Do British Muslims really pose a threat to that country and its traditional values?

[Screech]

Originally posted by: Alaa

Originally posted by: screech

We conquered to spread Islam and to protect ourselves from any threat by the nearby nations.

How was it that you were protecting yourselves from any threat from nearby nations by conquering lands all the way up to the Battle of Tours? Modern-day France is/was hardly anywhere close to the center of the past Caliphate....not that facts are at all important or anything....

good but didn't I mention Spreading Islam AND protecting ourselves..see? there is a SMALL AND in between!

I'll accept that, but then the Crusades--and hell, pretty much any religious war--can be justified under the same concept of 'spreading _____ religion.'

edit: typo

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Comedy Central Surrenders
Was there ever a more brutal savaging of a show's own network while that show was still on the air? Last night, Trey Parker and Matt Stone concluded last week's South Park episode by throwing everything they had against Comedy Central, a compliant press, and the people who gave in to fear of violence in the wake of a few offensive cartoons.

To underscore Comedy Central's (and by extension, Viacom's) double standards and cowardice, last night's episode ended with Jesus Christ crapping all over an American flag.

And yet, the network would allow no Mohammed, not even one handing the Family Guy a football helmet with a salmon. Parker and Stone called media institutions on the carpet over their failure to defend the First Amendment, and they replied with more fear, more weakness, and an increasing willingness to kneel before Allah. To think, a silly little cartoon on basic cable about a redneck mountain town does more to defend the constitution than such self-vaunted press institutions like the New York Times and CNN. What an extraordinary world we find ourselves in.

You don't believe this piece of crap do you?

South Park wasn't censored, it was a gag. Watch the episode and stop reading crappy little blogs who are obviously too stupid to understand a f-ing cartoon on Comedy Central.

I swear we need more chlorine in our gene pool.

And if you didn't understand what they were making fun of and pointing out the hipocracy maybe you ought to watch it again

There is a video link in the blog

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Comedy Central Surrenders
Was there ever a more brutal savaging of a show's own network while that show was still on the air? Last night, Trey Parker and Matt Stone concluded last week's South Park episode by throwing everything they had against Comedy Central, a compliant press, and the people who gave in to fear of violence in the wake of a few offensive cartoons.

To underscore Comedy Central's (and by extension, Viacom's) double standards and cowardice, last night's episode ended with Jesus Christ crapping all over an American flag.

And yet, the network would allow no Mohammed, not even one handing the Family Guy a football helmet with a salmon. Parker and Stone called media institutions on the carpet over their failure to defend the First Amendment, and they replied with more fear, more weakness, and an increasing willingness to kneel before Allah. To think, a silly little cartoon on basic cable about a redneck mountain town does more to defend the constitution than such self-vaunted press institutions like the New York Times and CNN. What an extraordinary world we find ourselves in.

You don't believe this piece of crap do you?

South Park wasn't censored, it was a gag. Watch the episode and stop reading crappy little blogs who are obviously too stupid to understand a f-ing cartoon on Comedy Central.

I swear we need more chlorine in our gene pool.

And if you didn't understand what they were making fun of and pointing out the hipocracy maybe you ought to watch it again

There is a video link in the blog

It was a gag nothing more. And yes I do include myself in the gene pool comment, my spelling and grammar is terrible, especially from a fresh install prior to me adding a spell check extension.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Comedy Central Surrenders
Was there ever a more brutal savaging of a show's own network while that show was still on the air? Last night, Trey Parker and Matt Stone concluded last week's South Park episode by throwing everything they had against Comedy Central, a compliant press, and the people who gave in to fear of violence in the wake of a few offensive cartoons.

To underscore Comedy Central's (and by extension, Viacom's) double standards and cowardice, last night's episode ended with Jesus Christ crapping all over an American flag.

And yet, the network would allow no Mohammed, not even one handing the Family Guy a football helmet with a salmon. Parker and Stone called media institutions on the carpet over their failure to defend the First Amendment, and they replied with more fear, more weakness, and an increasing willingness to kneel before Allah. To think, a silly little cartoon on basic cable about a redneck mountain town does more to defend the constitution than such self-vaunted press institutions like the New York Times and CNN. What an extraordinary world we find ourselves in.

You don't believe this piece of crap do you?

South Park wasn't censored, it was a gag. Watch the episode and stop reading crappy little blogs who are obviously too stupid to understand a f-ing cartoon on Comedy Central.

I swear we need more chlorine in our gene pool.

And if you didn't understand what they were making fun of and pointing out the hipocracy maybe you ought to watch it again

There is a video link in the blog

It was a gag nothing more. And yes I do include myself in the gene pool comment, my spelling and grammar is terrible, especially from a fresh install prior to me adding a spell check extension.

And the ability to do what they did, the gag, comes from the free speech rights in the western world which protects their right to do so whether it is making fun of Scientologists, Christians , Muslims, etc.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: IrateLeaf

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
It doesn't matter what happened in the past. What matters is that they are Borg-like threat to the fragile structure of the Western democracies, that treads on a very fine line to remain what they are. We can't allow our world to be taken over by Muslims. The only question is that whether Europe will wake up now and put an end to this harmful immigration, or whether it'll wait 20 more years, which will eventually lead to a civil war in the good case, or complete loss of the European heritage at the worst.

Excellent response. 100% accurate and very very true!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

This is the God damn 21st century and we're going to have a holy war. Fan-fvcking-tastic!

Some religions (one) are still living in the 12th century... that's why.

I wish this were the 12th century, but we?ve passed the point where hostiles sworn to your death can be ignored due to distance or incompetence. Imagine how daring these Jihadists are now while they are still the under dogs in military might. They?ve proven once again our desire to appease bloodshed and are now making the most out of that weakness.

We?ll truly know how peaceful their movement is when Iran?s heavy water reactor finishes producing enough plutonium to close the military gap.

While the religions in the west are fading while being conquered peacefully, Islam is setting the stage to go out with a bang.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: IrateLeaf

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
It doesn't matter what happened in the past. What matters is that they are Borg-like threat to the fragile structure of the Western democracies, that treads on a very fine line to remain what they are. We can't allow our world to be taken over by Muslims. The only question is that whether Europe will wake up now and put an end to this harmful immigration, or whether it'll wait 20 more years, which will eventually lead to a civil war in the good case, or complete loss of the European heritage at the worst.

Excellent response. 100% accurate and very very true!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

This is the God damn 21st century and we're going to have a holy war. Fan-fvcking-tastic!

Some religions (one) are still living in the 12th century... that's why.

I wish this were the 12th century, but we?ve passed the point where hostiles sworn to your death can be ignored due to distance or incompetence. Imagine how daring these Jihadists are now while they are still the under dogs in military might. They?ve proven once again our desire to appease bloodshed and are now making the most out of that weakness.

We?ll truly know how peaceful their movement is when Iran?s heavy water reactor finishes producing enough plutonium to close the military gap.

While the religions in the west are fading while being conquered peacefully, Islam is setting the stage to go out with a bang.

Iran's nuclear program is not going to close the military gap, and they know it. Even if they eventually develop real nuclear weapons (something I'm not convinced they will be able to do any time soon), the utility of such a weapon will be in defense, not in offense. While it's use would be a useful threat for them, if they actually start USING nuclear weapons, they know how the west will retaliate, and quite simply, they will lose that conflict in a big way. As far as the rest of the military gap, they are even worse off in conventional war. We might have trouble invading and/or occupying their country, but we can REALLY send them back to the middle ages without too much trouble.

In any case, the situation in the Middle East will change before too long...much of the power there is derived from oil wealth, and the way things are going, I have a feeling we'll be trying to move away from oil as quickly as possible. We don't have to stop using oil entirely, we actually don't import all that much...if all those idiots driving huge SUVs would drive more reasonable vehicles instead, we probably wouldn't have to import a single drop of oil. If we make it to that position, we'll be in a place where we can simply stop buying oil from countries like Iran...which ALSO means one of their most effective methods of preventing military attack will be gone...if they start acting up, we can start bombing their oil facilities with B-2s and F-117s.

Don't get me wrong, there is certainly a threat from countries like Iran and the fanatics they fund...but I think a lot of people are overplaying it (I blame watching too much TV news). People love to bitch about our "weakness", but part of that is because we can afford to play nice at the moment, even when the other guys don't. If the gloves really do ever have to come off, I would certainly much rather be on our side than Iran's...and I think they know that too.

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
While the religions in the west are fading while being conquered peacefully, Islam is setting the stage to go out with a bang.

Well said by Jaskalas.

There's just no question about the following. Give two opponants who have infinitely hated each other's gutz for thousands of years each a set of doomsday devices and one or both will soon become annihilated. I give Iran 10 years, maybe, and that's a huge maybe, ...15 years, before the only job to be had there in Jihadistan will be that of valet parking on a million square mile pavement of heat tempered glass.

 

[Alaa]

Originally posted by: screech
I'll accept that, but then the Crusades--and hell, pretty much any religious war--can be justified under the same concept of 'spreading _____ religion.'

edit: typo

This is not a justification This is something we are told to do in Islam.So we are not justifying something we already did because in the 1st place we were ordered to do it. No one at that time would have let Muslims to spread Islam without wars!!

 

[Alaa]

Originally posted by: jrenz
Some religions (one) are still living in the 12th century... that's why.

I see people jumping to conclusions with Zero knowledge about what they are talking about.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: IrateLeaf

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
It doesn't matter what happened in the past. What matters is that they are Borg-like threat to the fragile structure of the Western democracies, that treads on a very fine line to remain what they are. We can't allow our world to be taken over by Muslims. The only question is that whether Europe will wake up now and put an end to this harmful immigration, or whether it'll wait 20 more years, which will eventually lead to a civil war in the good case, or complete loss of the European heritage at the worst.

Excellent response. 100% accurate and very very true!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

This is the God damn 21st century and we're going to have a holy war. Fan-fvcking-tastic!

Some religions (one) are still living in the 12th century... that's why.

I don't know about that, those two I quoted seem just as eager to turn this into a full scale Holy War as the worst Hamas fanatic. And it's not just them, there are a disturbingly large number of people who seem EAGER to go from dealing with a small number of actual violent fanatics to waging war on the entire religion of Islam. If this conflict turns into a full scale shooting war between Muslims and Jews/Christians in western countries, it seems just as likely to me that Muslims will not have been the ones to start it.

I'm not eager to turn this into a holy war in the name of Judaism or Chritstiany. I'm eager to turn it into a holy war between my western values, culture and civilization and theirs dark society. This is one holy war that I'd like to see.

There is no evidence that I see that this case is any different, some stupid polls don't predict long term trends in the beliefs on either side, and if there is one constant in the world it's that views change over time. If you think that the views and attitudes of British Muslims (or ANY Muslims for that matter) are going to be exactly the same 20 years from now, you haven't been paying a lot of attention to history.

You are completlely right. But in the opposite way to what you think (or hope). 20 years ago, radical Islam was negligible. There were many less Muslims in Europe, and Arabs were first of all Arabs and not Muslims like they are today. In the wars of the 60's and 70's between the Arabs and Israel, no one talked about religion and Islam.

(a little more than) 20 years go, Iran was under the regime of the Shah, a regime that was an ally of Israel and the West.

20 years ago, there was no Hamas but the PLO, who couldn't be accused of being religiously radical. They, like the rest of the Arab world, were nationaists first and Muslims second.

20 years ago, there was no "Al Qaeda" and global terrorism was only something you encounter in Rambo movies.

20 years ago, when you put a bomb in a public place, you'd usually call to report it, compared to just blowing up with it nowadays.

20 years ago, Arab goverments were much keener on putting the stops on radical Muslim groups (hence Black September in Jordan, and the struggle against the Muslim brothers in Egypt).

So there, I'd say the world has definitely changed in the last 20 years, but not for the better. And with the politically-correct-fueled incompetency exhibited now by the West, there's no reason for the next 20 years to be any better. On the opposite, they'll be much worse.

I'm sure your intentions are good, but your path will lead to an inevitable clash between Muslim and their hosting countries. The riots in Paris were merely a preview to what will happen when Muslims turn against their hosts.

It'll get bloody, no doubt.

 

[Albatross]

all these things wouldn`t happen if europeans bothered having kids.people reproduce if there is hope,but since western culture and religion has gone to the dogs the future is not bright.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: albatross
all these things wouldn`t happen if europeans bothered having kids.people reproduce if there is hope,but since western culture and religion has gone to the dogs the future is not bright.

Right, more kids.... China could tell you a thing or two about overwhelming population numbers and how to manage the burden. Free livers anyone?

 

[Albatross]

europe is in population decline.in france one in three kids is muslim.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: albatross
europe is in population decline.in france one in three kids is muslim.

1/4th of the USA will be from central or South America before 2100. Not counting a single person here today, illegal or not.

 

[Albatross]

yes all the west is overwhelmed with immigrants.but if people want pensions they have to let them in or have more kids.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: albatross
europe is in population decline.in france one in three kids is muslim.

France is known for bending over and taking it. No doubt we'll have to bail their sorry asses out of a mess again sometime in the next decade or two.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Alaa
This is not a justification This is something we are told to do in Islam.So we are not justifying something we already did because in the 1st place we were ordered to do it.

This remark gives validity to the Borg analogy like nothing else could.

Do you see how simple it is? It is written in a book, and that is why they must do so -- just like a computer must execute a program given to it, without any obstructions such as free thinking -- that's what they were created for.

No one at that time would have let Muslims to spread Islam without wars!!

They expect to be allowed to spread Islam without wars, i.e. for everyone to capitulate to their desires; that is exactly what is happening now, as they are allowed to take advantage of democracy in the Western world, while the Politically Correct fools lecture everyone else not to put up any obstructions. However, the West doesn't have that kind of right in Muslim-land: try to promote a contrary point of view, and chances are you be threaten, beaten, or worse.

They will use democracy to bring down democracy, just like the National Socialist party did in Germany; at the end the Germans got more than they bargined for, just like Palestinians who gave Hamas majority control, and then had gunmen beating them up for drinking alcohol, or listening to inappropriate music or shaving their beard.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Termagant
What??? Bush was wrong? Muslims aren't freedom loving and want to hold hands with Jews?

This is not news. Everyone should know these facts by now.

Sixty-eight percent support arrest and prosecution for those British people who "insult Islam."

:disgust: Too bad I'm not British, otherwise I'd insult away.

Yes Jews need to feel threatened by Muslims.
Jews in Israel watch out. 20% of your population is planning a mass murder sphree!!

:rolls eyes:

WTF are you talking about? Which religious militia just launched about 200 rockets into Israel?

What do people have to say with the completely un-Western statistics from the OP?

You sound like a redneck who just started watching the news (FoxNews) for the first time ever.

Here are some facts to educate you:

1) The majority of Muslims are not from the Middle East.
2) Arabs are only 12% of the Muslim population
3) Islam says nothing about murder, suicide bombings, or killing of Jews.

to point #3. You need to re-read the Koran, for it does in fact say to kill jews and other non-belivers.

 

[magomago]

dna why don't you pause and look at the situation rather than invoke Hitler every second in your thread.


Look at countries/empires during those times. Well up to the recent modern era, and holding true all the way back to the dawn of human civilization... if a country wasn't expanding, it was contracting and if a a country was contracting, it was usually getting smaller because of external threats and the breakdown of administrative law.
This is perfectly illustrated by Chinese saying that the "size of the empire" depends on how far his light shines. A good ruler means the empire is bigger, a smaller ruler means the empire is smaller.
The "middle ground" where a country just sat there without problems simply didn't exist. All these new ideas that "no land can forcibly be taken" is the result of the last 100 years with things like the Geneva convention.
Understand where you are coming from in history, because applying the laws of today to the past makes no sense. No doubt hopefully in the future people will look at the viscious actions being taken today that we justify and call righteous as barbaric acts.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Citrix
to point #3. You need to re-read the Koran, for it does in fact say to kill jews and other non-belivers.

Uhhh no. YOU need to re-read the Quran...and when I mean re-read, I mean actually sit down and read it and not cut and paste snippets you've found from email as well as sites intent on painting Islam as as demonic religion.

Before you go and start posting wild links, of which 85% are almost all the same...have a look here where ChopperGod posts how The quran claims to kill nonbelievers, Jews, and Chrisitians and I later respond. I'm sure almost any quotation you bring it is probably one that he did. You can skip most of the thread and simply do a search for either of our names to find the section.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1916066&enterthread=y

 

[piasabird]

That was more like 300 rockets a day for 20 days.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: magomago
dna why don't you pause and look at the situation rather than invoke Hitler every second in your thread.

Did I invoke Hitler, or is this your lame attempt to negate my remark?

Understand where you are coming from in history, because applying the laws of today to the past makes no sense.

What a long winded post you managed to compose, while I was merely pointing out the obvious message coming out of your compatriot's (Alaa) comments: we are ordered to spread Islam via Jihad, and we will fight you -- or as he likes to put it: "defend our right" -- if you do not let us spread it.

I'm sure he's not the only one who thinks this way, and what he is saying is no more than a veiled threat.

No doubt hopefully in the future people will look at the viscious actions being taken today that we justify and call righteous as barbaric acts.

So, you also support this spread of Islam by forcing.... ahem... defending your divine duty to spread it?
I don't need to wait for the future -- people are already calling it barbaric acts in the here and now.

 

[Alaa]

Originally posted by: dna
What a long winded post you managed to compose, while I was merely pointing out the obvious message coming out of your compatriot's (Alaa) comments: we are ordered to spread Islam via Jihad, and we will fight you -- or as he likes to put it: "defend our right" -- if you do not let us spread it.

I'm sure he's not the only one who thinks this way, and what he is saying is no more than a veiled threat.

I think that things have changed now. There is internet and that would make our life easier so wars are rarely nowadays for us when we need to spread religion. That means you are talking about someone else!?? you shouldn't bring my name!

So, you also support this spread of Islam by forcing.... ahem... defending your divine duty to spread it?
I don't need to wait for the future -- people are already calling it barbaric acts in the here and now.

you country stopped having real wars 50 years ago so don't blame us that we had wars 1400 years ago!! Don't talk like you are the peaceful nation while you are killing thousands of Muslims in Iraq or Palestine (Israel)

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Alaa
Don't talk like you are the peaceful nation while you are killing thousands of Muslims in Iraq or Palestine (Israel)

Who's killing thousands in Iraq? It's Sunnis and Shiites, with lots of meddling from Iran, that are slaughering each other in the name of Allah. Get your facts straight about that, and don't blame everyone else for what Muslims do to themselves.

Israel is a much more complicated matter, but you can hardly claim that there are thousands being killed. Operations are aimed at militants, which, like Hezbollah, hide among civilians, or simply uses them as they have used children.

 

[magomago]

Might I also add....we speak as if we already know what the Sharia is. Do we really understand it? What we've seen of it is primarily of implentation by a) The Saudis (who really haven't had a great track record of ANYTHING) b) Taliban (they speak for themselves) and c) to some extent Sudan\Somilia. Some laws within the Sharia are seen as universal (ban on drinking) because they exist explicity within the Quran, and many others fall under "scholarly interpreation"

Where the biggest problems exist is in a) the improper application of the explict laws by selectively choosing WHAT to apply b) Adapation of scholarly interpreations from the PAST to today and c) arguments to the application of the law in the first place


One of the classical cases is dealing with a theif. Plainly put: a theif has his hand cut off. It is often emphasized with this:

5-38 As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.

We hear this, and our media raves on and on about how barbaric it is. In fact, it is what I sometimes hear from some Muslims.

But WE OFTEN FORGET THIS PART , but its not hard to forget...its only the next verse that exists right after it specifically following through

5-39 But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

What do we have now? If a thiefs says he is sorry...and stops stealing something...then he is forgiven. That is all.

So when does the law apply? For those who don't "say they are sorry"...if someone stole my possession and GLAD they were did it and don't express ANY remorse and would do it again... my God I would see why we want to cut off the hand! The law applies to those who express no remorse for their actions, and those who continue to repeatedly steal even after several instances of being caught (note that he has to be caught).

To make it sound like you can lose your hand for a candy bar simply isn't true.

I also don't want to comment too much further without learning aobut he inner workings of Sharia because I am no scholar...I can only point out some obvious things

One thing I will point out is that adultery must first be proven: 4 witness must have obersved it occur or else the charge CANNOT be brought forth. Now unless you are having a peep party, getting four witnesses is a ridiculously tough act. And if the man OR women cannot produce four witnesses: the punishment is something like 80-100 lashes on a back (a far cry from death) for bringing about libel of this magnitude.

A man OR woman CAN bring charges against their husband/wife with less than that number IF they swear to God 4 times that they are not bullsh*tting...but the accused man OR woman can do the same to defend his or herself.

Btw here are the Quran verses...

024.004
YUSUFALI: And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-
024.005
YUSUFALI: Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
024.006
YUSUFALI: And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own,- their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth;
024.007
YUSUFALI: And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.
024.008
YUSUFALI: But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;
024.009
YUSUFALI: And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth.

It is interesting to follow through with the rest of the passage...but the topic slowly switches to talking(for the next 20ish verses) about oath and telling lies and how no matter how much you lie and deceive you will get eventually get pwened


I think the biggest disagreement that exists is simply the view of these actions..ie: part C. Let us say we have a Joe Schmoe, and 4 unique individuals confirm they witnessed it, and for the sake of argument he DID commit adultery. From an Islamic standpoint: she screwed the pooch. In this society we are taught to think none of it, for if adultery was truly a deplorable thing we would not have such high rates of it. Go to places like "no marraige.com" (some interesting reads lol...) and it is even encouraged that men divorce. It is at this point that disagreement occurs, simply because Islam doesn't agree with that.
Although, I wouldn't be suprised somewhere if there was a clause that said "if they repent...leave them for God is the most forgiving"

Personally I don't care what system I live in. I have no problem with my current system, because ultimately I hope I had my own compass...and that we all, regardless of the level at which we punish something, have basic notions of right and wrong~ and that stealing and adultery fall into that category of wrong.

The Sharia has a lot of BS accusations around it, but at the same time in recent history we can only point to Saudi Arabia and the Taliban as examples...and we should know they aren't good examples for absolutely anything beyond how NOT to do things. I think that what the people themselves think of Sharia is probably not to the magnitude that the media wants to hype...