Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Jun '16 18:12
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Once upon a time, long, long ago, liberals understood that free speech was intended to serve the truth and that it might offend some people and that was not necessarily a bad thing. No more.
    "yes, constantly shouting radical islam offends muslims who are adamant that the terrorists are not real muslims."

    They can get as adamant as they choose to - that ...[text shortened]... te simple. It's not my purpose to give offense but if that's the case it doesn't change my mind.
    ""yes, constantly shouting radical islam offends muslims who are adamant that the terrorists are not real muslims." "

    ...and that the terrorism they carry out (or get naive followers to carry out) is really to advance a form of dictatorial nationalism.
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    23 Jun '16 19:461 edit
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Amidst all the empty semantics, I offer this definition for your comments. Radical Islam refers to that group within the religion that believes that infidels can ('should'?) be killed. Elimination of non-believers is the goal.

    I think this group should be specifically singled out and considered as incompatible with my values and maybe yours.
    The point is and its worth making is that radical Islam is an ideology that you rightly say advocates/legitimises the use of violence to promulgate itself and its aims.

    Historically Islam itself was borne of violence. Muhammad himself fought wars and the Koran advocates violence against unbelievers. Now of course there are interpretations of this and Muslim apologists have attempted to justify this violence by stating it was done for self defence etc This to me is not the most abhorrent part of Islam. The most abhorrent part of Islam is that it cannot be criticised without fear of extreme reprisal. Pakistan and other predominately Islamic states still retain a blasphemy law which is a capital offence. One other factor that is worth noting is that there is extreme ignorance among Muslims of the books that form the basis of their faith. The result of this is a clergy class that is very very powerful like they were in Europe in the middle ages and can easily influence and manipulate adherents of Islam.

    My opinion of Islam itself is that because it based primarily on edicts and ordinances which proscribe certain rituals it leaves little room for the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience and thus people who are not used to exercising their conscience can be more easily manipulated and the conscience suppressed with an ideology that supplants its use and which justifies violence. We have seen this is in the Nazi atrocities in Europe and elsewhere.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    23 Jun '16 21:081 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    The point is and its worth making is that radical Islam is an ideology that you rightly say advocates/legitimises the use of violence to promulgate itself and its aims.

    Historically Islam itself was borne of violence. Muhammad himself fought wars and the Koran advocates violence against unbelievers. Now of course there are interpretations of th ...[text shortened]... which justifies violence. We have seen this is in the Nazi atrocities in Europe and elsewhere.
    So all Islam is "radical" as far as you are concerned?

    RC: because it based primarily on edicts and ordinances which proscribe certain rituals it leaves little room for the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience and thus people who are not used to exercising their conscience can be more easily manipulated and the conscience suppressed with an ideology that supplants its use and which justifies violence.

    What in that description doesn't apply to Christianity, Judaism or other religions?
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    23 Jun '16 21:252 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So all Islam is "radical" as far as you are concerned?

    RC: because it based primarily on edicts and ordinances which proscribe certain rituals it leaves little room for the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience and thus people who are not used to exercising their conscience can be more easily manipulated and the conscience suppressed with an i ...[text shortened]... violence.

    What in that description doesn't apply to Christianity, Judaism or other religions?
    I have not stated that all Islam is radical. You are utilising a loaded question which contains values that have not been explicitly expressed and yes it can apply to any ideology which suppresses or supersedes the natural exercise of the conscience.
  5. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    23 Jun '16 23:38
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    do you call westboro baptist church radical christians? or the kkk? how about the nutter who shot up planned parenthood.

    if you find it somewhat awkward, realize that maybe muslims who do not blow stuff up might feel uncomfortable too hearing their religion constantly used, even with "radical" attached to it.
    Find a new religion to attach to, one that doesn't engage in "radical" activities.

    Thankfully, I regularly hear radio programs from those of the moderate bent, so I don't think most people think Muslims are more radical than Baptists, although all religion based on mysticism tends to be somewhat radical.
  6. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    23 Jun '16 23:41
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So all Islam is "radical" as far as you are concerned?

    RC: because it based primarily on edicts and ordinances which proscribe certain rituals it leaves little room for the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience and thus people who are not used to exercising their conscience can be more easily manipulated and the conscience suppressed with an i ...[text shortened]... violence.

    What in that description doesn't apply to Christianity, Judaism or other religions?
    Yes, yes! Religion is by its nature radical. Blind obedience to a mystical entity. Yup, that's radical as it gets.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    24 Jun '16 08:34
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    The point is and its worth making is that radical Islam is an ideology that you rightly say advocates/legitimises the use of violence to promulgate itself and its aims.

    Historically Islam itself was borne of violence. Muhammad himself fought wars and the Koran advocates violence against unbelievers. Now of course there are interpretations of th ...[text shortened]... which justifies violence. We have seen this is in the Nazi atrocities in Europe and elsewhere.
    "The point is and its worth making is that radical Islam is an ideology that you rightly say advocates/legitimises the use of violence to promulgate itself and its aims. "
    so does christianity

    "The point is and its worth making is that radical Islam is an ideology that you rightly say advocates/legitimises the use of violence to promulgate itself and its aims. "
    so does judaism

    "The most abhorrent part of Islam is that it cannot be criticised without fear of extreme reprisal. "
    exactly as judaism or christianity were. what changed were the people, not the religion. we still keep in the bible the passage where we must kill unbelievers.

    "One other factor that is worth noting is that there is extreme ignorance among Muslims of the books that form the basis of their faith"
    that's like your opinion man. one of extreme ignorance

    "My opinion of Islam itself is that because it based primarily on edicts and ordinances which proscribe certain rituals it leaves little room for the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience and thus people who are not used to exercising their conscience can be more easily manipulated and the conscience suppressed with an ideology that supplants its use and which justifies violence. "
    this can be said about any religion. if you follow it to the letter it advocates violence, manipulates people and leaves little room for conscience.
    you and your zealots don't allow blood transfusions because you interpret a line in the bible that tells you not to eat blood. (because transfusion is equivalent to eating blood)


    " We have seen this is in the Nazi atrocities in Europe and elsewhere"
    hahaha, there it is. the nazi reference.
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    24 Jun '16 08:35
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Find a new religion to attach to, one that doesn't engage in "radical" activities.

    Thankfully, I regularly hear radio programs from those of the moderate bent, so I don't think most people think Muslims are more radical than Baptists, although all religion based on mysticism tends to be somewhat radical.
    extreme right wing christian groups in the US have killed far more people that "radical islam"
  9. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57067
    24 Jun '16 08:42
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Amidst all the empty semantics, I offer this definition for your comments. Radical Islam refers to that group within the religion that believes that infidels can ('should'?) be killed. Elimination of non-believers is the goal.

    I think this group should be specifically singled out and considered as incompatible with my values and maybe yours.
    The first question should be: are they a reaction or are they a pro-active movement?
  10. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    24 Jun '16 11:45
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    I just answered your question. I'm an infidel. From your posts you sound like an infidel. Forgive me if I got that wrong. After all I don't know you. That's too bad maybe, as I find a hyperbolic sense of irony amusing.
    Assuming you're an infidel and therein a legitimate target, what would convince you that that's not a state of peace? Admittedly a theoretical question...
    Organisations like ISIS thrive on chaos and prosper in times of war. They attract and recruit psychopaths from around the world.

    There is a real problem here concerning chickens and eggs. American aggression (backed by UK) created ISIS. Their leadership graduated from American prison camps in Iraq. The Americans lost control in Iraq and chose to operate by supporting sectarian violence - I have written about all this in the past and supplied the detailed evidence on htis forum - I do not feel inclined to rehearse it all again. When dealing with the blowback from war, I suppose the obvious remedy seems to be more war, but it is a never ending infinite regression.

    War suits ISIS. They will be defeated at some point and you will look around and wonder why you bothered. War suits Israel and it suits the USA. See Clinton's emails on the topic of Syria for evidence.

    America has established a fascist (ie controlled by corporate power allied with corrupt government) state with a military machine to support its global empire. It spends something from $500bn annually to double that resourcing over 800 military bases in over 130 countries. America is a war monger and when people fight back that makes it all so worthwhile. Americans fight wars to keep markets open in which American corporations can export jobs to low cost, unprotected countries while retaining reliable open access to American consumers and American subsidies. A great deal (for them).

    A huge chunk of the Syrian population has been driven from home and into refugee camps. It seems difficult for Americans to grasp that ISIS is not representative of values in that region, does not have popular support and that Western behaviour does not ameliorate their difficulties in any way whatsoever; it aggravates them and if we are to judge by wikileaks, Israel and America are doing so intentionally.

    So no, I don't see this as a just war, a justified war, a sensible war, a productive war, a war I want any part of. Persuading me to hate ISIS or to be frightened of ISIS does not alter this. ISIS are not the problem. They are a symptom. Nothing the Americans are doing suggests the least desire to make things better and certainly, nothing displays the slightest respect for the people of that region. In fact, people like you simply display ignorance and hatred towards them. You are warmongers.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Jun '16 19:525 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "The point is and its worth making is that radical Islam is an ideology that you rightly say advocates/legitimises the use of violence to promulgate itself and its aims. "
    so does christianity

    "The point is and its worth making is that radical Islam is an ideology that you rightly say advocates/legitimises the use of violence to promulgate itself and it ...[text shortened]... is is in the Nazi atrocities in Europe and elsewhere"
    hahaha, there it is. the nazi reference.
    No1 already covered this rather predictable and banal rhetoric. Why you think your text has any relevance is known only to you because no one is defending radical Christianity or radical Judaism or anything else. These references to Judaism, Christianity etc are nothing more than a rather plastic and transparent attempt at some kind of deflection.

    You do agree that the tenets which form the basis of Islam are being utilised to suppress the conscience and provide an ideology which leads to atrocity? Then why are you simply regurgitating complete bumf as if it has any merit or relevance? Your text is a predictable and unoriginal regurgitation of points that have already been covered. Lets ask you outright Zippy.

    What was it that caused the Orlando shooting? The Boston bombing? The horrendous attacks of 9/11? The killings of San Bernardino? the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas? I wanna here you say it? assault rifles? was it an assault rifle that jumped up off the shelf and went of a killing spree? Perhaps it was a pressure cooker that did it? Was it? It jumped off the stove in Boston and decided to bomb a running event? Perhaps it was the mentally deranged? They were all insane?

    No it was radical Islamic ideology that caused those persons to commit those acts of atrocity. Why you should have any difficulty accepting the fact is known only to you.
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Jun '16 19:582 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    extreme right wing christian groups in the US have killed far more people that "radical islam"
    Where is your evidence for this. 3000 people alone were killed in the attacks of September 11th.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Jun '16 20:102 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie to Zahlanzi
    No1 already covered this rather predictable and banal rhetoric. Why you think your text has any relevance is known only to you because no one is defending radical Christianity or radical Judaism or anything else. These references to Judaism, Christianity etc are nothing more than a rather plastic and transparent attempt at some kind of ...[text shortened]... e acts of atrocity. Why you should have any difficulty accepting the fact is known only to you.
    Robbie Carrobie shows more of his usual ignorance and prejudices.
    Just because a criminal may be a Muslim does *not necessarily* mean that he was
    motivated by 'radical Islam' or any Islamist political ideology.

    With regard to the 'Orlando shooting', there's ample emerging evidence that contradicts
    Omar Mateen's (apparently disingenuous) claim to have been a loyal soldier of ISIS.

    1) Omar Mateen previously had claimed to be a member of Hezbollah, a mortal enemy of ISIS.
    ISIS presumably would have killed any real member of Hezbollah that it captured.

    2) Omar Mateen was observed (by many people) drinking heavily at a gay nightclub.
    So he evidently was not even a devout Muslim, let alone a fanatical 'jihadist' of ISIS.

    3) A Latino man has said that he was Omar Mateen's gay lover. He claims that Omar Mateen
    became enraged after discovering that one of Omar Mateen's sexual partners was HIV+
    (presumably having lied about it). He believes that Omar Mateen, prematurely afraid
    that he was going to die from AIDS, sought personal revenge against gay men at the club.

    As far as I can infer now, Omar Mateen claimed to have been a soldier of ISIS because
    it seemed less shameful (perhaps in the eyes of his father, who keeps denying that he
    was gay) to die as an Islamist 'martyr' than as a gay man from AIDS (as he feared).

    The troll Robbie Carrobie has a record of being both homophobic and Islamophobic.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Jun '16 20:323 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Robbie Carrobie shows more of his usual ignorance and prejudices.
    Just because a criminal may be a Muslim does *not necessarily* mean that he was
    motivated by 'radical Islam' or any Islamist political ideology.

    With regard to the 'Orlando shooting', there's ample emerging evidence that contradicts
    Omar Mateen's (apparently disingenuous) claim to have ...[text shortened]... he feared).

    The troll Robbie Carrobie has a record of being both homophobic and Islamophobic.
    Duchess64 your attempts to make the debate personal with this caustic diatribe is tedious, predictable, plastic and logically fallacious. No one is arguing that a criminal act is of necessity a product of radical Islam but neither is it true that simply because an act is criminal it necessitates that it could not have been caused by radical Islamic ideology. Perhaps if you were not such a pompous self amusing windbag you would have thought more about your text prior to posting it.

    Here is the entire transcript released by the FBI.

    (OD) Orlando Police Dispatcher

    (OM) Omar Mateen

    OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.

    OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [Arabic]

    OD: What?

    OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [Arabic]. I wanna let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.

    OD: What’s your name?

    OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.

    OD: Ok, What’s your name?

    OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.

    OD: Alright, where are you at?

    OM: In Orlando.

    OD: Where in Orlando?

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/joint-statement-justice-department-and-fbi-regarding-transcript-related-orlando-terror-attack

    Now perhaps the rather pathetic and failed internet troll Duchess64 will tell us what logic she has at her disposal which leads us to the conclusion that said shooter was not inspired by radical Islamic ideology given the evidence in the above transcript? If he had claimed that he was any other kind of terrorist would this also lead to serious doubts about the credibility of his testimony? Perhaps the terminology radical Islam is magical and changes normal values of credibility?

    The failed troll Duchess64 has a history of duchbaggery and producing copious amounts of slobbery drool.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Jun '16 21:391 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Duchess64 your attempts to make the debate personal with this caustic diatribe is tedious, predictable, plastic and logically fallacious. No one is arguing that a criminal act is of necessity a product of radical Islam but neither is it true that simply because an act is criminal it necessitates that it could not have been caused by radical Islamic ...[text shortened]... ed troll Duchess64 has a history of duchbaggery and producing copious amounts of slobbery drool.
    The idiotic troll Robbie Carrobie attempts another of his countless flagrantly dishonest distortions.
    As usual, Robbie Carrobie ignores and dismisses all the evidence showing that he's wrong.

    I already am aware that Omar Mateen claimed to have killed on behalf of ISIS.
    I have *not* disputed the fact that he made that claim. Based upon ample evidence,
    however, I would dispute the truth of his claim. If Omar Mateen had claimed to have killed
    on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses, would Robbie Carrobie accept his claim at face value?

    I would submit that if ISIS knew all the evident facts about Omar Mateen, including that
    he was a gay man, a heavy drinker, and a claimed member of Hezbollah, then ISIS would
    have executed him if possible. One of my points is that Omar Mateen had a record of
    making false claims. According to the FBI, there's no evidence that Omar Mateen ever
    was a member of Hezbollah. Likewise, I know of no convincing evidence that Omar Mateen
    ever had any *serious* allegiance to ISIS.

    By the way, even FishHead111, an extreme right-wing Islamophobic American, has
    apparently conceded that Omar Mateen was motivated to kill more by personal reasons
    concerning his homosexuality than by anything else.
Back to Top