, would it be reasonable to round them all up, inspect their genitals, and behead any found to be guilty?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 98949
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2378 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 1:55pm
 
Frank wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 7:25pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 12:22pm:
Frank wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:20pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7th, 2018 at 6:15pm:
Fair enough Frank - you think its ok and not inconsistent with our values to deprive a certain group in our society of their freedoms - because they are so awful.

I can perhaps live with the idea of targeting a specific group for genuine security reasons, without affecting anyone else. Lets run with that then.

There still remains though a slippery slope argument, wouldn't you agree? I mean the problem is, you are not merely proposing a ban of things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society. You may argue that we are, but in reality, we are talking about mere items of clothing - which anyone can, and should be allowed to wear. Who decides what is "the uniform of the enemy", and what is merely a regular head covering? How far will the web need to spread to ensure that all targeted items are captured? How many innocents will be affected?

Do you not acknowledge that your proposal threatens a lot more people's freedom than merely the people you are targeting, and is therefore an attack on the values you profess to defend so rigorously?
   



Muslims are openly opposed to our society, values, system. have been from the start. Mohammed, illiterate and unlettered that he was, fancied himself as a supplanter of Jesus and all the Old Testament prophets.

He misunderstood everything, he misrepresented everything  -  and you signed up to it all because you wanted to revolt against Catholicism, the bad, stupid, unlettered and lost little Italian boy that you were.


But putting to one side your own silly personal animus - let Muslim men be as pious and covering up pf their sexual swagger as they want their women, all women, to be covered.

All the Muslim men  - big frikken hairy head, smug look, strutting mucking mutts - with their subjugated, sweaty, smelly (god those bints stink in all that heavy gear!!), oppressed and uncomfortable in tow.

Freedom to be a complete atavistic laughing stock.  You have no moral or any other claim to your stupidity and your strutting around like a load of out of place mental patients who have no frikkken idea of where they are.  You are startlingly stupid AND aggressive about your stupidity.

The nazis and the commies were like this and you are their successors.


Come now Frank, you're smarter than that.

Put some effort into it, will you?

Try answering my actual question, rather than simply using every response as an excuse to segue into rant mode.

Do you see any problem in terms of protecting the values you profess to hold so dearly, by supporting a ban (yes you do) on something so broad and ambiguous as a head covering (for example)? Please refer to my signature.

Proving to me that you really can restrict your bans only to these terrible, threatening people, without threatening the freedoms of everyone outside that group - would be an acceptable answer.



Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.




There are 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world, most of them in 57 countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

Why the bloody hell don't all those Muslim refugees go to any one of those 57 countries? Why do they all want to go to the infidel, kuffar countries?  Because they know that when Islam is in the political or civic mixt,thee place is bound to be mucked up big time.

But when they get here, they insist on being Islamic!!!! It makes sense only if they are part of an invading force that is planning to take over.  Western people know it, Muslims know it.   Keep Muslims in Muslim countries. Let them develop them according to the glorious   Tongue Roll Eyes Tongue tenets of Islam.

Christians, Jews, Buddhist refugees or migrants do not flock to Muslim countries, asserting their right to ignore or challenge Islamic customs and values.

Come to think of, Muslim refugees are not flocking to Muslim countries because they will not be taken in except as coolies and exploited guest workers.



That's right, old boy. Why don't any of those Muslim refugees go to Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Pakistan, etc, etc, etc?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 98949
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2379 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 1:58pm
 
Frank wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 8:59pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 8:38pm:
Gandalf, if Muslims were a mindless collective intent on undermining our society, would it be reasonable to round them all up, inspect their genitals, and behead any found to be guilty?



Oooohhhh.... trick question, Gandalf, careful!!


Should we treat Muslims as they treat their 'hinderers' (ie wage jihad on Muslims like you wage jihad on everyone who resists Islam by declaring it 'undermining'?)   Paying you back with your own coin - how would you like that?


Exactly. G wages jihad on decent white people everywhere by accusing them of "undermining".

So unfair. So positively wacist.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 52842
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2380 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 7:29pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 9:34am:
Frank wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 7:25pm:
Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.


So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.



I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims (and anyone else) to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.

Absolutely. Islam is an alien, hostile creed. As are many other hostile, unfree and destructive creeds.  Islam has no universal human right to do away with universal human rights (a uniquely Western idea, rooted in Christianity.)

Islam is imposing itself by gradual coercion and pressure. It has zero chance of being openly embraced by its force of argument so it uses coercive and underhanded tactics, like deception (taqqiya), like lying about the nature of Islam ('religion of peace'), sharia and jihad, and terrorism implied and actual. 

Islam has absolutely no chance in the open and free exchange of ideas because it is nothing but Submission. It simply uses other people's decency to rob them of their freedom and force them into Submission. You are a knowing and active agent of that deception.  You cannot reason your way into Islam. You can only reason yourself OUT of it. Reason is anathema to Submission.

That is why you come up with the questions you just posted - self-reflection, self-knowledge, self-critical reflection are simply not in the Islamic consciousness. You cannot possibly be self-critical once you blindly and uncritically Submitted.

The West is all about critical self-reflection. Islam has no room for that. This is a fundamental reason for the incompatibility of the two and why Islam is invading and conquering not, ever, convincing by the force of reason. It cannot ever do this because Reason simply doesn't come into Islam BEFORE submission. Reason is only ever a mere tool for apologia and self-justification - see the history of the 'great translations' in the Islamic 'golden age'  - only interested in apologia, nothing else, certainly nothing potentially critical.

I give you one positive. Islam is keen on preserving its history and traditions while the West appears to be hell-bent on self-imposed forgetting and ignorance of its own history and what made it what it is. I can see very well why you Muslims are keen not to follow that idiotic and self-destructive streak in Western self-blame and the rush to forgetting.   But it's also in your interest to cultivate and exploit that Western stupidity and you, an agent of Islam, do this very well here every day, aided and abetted by your small coterie of fellow travellers and forgetting-merchants.

.






Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 10th, 2018 at 8:27pm by Frank »  

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 98949
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2381 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 7:43pm
 
Frank wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 7:29pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 9:34am:
Frank wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 7:25pm:
Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.


So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.



I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.


I know, old boy, but what if one were to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of, say, liking Danish?

What would you have to say about that?

In the words of the poetess, please explain?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2382 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 8:11pm
 
Frank wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 7:29pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 9:34am:
Frank wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 7:25pm:
Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.


So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.



I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.

Absolutely. Islam is an alien, hostile creed. Islam has no universal human right to do away with universal human rights.


Hillarious, wearing a hijab is now "undermining the fundamental freedoms of the west". Imagine if FD wasn't such a hypocrite, he'd have a field day with you and your laughable double standards. Sadly, he'd prefer to try and troll me with hillarious genital jokes.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 52842
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2383 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 8:48pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 8:11pm:
Frank wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 7:29pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 9:34am:
Frank wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 7:25pm:
Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.


So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.



I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.

Absolutely. Islam is an alien, hostile creed. Islam has no universal human right to do away with universal human rights.


Hillarious, wearing a hijab is now "undermining the fundamental freedoms of the west".



It absolutely is. Muslim men should equally cover their hair and shoulders, knees and ankles. Why don't they? If decency is so important, why ate you mutts parading your hair? What is it about female hair that threatens to turn you mongs into uncontrollable rapists and violators and cat's meat botherers, in the immortal words of your 'best and brightest' imam, so you must put your women, for their own safety FROM YOU, into special attire???

You know the answer. Women are worth less, they are tempters and all the other medieval bollocks that you Muslim will never grow out of. To you it's always 732 AD.


Pathetic little ill-adjusted mummy's boys you are with all those beards and hair fetish. Why are you Muslim men so keen to display hair but sh!t yourselves at the sight of female  hair?? Pathetic little wankers. You could do with some critical self-reflection but hey, once you have submitted and subjugated for Allah, what's the point of self-examination?? Just present as you do for all the world to laugh at your complete absence of self-examinaton.
Mohammed never had any compunctions and he was a horny war lord, killing a n pillaging and raping his way across the landd. Why would you draw boundaries for yourselves????



Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 52842
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2384 - Apr 10th, 2018 at 8:51pm
 
Karnal wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 7:43pm:
Frank wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 7:29pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 9:34am:
Frank wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 7:25pm:
Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.


So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.



I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.


I know, old boy, but what if one were to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of, say, liking Danish?

What would you have to say about that?

In the words of the poetess, please explain?

FOrf, Paki.

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 157 158 159 160 161 ... 188
Send Topic Print