Let's Have Another Argument about Islam

[Walkie]

Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.

excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued  by the examples you chose,  Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .

 I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then  again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?

In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader)  that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was  heartwarming  to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity..   It shouldn't displace our awareness of  other acts of aggression against freedom  speech,  but stand as a monument to them all

Actually Turkey is an excellent example because while a Muslim, Erdogan's activities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.  If you do want to equal it as a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech, then we should probably stop this discussion right now because the difference should be painfully obvious. Not everything in a Muslim country is about Islam, just as little as not everything in a Christian country is about Christianity.

I'm not sure I agree with you re the public response to the Charlie Hebdo attack--I'm sure many people meant is as such but unfortunately it became very much a response against radical Islam rather than a response to any attack on free speech. At least that is my perception--the many violations against free speech elsewhere were never addressed using Charlie Hebdo as a symbol. Actually, most were never addressed at all.

Ah, I was wondering if that might be your answer.  Ofc I don't want it to  a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech. I meant exactly what I said: if you  were looking for counter-examples (and I by no means assumed as much) , you could surely  have made better selections . In pa rticular, Turkey's internal conflicts seem  have rather a lot to do with Islam. Take this litle quote from Wikipedia "Events surrounding the coup attempt and the purges in its aftermath reflect a complex power struggle between Islamist and ultranationalist elites in Turkey."  One could debate that statement, perhaps, but you're unlikely to find any analysis of the situation  which  leaves the word "Islam" out of it.  Similarly, if you said it was obvious that American conservatism  had "nothing whatsover to do with Christianity", you'd have people jumping on you in droves saying "That's not obvious at all. In fact, I disagree"

Note , i'm not leaping to conclusions  above, just pointing out  a pretty obvious correlation between political affilliations and religious belief . There are various alternative ways of explaining that; but you seem to be in a pretty tiny minority in attempting to deny that correlation. What's more,  you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And  I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown,  you have one heckova blind spot here?   

[odeon]

You really, really, really need to reread that definition. And then have someone explain it to you.

No, YOU need to do that. Benji is right. The willingness to throw the word bigotry around whenever someone disagrees with you is ..... intellectually dishonest. Discussing what impact radical Islamic extremism has on the World and whether better border protection measures/national security measures (in light of this possible threat) are of any merit, is NOT bigotry.

This throwing around of bigotry (and whatever other forms of bigotry you wish to use) is illiberal and simply shuts down conversation and discussion. It is beyond weak, Odeon.

I will give you another tip. It is not defending anyone it is simply saying "what I say goes and cannot be questioned". Seen a little bit of that from you lately. Its pretty pathetic and demeans you and any moral pulpit you believe you are preaching from. You are no more moral and no more liberal minded, inclusive or accepting. Petty little Tyrant.

You're so predictable it hurts. As usual you got it all wrong but I'm done educating you. Dimwit.

You do not have the equipment to be able to educate me, you moron. You cannot think beyond your own little self-exiled cognitive bubble.

You can't think, end of. Dimwit.

[odeon]

In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.

It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?

See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.

What was that, rapist?

Being critical of radical Islamic extremists is NOT being bigoted towards Muslims as a whole and only someone who is really stupid or ideologically blinded would fail to see it. Which are you?

You also have reading comprehension problems. Poor dimwit bigot.

Swedish rapist strikes again. You do not have so much a reading comprehension problem, specifically, as you have more of a general problem with the ability to critically think

You don't have the ability to think. I win.

[odeon]

Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.

excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued  by the examples you chose,  Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .

 I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then  again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?

In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader)  that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was  heartwarming  to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity..   It shouldn't displace our awareness of  other acts of aggression against freedom  speech,  but stand as a monument to them all

Actually Turkey is an excellent example because while a Muslim, Erdogan's activities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.  If you do want to equal it as a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech, then we should probably stop this discussion right now because the difference should be painfully obvious. Not everything in a Muslim country is about Islam, just as little as not everything in a Christian country is about Christianity.

I'm not sure I agree with you re the public response to the Charlie Hebdo attack--I'm sure many people meant is as such but unfortunately it became very much a response against radical Islam rather than a response to any attack on free speech. At least that is my perception--the many violations against free speech elsewhere were never addressed using Charlie Hebdo as a symbol. Actually, most were never addressed at all.

No shit, not everything in Islamic countries is about Islam. Whoever said it was? Oh yeah, just you. Why? Because you are trying to insert a suggestion that it was questioned to pad out a very weak position. Makes it look disingenuous when you are caught doing it and the person catching you exposes it, huh?

I DON'T (now let's pay attention here Odeon) equate Islam with attacks on free speech. At all. Never have. So where does that leave you? If you don't believe so, you can look through anything I said.
I DO believe that the radical Islamic Extremists DO, amoung other things, attack free speech abroad. There is a slight difference, see if you can pick it.
What Turkey or Thailand or Russia or Sweden or Australia, do in their own countries is up to them and the will of the people collectively. How they govern at home is their business. I do not give a damn if radical Muslim extremists want to preach whatever radicalised ideology or enforce it amoung their chosen or even if it is adopted whole cloth by a country as a state religion. None of that bothers me......until it becomes a threat to people not within that country or region or religion or sect.
I would also by the same token say, as a tourist, I would be very careful to observe the laws and accept what was in that country was going to be different to mine in terms of customs, laws and sensibilities.
But I will expect in MY country citizens and non-citizens will equally respect our differences.

[odeon]

Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.

excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued  by the examples you chose,  Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .

 I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then  again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?

In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader)  that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was  heartwarming  to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity..   It shouldn't displace our awareness of  other acts of aggression against freedom  speech,  but stand as a monument to them all

Actually Turkey is an excellent example because while a Muslim, Erdogan's activities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.  If you do want to equal it as a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech, then we should probably stop this discussion right now because the difference should be painfully obvious. Not everything in a Muslim country is about Islam, just as little as not everything in a Christian country is about Christianity.

I'm not sure I agree with you re the public response to the Charlie Hebdo attack--I'm sure many people meant is as such but unfortunately it became very much a response against radical Islam rather than a response to any attack on free speech. At least that is my perception--the many violations against free speech elsewhere were never addressed using Charlie Hebdo as a symbol. Actually, most were never addressed at all.

Ah, I was wondering if that might be your answer.  Ofc I don't want it to  a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech. I meant exactly what I said: if you  were looking for counter-examples (and I by no means assumed as much) , you could surely  have made better selections . In pa rticular, Turkey's internal conflicts seem  have rather a lot to do with Islam. Take this litle quote from Wikipedia "Events surrounding the coup attempt and the purges in its aftermath reflect a complex power struggle between Islamist and ultranationalist elites in Turkey."  One could debate that statement, perhaps, but you're unlikely to find any analysis of the situation  which  leaves the word "Islam" out of it.  Similarly, if you said it was obvious that American conservatism  had "nothing whatsover to do with Christianity", you'd have people jumping on you in droves saying "That's not obvious at all. In fact, I disagree"

Note , i'm not leaping to conclusions  above, just pointing out  a pretty obvious correlation between political affilliations and religious belief . There are various alternative ways of explaining that; but you seem to be in a pretty tiny minority in attempting to deny that correlation. What's more,  you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And  I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown,  you have one heckova blind spot here?   

Actually Erdogan is just another dictator who happens to be Muslim, but if you are going to filter everything from an anti-Islam POV, which I'd say you are, you will find what you are looking for.

As for other examples, I presented several before the Turkey one, I believe. Maybe it's just that the others didn't fit with your anti-Islam perspective?

[Al Swearegen]

In a bigot's world, it's never about attacking, is it? So yeah, it's obvious that you don't see it.

It could well be being that I am not a bigot and presumably neither are any of the people here talking about radical Muslim extremism or Muslims in general, you have really failed to make a point. Who amoung us have been critical of Islam? Who has said that Muslims are all rasdicalised and dangerous? For God's sake, what position do you think you are actually defending and from whom?

See, this is why I don't respect your opinion. This is why you are a bigot, and you don't even see it.

What was that, rapist?

Being critical of radical Islamic extremists is NOT being bigoted towards Muslims as a whole and only someone who is really stupid or ideologically blinded would fail to see it. Which are you?

You also have reading comprehension problems. Poor dimwit bigot.

Swedish rapist strikes again. You do not have so much a reading comprehension problem, specifically, as you have more of a general problem with the ability to critically think

You don't have the ability to think. I win.

[Al Swearegen]

Suppression of free speech is far more widespread than that, and it goes far beyond the Charlie Hebdo attackers. A recent example is the spat between Germany and Turkey about what a German comedian can and cannot say. Another, also about Turkey, is the aftermath of the failed coup in July.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was far more visible, though, far more dramatic. It makes for better headlines and it's just so much easier to pimp your Facebook avatar to show your support. It's more tangible and more direct, but I would argue less harmful to free speech.

excuse me for taking the quote out-of-context, but the entire context would cover my screen 10 tinmes over, and easily found if anyone wants it, I must agree that suppression of free speexch is more widespread, but am intrigued  by the examples you chose,  Odeon, in that both involved the Muslim president (Erdogan) of a Muslim country (Turkey) ,
Ifyou intended to say "It's not just Muslims supressing free speech " , I'm sure you could have found better examples than that .

 I might try to guess what you really getting at, but then  again, given that you were addressing Al at the time , can't help wondering if it was just an impish exercise in spot-the-deliberate-mistake?

In any case, I personally have no problem at all with the public response to Charle Hebdo . In some peoples minds, at least (i think most, actually, but I'm no mindreader)  that was a symbolic response to all assults against freedom of speech, besides standing as a public rejection of violence. And it was  heartwarming  to see quite a lot Muslims joining in. It's hard to come up with anything more positive than that display of solidarity..   It shouldn't displace our awareness of  other acts of aggression against freedom  speech,  but stand as a monument to them all

Actually Turkey is an excellent example because while a Muslim, Erdogan's activities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.  If you do want to equal it as a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech, then we should probably stop this discussion right now because the difference should be painfully obvious. Not everything in a Muslim country is about Islam, just as little as not everything in a Christian country is about Christianity.

I'm not sure I agree with you re the public response to the Charlie Hebdo attack--I'm sure many people meant is as such but unfortunately it became very much a response against radical Islam rather than a response to any attack on free speech. At least that is my perception--the many violations against free speech elsewhere were never addressed using Charlie Hebdo as a symbol. Actually, most were never addressed at all.

Ah, I was wondering if that might be your answer.  Ofc I don't want it to  a good example of Islam as a threat against free speech. I meant exactly what I said: if you  were looking for counter-examples (and I by no means assumed as much) , you could surely  have made better selections . In pa rticular, Turkey's internal conflicts seem  have rather a lot to do with Islam. Take this litle quote from Wikipedia "Events surrounding the coup attempt and the purges in its aftermath reflect a complex power struggle between Islamist and ultranationalist elites in Turkey."  One could debate that statement, perhaps, but you're unlikely to find any analysis of the situation  which  leaves the word "Islam" out of it.  Similarly, if you said it was obvious that American conservatism  had "nothing whatsover to do with Christianity", you'd have people jumping on you in droves saying "That's not obvious at all. In fact, I disagree"

Note , i'm not leaping to conclusions  above, just pointing out  a pretty obvious correlation between political affilliations and religious belief . There are various alternative ways of explaining that; but you seem to be in a pretty tiny minority in attempting to deny that correlation. What's more,  you're talking as if you think that any reasonable person would agree with you . And  I wonder why? I really do. I'm thinking either you're being disingenuous, or else, for some reason unknown,  you have one heckova blind spot here?   

Actually Erdogan is just another dictator who happens to be Muslim, but if you are going to filter everything from an anti-Islam POV, which I'd say you are, you will find what you are looking for.

As for other examples, I presented several before the Turkey one, I believe. Maybe it's just that the others didn't fit with your anti-Islam perspective?

Maybe there was no anti-Islam POV to begin with.

That can't be it. Let's hunt more Woozels....

[odeon]

Thinking about this, I'm fairly sure this won't develop into an actual discussion. I thought it might but I was wrong. There's Al who is a dimwit and opposed on principle to everything I post after getting butthurt in a callout, there's Walkie who's already made up her mind, and there's Benji who does have the makings of an interesting perspective but who has trouble with his tinfoil hat getting in the way.

Al remains target practice, Walkie is being highly selective in her responses, Benji is being Benji, and me, I'm thinking there's got to be some paint I can watch dry. In other words, enjoy.

P.S. And Al just proved my point. Twice.

[Al Swearegen]

Thinking about this, I'm fairly sure this won't develop into an actual discussion. I thought it might but I was wrong. There's Al who is a dimwit and opposed on principle to everything I post after getting butthurt in a callout, there's Walkie who's already made up her mind, and there's Benji who does have the makings of an interesting perspective but who has trouble with his tinfoil hat getting in the way.

Al remains target practice, Walkie is being highly selective in her responses, Benji is being Benji, and me, I'm thinking there's got to be some paint I can watch dry. In other words, enjoy.

P.S. And Al just proved my point. Twice.

I am not butthurt about a callout. Which callout and how and why?

The truth is that you have always taken the position that the Muslims have to be defended. That in itself is fine BUT the lengths you go to, to dismiss, disregard and shutdown any conversation around any talk that may in any way shine any Muslims in a poor light is ridiculous.

You are happy to be disingenuous and misrepresent and insult and be a condescending moral soapboxing prat BUT that gains your position NO credibility. None. At all.

Furthermore there ARE actual threats in the world (regardless of whether you wish to acknowledge them or not) which come from the greater Muslim community. That does NOT mean that all Muslims are bad or that everyone preaching Islam or practicing that religion are bad. That out of the way, these radical extremists all are Muslims and use the Islamic beliefs in respect to the harm they do.

In short the radical Muslim Extremists (such as ISIS) are Muslims not all radical Muslim extremists.

No one here really gives a damn about Moderate Muslims in our countries or throughout the world. We have friends who are Muslim. We know them as decent people and we presume the same within the hearts of other Moderate Muslims. So we are NOT anti-Muslim nor bigoted. We simply acknowledge a threat which you refuse to acknowledge. That threat is not Muslims but the radical Muslim Extremists in their midst.

You are unable to discuss that without trying your hardest to denounce these concerns and equate any discussion on this to the person you are talking to being anti-Muslim and bigoted and this fuels your moral high horsing as Muslim defender.

It is ONLY you Odeon. Of all of us, it is only you that is unable to see outside your bubble. You are fucking stupid and the fault does not lie with me, Benji or Walkie and nor the next person you spew your ideologically skewed narrative at.

[Gopher Gary]

Benji is being Benji

I think I enjoy Benji's take on it the best. He's got this interesting approach that comes across like, Great Defender of Muslims!! Just Not in My Country!! It's like reading a conundrum personified, and I like that.

[Walkie]

Thinking about this, I'm fairly sure this won't develop into an actual discussion. I thought it might but I was wrong. There's Al who is a dimwit and opposed on principle to everything I post after getting butthurt in a callout, there's Walkie who's already made up her mind, and there's Benji who does have the makings of an interesting perspective but who has trouble with his tinfoil hat getting in the way.

Al remains target practice, Walkie is being highly selective in her responses, Benji is being Benji, and me, I'm thinking there's got to be some paint I can watch dry. In other words, enjoy.

P.S. And Al just proved my point. Twice.

I think the main problem here (besides butthurt, ofc) is people reducing other people's perspectives to some ultra-simplistic statement that's easily dismissed, or  countered. That said,  I know some peopkle here are short on time , probably don't have time to carefully read other peoples' contributions. I have a similar problem, myself, in a way, but I do try  to take things in properly, and if that means that I don;'t read all the threads I'd like to read, and don't make near so many replies as I'd like to, well so be it. The replies that I do make on issues  like this one are normally carefully considered, if relatively sparse.

I've mentioned twice, in this very thread , that I'm not finding it easy to keep up, largely on account of neurological issues, though the aforementioned  attempt to do justice to other people's posts would also be a factor, wouldn't it?  I mentioned that for a reason, which I also made explicit: that is, I didn't want people to feel that i was ignoring some of their posts, nor mentally dismnissing them . I don't. Rather, I try to get an holistic view of other people's outlook., because one single statement, in isolation is relatively meaningless , isn't it?

As I 've gone along,  I've mentally shelved quite a few things for "must respond to that point, later"; and I've also been thinking about a few things, on an ongoing basis.  Sometimes, I come back to the thread , found d a rash of new  posts, and then responded to one or two of those instead, on the principle of "strike while the iron is hot" .

You might say I take these forum discussions way to seriously, and I'd probably blusgh and agree. Not saying everybody should.  But to come back and find dismissive statements like "walkie's already made up her mind" and "Walkie being highly selective in her responses"  (that's inevitable), well, that's going too far the other way, IMO.  That shows that even my apologies were being completely overlooked.

Well, it's taken me maybe 90 mins  hour to write this, and now 've missed the 6 O'clock news, because I didn't realise it was taking me this long. But that's about average for me.  So it goes. Waste of time?  I wouldn't assume as much, because I do value communication very highly . But yeah, right now  I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion  they had  before I posted. That's not communication is it?

As for my attitude to Islam, if you really want a one-word summation (for what that's worth) I'd have to choose "ambivalent" from the range of one-word options available.  I see reasons for concern , such as the widespread practice female genital mutilation,  in modern Britain ;and the high incidence of homophobia in our Muslim communities; and -whilst entirely accepting that it's not that simple-  I think it's just plain silly to just dismiss "Islam" as a causative factor, that just cripples discussion. Something like that should emerge as a concusion, not an initial premise; and you cannot and should not force that conclusion, not if you really want people to change their minds.

Dismissing such concerns as "Islamophia" isn't helping the moderate Muslims in the least; because usually , they are the victims.  You might say, then, that it's none of my concern, but when these things happen in Britain (as they do)  and run totally counter to British values  , then they are rightly very much out concern. The moderate Muslims, the apostates, the homosexuals, the women,  the children  have the same right to protection that everybody else here does, and we are failing them.

I've tried to lead the discussion away from terrorism, and pretty much failed. Oh well, can blame myself there  for not contributing as much as I'd like; or maybe for having an unusual view, in a world that appears to be obsesssed with terrorism.  I dunno. But there it is.

[benjimanbreeg]

From the Muslims I've talked to in this country, they seem to busy with hating "white people" and arelated too focused on attacking those who question immigration etc.

Female mutilation  actually seems to be an African problem.  Plenty of non Muslim countries in Africa where they have high rates of it.  No one ever seems to moan about circumcision much, wonder why...

[Al Swearegen]

Thinking about this, I'm fairly sure this won't develop into an actual discussion. I thought it might but I was wrong. There's Al who is a dimwit and opposed on principle to everything I post after getting butthurt in a callout, there's Walkie who's already made up her mind, and there's Benji who does have the makings of an interesting perspective but who has trouble with his tinfoil hat getting in the way.

Al remains target practice, Walkie is being highly selective in her responses, Benji is being Benji, and me, I'm thinking there's got to be some paint I can watch dry. In other words, enjoy.

P.S. And Al just proved my point. Twice.

I think the main problem here (besides butthurt, ofc) is people reducing other people's perspectives to some ultra-simplistic statement that's easily dismissed, or  countered. That said,  I know some peopkle here are short on time , probably don't have time to carefully read other peoples' contributions. I have a similar problem, myself, in a way, but I do try  to take things in properly, and if that means that I don;'t read all the threads I'd like to read, and don't make near so many replies as I'd like to, well so be it. The replies that I do make on issues  like this one are normally carefully considered, if relatively sparse.

I've mentioned twice, in this very thread , that I'm not finding it easy to keep up, largely on account of neurological issues, though the aforementioned  attempt to do justice to other people's posts would also be a factor, wouldn't it?  I mentioned that for a reason, which I also made explicit: that is, I didn't want people to feel that i was ignoring some of their posts, nor mentally dismnissing them . I don't. Rather, I try to get an holistic view of other people's outlook., because one single statement, in isolation is relatively meaningless , isn't it?

As I 've gone along,  I've mentally shelved quite a few things for "must respond to that point, later"; and I've also been thinking about a few things, on an ongoing basis.  Sometimes, I come back to the thread , found d a rash of new  posts, and then responded to one or two of those instead, on the principle of "strike while the iron is hot" .

You might say I take these forum discussions way to seriously, and I'd probably blusgh and agree. Not saying everybody should.  But to come back and find dismissive statements like "walkie's already made up her mind" and "Walkie being highly selective in her responses"  (that's inevitable), well, that's going too far the other way, IMO.  That shows that even my apologies were being completely overlooked.

Well, it's taken me maybe 90 mins  hour to write this, and now 've missed the 6 O'clock news, because I didn't realise it was taking me this long. But that's about average for me.  So it goes. Waste of time?  I wouldn't assume as much, because I do value communication very highly . But yeah, right now  I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion  they had  before I posted. That's not communication is it?

As for my attitude to Islam, if you really want a one-word summation (for what that's worth) I'd have to choose "ambivalent" from the range of one-word options available.  I see reasons for concern , such as the widespread practice female genital mutilation,  in modern Britain ;and the high incidence of homophobia in our Muslim communities; and -whilst entirely accepting that it's not that simple-  I think it's just plain silly to just dismiss "Islam" as a causative factor, that just cripples discussion. Something like that should emerge as a concusion, not an initial premise; and you cannot and should not force that conclusion, not if you really want people to change their minds.

Dismissing such concerns as "Islamophia" isn't helping the moderate Muslims in the least; because usually , they are the victims.  You might say, then, that it's none of my concern, but when these things happen in Britain (as they do)  and run totally counter to British values  , then they are rightly very much out concern. The moderate Muslims, the apostates, the homosexuals, the women,  the children  have the same right to protection that everybody else here does, and we are failing them.

I've tried to lead the discussion away from terrorism, and pretty much failed. Oh well, can blame myself there  for not contributing as much as I'd like; or maybe for having an unusual view, in a world that appears to be obsesssed with terrorism.  I dunno. But there it is.

I always took the time to read you Walkie. Yes you are right. When in another country, either as a visitor (tourist), a refugee, an immigrant or a citizen you must obey that country's laws. It does not matter if my daughter goes to Qatar or Saudi Arabia and decides that she would prefer not to wear a headdress and cover up. Doesn't matter a damn. She better bloody well do it. It is their customs, their culture, their rules. But it goes the other way too. No one is required to be in any country. If one dislikes the societal norms, they have only to leave and try their luck somewhere else.

I do not see you obsessed with Terrorism , nor against Muslims, nor bigoted. I see you as thoughtful, pragmatic and insightful.

Odeon simply cannot see past his ideological filter. Use the word Muslim or Islam in ANY other way but a fawning praise and his blinders are on and he cannot see what you are saying no matter how neutral. He is looking to interpret it into the worst connotation he can so he can feel morally superior in confirming his own biases and shouting you down.

Sure its dishonest and and ironically immoral and it lends nothing to the conversation, but that is not his goal. His goal is purely the warm feeling up his leg when he believes he defends Muslims and to that end truth is irrelevant. He will convince himself that everyone but him is wrong. So, he is a base liar, intellectually dishonest and morally flawed.

You are okay by me though Walkie and your ideas seem perfectly reasonable

[Jack]

The US has always stepped on the UN's toes and always will.  Israel bombed 7 UN shelters in Gaza in 2014, and Obomber just came out each day and said "Israel has the right to defend itself".  Sure, things are starting to become a little more complex with Russia and China. 

Russia haven't really tried much to control the Middle East before, apart from Afghanistan.  Sure, this will strengthen Russia's relationship with Iran and Lebanon.  Good.  Hopefully Trump will stop the US's plan for the Middle East, but that will mean stopping Israel's.  So things will get interesting if he lives.

China has been getting cozy with Russia for a while, and recently publicly offering allegiance against NATO and suggesting military alliances; Russia's friendly relationships with traditionally US middle eastern allies can't be discounted as a reason why. Representatives of China and Russia have also been recently elected to the top seats of Interpol. The UN has the US and EU putting on a big show so everyone looks at them, while ignoring the quiet ones.

"In ten years, the key to the new world order will be the tandem of Russia and China" -- Chairman Xi Jinping

[odeon]

Thinking about this, I'm fairly sure this won't develop into an actual discussion. I thought it might but I was wrong. There's Al who is a dimwit and opposed on principle to everything I post after getting butthurt in a callout, there's Walkie who's already made up her mind, and there's Benji who does have the makings of an interesting perspective but who has trouble with his tinfoil hat getting in the way.

Al remains target practice, Walkie is being highly selective in her responses, Benji is being Benji, and me, I'm thinking there's got to be some paint I can watch dry. In other words, enjoy.

P.S. And Al just proved my point. Twice.

I am not butthurt about a callout. Which callout and how and why?

The truth is that you have always taken the position that the Muslims have to be defended. That in itself is fine BUT the lengths you go to, to dismiss, disregard and shutdown any conversation around any talk that may in any way shine any Muslims in a poor light is ridiculous.

You are happy to be disingenuous and misrepresent and insult and be a condescending moral soapboxing prat BUT that gains your position NO credibility. None. At all.

Furthermore there ARE actual threats in the world (regardless of whether you wish to acknowledge them or not) which come from the greater Muslim community. That does NOT mean that all Muslims are bad or that everyone preaching Islam or practicing that religion are bad. That out of the way, these radical extremists all are Muslims and use the Islamic beliefs in respect to the harm they do.

In short the radical Muslim Extremists (such as ISIS) are Muslims not all radical Muslim extremists.

No one here really gives a damn about Moderate Muslims in our countries or throughout the world. We have friends who are Muslim. We know them as decent people and we presume the same within the hearts of other Moderate Muslims. So we are NOT anti-Muslim nor bigoted. We simply acknowledge a threat which you refuse to acknowledge. That threat is not Muslims but the radical Muslim Extremists in their midst.

You are unable to discuss that without trying your hardest to denounce these concerns and equate any discussion on this to the person you are talking to being anti-Muslim and bigoted and this fuels your moral high horsing as Muslim defender.

It is ONLY you Odeon. Of all of us, it is only you that is unable to see outside your bubble. You are fucking stupid and the fault does not lie with me, Benji or Walkie and nor the next person you spew your ideologically skewed narrative at.

Dimwit. Stop wasting bandwidth.