"It was beyond my imagination that in a secular democracy this can happen to a writer"

[Jaskalas]

A pair of stories about what happens to those who oppose Islamic Supremacism in their own countries. A story of our own Dhimmitude in the face of attacks against our people.

Do we pursue our assailants, do we ensure the security of our people?

The answer seems obvious, as the first story reminds me of the life long sentence and fate of the Danish cartoonists. Or the fate of the late Theo Van Gogh.

The second story is of the LACK of freedom of speech in the UK and other western democracies. Who is the law protecting, the British citizen or the Islamic Supremacist? Which group does civilization provide the care and protection for?

Apparently not us.

Nasreen: I cannot live like this any more
KOLKATA: Confined to a ?safe house? somewhere in New Delhi and shut out from the world except for phone calls and e-mails, controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen will celebrate the new year in a no-man?s land of fading hope, despair and crushing loneliness.

?I am only breathing. I don?t think I am alive like you are. Can anybody live like this? It was beyond my imagination that in a secular democracy this can happen to a writer,? Nasreen said from her room in an undisclosed location.

First They Came for the English Bloggers
I have said a number of times that what I do here would be illegal in some countries in Europe, and that a European citizen doing what I do can be arrested there.

Britain is such a country. Its recent laws concerning the incitement of racial and religious hatred have made illegal much of what is published in the Counterjihad blogosphere.

And now the first British blogger is about to face the Multicultural perp-walk.

Lionheart is a well-known patriotic blogger in England, and is on our blogroll. He is currently outside the UK, and has been informed that he will be arrested for stirring up racial hatred as soon as he returns home.

 

[Ozoned]

Lots of countries have racially based restrictions on freedom of speech laws. They are not all blatantly obvious. The roots to many of them, I think, can be found in guilt of not doing anything to help the Jews exterminated by Germany in WW2. Research Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Finland racial laws. IMHO, here in the US, the restrictions we have on speech (regarding race) are self imposed by social and political correctness, and shoved down our throats by the media.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Lots of countries have racially based restrictions on freedom of speech laws. They are not all blatantly obvious. The roots to many of them, I think, can be found in guilt of not doing anything to help the Jews exterminated by Germany in WW2. Research Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Finland racial laws. IMHO, here in the US, the restrictions we have on speech (regarding race) are self imposed by social and political correctness, and shoved down our throats by the media.

As it should be.

 

[Jaskalas]

Further perspective, on this topic (if you read it all) by Hugh Fitzgerald.

Required: a different attitude by the Indian government, and by all the Infidel governments

India, as the object of Islamic conquest, endured, over the centuries of Muslim rule and misrule, tens of millions of Hindu victims. India is a country that, at its Independence, was forced to give up large chunks of its territory on both sides to form West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), in order to accommodate Muslim demands. In Pakistan, at Partition, 15% of the population was Hindu; it is now 1.5%. In Bangladesh, at Partition, 34% of the population was non-Muslim (Hindu and Buddhist); it is now 7%. Meanwhile, in India, the Muslim percentage of the population steadily rises.

In the Pakistan-held parts of Jammu and Kashmir, 400,000 Hindu Pandits have, by Muslim pressure, been driven out. In Indian-held Kashmir, terrorist attacks by Muslims, supported by Pakistani groups unchecked by, and at times supported by, the Pakistani army, have attempted to murder and terrorize the Hindus and drive them out. In India proper (a dangerous phrase, I admit, and I regret it, for it inadvertently concedes that Indian-held Kashmir somehow is different from "India proper" -- the same problem one has in referring to what is called the "West Bank" -- but cannot at the moment think of anything better than "India extra Kashmirem" on the old-map model of "India extra Gangem") there have been attacks, never or seldom reported in the West, for decades, of Muslims on Hindus. But every counter-attack by Hindus pushed to the limits of their endurance is given front-page coverage. We all know about the Hindu attacks on the mosque deliberately erected on the Hindu temple at Ayodha. We all know about the Hindu attacks on Muslims in Gujarat -- why, the State Department banned Narendra Modi, who ran the Gujarat government, from entering the United States.

But the provocations that prompted those attacks, the burning to death of Hindu pilgrims, is quickly glossed over in a sentence And all the other Muslim attacks, steadily, all over India -- those repeated bombs in Mumbai, killing bankers and tea-wallahs alike, set off by the Muslims who run the Bombay underworld (the head gangster sought, and found safe haven, in Pakistan), and even the attack by Muslims on the Parliament building in New Delhi --somehow none of them ever quite make any impression on the non-Indian world. That world remains so deeply uninterested in what is endured by Indians, and unsympathetic (but why?) to Hindus -- not quite to the same remarkable extent as the world has shown itself willing to accept the unendurable position that the Lesser Jihad has forced Israel into, but close.

And now here is Taslima Nasreen, born into Islam in Bangladesh, but whose intellect and moral sense and ability to question and think for herself led, inexorably, to an analysis of Islam, and a subsequent jettisoning of Islam, not unlike that of Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ali Sina. The Community of Apostates turns out to be, for those who study their works, the community of the very best people, self-selected, of all those born into Islam. She dares to return to Bangladesh. She is harried. She is hunted. The death threats never stop. So she moves to India, powerful large India, with a population that is 87% non-Muslim. And even there what happens? She is confined to quarters. She meets no one. No one meets her. She is, in effect, a prisoner. She has been condemned to prison, instead of being given the protection of the state that will allow her to move around, to meet, to address gatherings, to publish her views in every sense.

She should be made much of. Instead, a fearful Indian government has condemned her to solitary confinement. How long can she endure such a life in India? How long will it be before she has to flee to the United States, the way Ayaan Hirsi Ali did, driven out by death threats from the country where she had been a member of that country's Parliament?

There is something wrong here. There is something that could be fixed. It requires a different attitude by the Indian government, and by all the Infidel governments. They can run, but they can't hide.

Originally posted by: techs
As it should be.

This is why I find it difficult to ever come to terms with you and any other Democrat. To support the subjugation of our people, ON OUR SOIL, in defense of Islamic Supremacists is horrible. Especially in light of September 11th and all the other attacks against us around the globe.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Further perspective, on this topic (if you read it all) by Hugh Fitzgerald.

Required: a different attitude by the Indian government, and by all the Infidel governments

India, as the object of Islamic conquest, endured, over the centuries of Muslim rule and misrule, tens of millions of Hindu victims. India is a country that, at its Independence, was forced to give up large chunks of its territory on both sides to form West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), in order to accommodate Muslim demands. In Pakistan, at Partition, 15% of the population was Hindu; it is now 1.5%. In Bangladesh, at Partition, 34% of the population was non-Muslim (Hindu and Buddhist); it is now 7%. Meanwhile, in India, the Muslim percentage of the population steadily rises.

In the Pakistan-held parts of Jammu and Kashmir, 400,000 Hindu Pandits have, by Muslim pressure, been driven out. In Indian-held Kashmir, terrorist attacks by Muslims, supported by Pakistani groups unchecked by, and at times supported by, the Pakistani army, have attempted to murder and terrorize the Hindus and drive them out. In India proper (a dangerous phrase, I admit, and I regret it, for it inadvertently concedes that Indian-held Kashmir somehow is different from "India proper" -- the same problem one has in referring to what is called the "West Bank" -- but cannot at the moment think of anything better than "India extra Kashmirem" on the old-map model of "India extra Gangem") there have been attacks, never or seldom reported in the West, for decades, of Muslims on Hindus. But every counter-attack by Hindus pushed to the limits of their endurance is given front-page coverage. We all know about the Hindu attacks on the mosque deliberately erected on the Hindu temple at Ayodha. We all know about the Hindu attacks on Muslims in Gujarat -- why, the State Department banned Narendra Modi, who ran the Gujarat government, from entering the United States.

But the provocations that prompted those attacks, the burning to death of Hindu pilgrims, is quickly glossed over in a sentence And all the other Muslim attacks, steadily, all over India -- those repeated bombs in Mumbai, killing bankers and tea-wallahs alike, set off by the Muslims who run the Bombay underworld (the head gangster sought, and found safe haven, in Pakistan), and even the attack by Muslims on the Parliament building in New Delhi --somehow none of them ever quite make any impression on the non-Indian world. That world remains so deeply uninterested in what is endured by Indians, and unsympathetic (but why?) to Hindus -- not quite to the same remarkable extent as the world has shown itself willing to accept the unendurable position that the Lesser Jihad has forced Israel into, but close.

And now here is Taslima Nasreen, born into Islam in Bangladesh, but whose intellect and moral sense and ability to question and think for herself led, inexorably, to an analysis of Islam, and a subsequent jettisoning of Islam, not unlike that of Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ali Sina. The Community of Apostates turns out to be, for those who study their works, the community of the very best people, self-selected, of all those born into Islam. She dares to return to Bangladesh. She is harried. She is hunted. The death threats never stop. So she moves to India, powerful large India, with a population that is 87% non-Muslim. And even there what happens? She is confined to quarters. She meets no one. No one meets her. She is, in effect, a prisoner. She has been condemned to prison, instead of being given the protection of the state that will allow her to move around, to meet, to address gatherings, to publish her views in every sense.

She should be made much of. Instead, a fearful Indian government has condemned her to solitary confinement. How long can she endure such a life in India? How long will it be before she has to flee to the United States, the way Ayaan Hirsi Ali did, driven out by death threats from the country where she had been a member of that country's Parliament?

There is something wrong here. There is something that could be fixed. It requires a different attitude by the Indian government, and by all the Infidel governments. They can run, but they can't hide.

Originally posted by: techs
As it should be.

This is why I find it difficult to ever come to terms with you and any other Democrat. To support the subjugation of our people, ON OUR SOIL, in defense of Islamic Supremacists is horrible. Especially in light of September 11th and all the other attacks against us around the globe.

Nice cut and paste job sparky.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
This is why I find it difficult to ever come to terms with you and any other Democrat.

Just like the Islamofacists, you reveal yourself as an intolerant, ideologically driven bigot. :|

 

[Lemon law]

Its somewhat interesting to see total censorship when we as a nation believe in total free speech. And see a nation impose what amounts to the ultimate death sentence unthinkable in the USA. The point being, as a natural born citizen of the USA, someone can commit any crime, say anything politically incorrect, or even commit acts treason for a an enemy nation, but there is nothing in our laws that permit the USA government to strip away US citizenship. That may be possible for a naturalized citizen who lied coming in, but not for a natural born citizen.

Yet that is what happened to Ossama Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia. And somewhat the traditional way used by many nations. Of exiling the politically incorrect who are then free to speak out from the safety of another nation. Which then seems to be a bad idea as it tends to motivate worse dangers as it almost invites a passion to return home in triumph. And we saw it with Lenin in Russia and with Khomeini in Iran.

But India has its own problems as it has an intense Muslim Hindu split that has caused divisions long before the Brits came with a divide and conquer strategy that worked. And it
took a Gandhi to unite them both in expelling the British just as Tito used the Nazis to unite Yugoslavia. But the lesson is there, if those tensions are not defused, any union is only temporary. I doubt the Indian censorship is wise, I believe its always better to get those ideas out and let them flop in the marketplace of free ideas.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
...

Originally posted by: techs
As it should be.

This is why I find it difficult to ever come to terms with you and any other Democrat. To support the subjugation of our people, ON OUR SOIL, in defense of Islamic Supremacists is horrible. Especially in light of September 11th and all the other attacks against us around the globe.

What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody is being "subjugated", and your article is about the UK in any case, genius. It's like you're not happy unless you can feel persecuted.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
As it should be.

This is why I find it difficult to ever come to terms with you and any other Democrat. To support the subjugation of our people, ON OUR SOIL, in defense of Islamic Supremacists is horrible. Especially in light of September 11th and all the other attacks against us around the globe.

What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody is being "subjugated", and your article is about the UK in any case, genius. It's like you're not happy unless you can feel persecuted.

He clearly states his support of that, anywhere including here. Ask him, he?ll tell you. Doesn?t matter that it was in the UK, or does the idol worship of socialist Europe not reverberate enough around here?

Label anything critical of Islamic Supremacy as racist and hate speech and throw people away. Or permit riots of Muslims in India, Europe, and eventually here to determine that people have to go into hiding for life or face death.

That is subjugation for the favor of Islamic Supremacists. You call it jailing racists, that?s your ideology and you can support them all you like, I won?t.

Feeling persecuted? Your assumption is flawed. How about feeling betrayed. As I watch treachery run rampant in this war and people here and across the globe stand up against anyone critical of our enemy.

When non-Muslim governments condemn and bestow their intolerance to us, its own people, while preaching tolerance for Muslims and Islamic Supremacists. That is the anti-western, anti-American hypocrisy that you share with them and that I oppose. Least my beef is with our killers and their enablers, and not with our killer?s victims.

That is the line which we stand opposite on, It is also apparently clear that it is a line between political parties in this nation.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
As it should be.

This is why I find it difficult to ever come to terms with you and any other Democrat. To support the subjugation of our people, ON OUR SOIL, in defense of Islamic Supremacists is horrible. Especially in light of September 11th and all the other attacks against us around the globe.

What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody is being "subjugated", and your article is about the UK in any case, genius. It's like you're not happy unless you can feel persecuted.

He clearly states his support of that, anywhere including here. Ask him, he?ll tell you. Doesn?t matter that it was in the UK, or does the idol worship of socialist Europe not reverberate enough around here?

Label anything critical of Islamic Supremacy as racist and hate speech and throw people away. Or permit riots of Muslims in India, Europe, and eventually here to determine that people have to go into hiding for life or face death.

That is subjugation for the favor of Islamic Supremacists. You call it jailing racists, that?s your ideology and you can support them all you like, I won?t.

Feeling persecuted? Your assumption is flawed. How about feeling betrayed. As I watch treachery run rampant in this war and people here and across the globe stand up against anyone critical of our enemy.

When non-Muslim governments condemn and bestow their intolerance to us, its own people, while preaching tolerance for Muslims and Islamic Supremacists. That is the anti-western, anti-American hypocrisy that you share with them and that I oppose. Least my beef is with our killers and their enablers, and not with our killer?s victims.

That is the line which we stand opposite on, It is also apparently clear that it is a line between political parties in this nation.

He was talking about SELF-IMPOSED limits on racial speech, you lunatic. Nobody here is talking about "throwing people away" or jailing anyone, racist or otherwise. You have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to complain when people disagree with that speech. I see people in this country ranting about how evil Muslims are all the time, nobody's trying to stop you. I think you're all a bunch of alarmist morons, but hey, being labeled an alarmist moron is one of the risks you take when you open your mouth...even in a country with free speech.

And for the record, my problem with you and the rest of the your crowd isn't that you're "critical of our enemy", it's that you think every Muslim everywhere is "our enemy". You want to hold your Klan rally, fine, but don't expect everyone to go along with your silly ass excuse that you're just visiting righteous judgement on terrorists. You're complaining in this very post about how people are preaching tolerance for Muslims...well yeah, it's called freedom of religion, one of the very first founding principles of this country. And the Muslim Americans you so desperately hate are just as American as the rest of us, and I don't see them talking about how you are the enemy. So, yeah, you'll pardon me if I don't find your particular brand of bigoted hate speech all that great. You want to speak out against the actual fanatics? Fine by me, I dislike religions fanatics as much as the next guy...but that's not what you're doing.

 

[CanOWorms]

Freedom of speech is an illusion in many European countries. Democracy is cracking, if you believe that it even existed in the first place.

Political parties use their power in government to ban rival political parties. Governments use intelligence services to infiltrate rival political parties to try to ban them. People are punished for not believing in the concept of superior bloodlines (insult the royalty = punishment). Ultra far-right white supremacists are growing in power and their ideals are increasingly creeping into the mainstream. Restrictions on people of certain ethnicities. Mass-scale riots.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Lots of countries have racially based restrictions on freedom of speech laws. They are not all blatantly obvious. The roots to many of them, I think, can be found in guilt of not doing anything to help the Jews exterminated by Germany in WW2. Research Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Finland racial laws. IMHO, here in the US, the restrictions we have on speech (regarding race) are self imposed by social and political correctness, and shoved down our throats by the media.

Wrong. The anti-Jewish censorship has not produced violence or social unrest (relatively speaking) in Europe. However, the intolerant and social wh*ring muslims being carried over from dead Iraq and other f**ked up Islamic theocracies are poisoning speech and civil liberties to accommodate their backward religion and cultural practices.

Trying to generalize the whole "it's all our faults" gag is going to win any medals. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Lots of countries have racially based restrictions on freedom of speech laws. They are not all blatantly obvious. The roots to many of them, I think, can be found in guilt of not doing anything to help the Jews exterminated by Germany in WW2. Research Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Finland racial laws. IMHO, here in the US, the restrictions we have on speech (regarding race) are self imposed by social and political correctness, and shoved down our throats by the media.

Wrong. The anti-Jewish censorship has not produced violence or social unrest (relatively speaking) in Europe. However, the intolerant and social wh*ring muslims being carried over from dead Iraq and other f**ked up Islamic theocracies are poisoning speech and civil liberties to accommodate their backward religion and cultural practices.

Trying to generalize the whole "it's all our faults" gag is going to win any medals. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Lots of countries have racially based restrictions on freedom of speech laws. They are not all blatantly obvious. The roots to many of them, I think, can be found in guilt of not doing anything to help the Jews exterminated by Germany in WW2. Research Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Finland racial laws. IMHO, here in the US, the restrictions we have on speech (regarding race) are self imposed by social and political correctness, and shoved down our throats by the media.

Wrong. The anti-Jewish censorship has not produced violence or social unrest (relatively speaking) in Europe. However, the intolerant and social wh*ring muslims being carried over from dead Iraq and other f**ked up Islamic theocracies are poisoning speech and civil liberties to accommodate their backward religion and cultural practices.

Trying to generalize the whole "it's all our faults" gag is going to win any medals. This isn't rocket science.

:camera:

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Lots of countries have racially based restrictions on freedom of speech laws. They are not all blatantly obvious. The roots to many of them, I think, can be found in guilt of not doing anything to help the Jews exterminated by Germany in WW2. Research Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Finland racial laws. IMHO, here in the US, the restrictions we have on speech (regarding race) are self imposed by social and political correctness, and shoved down our throats by the media.

Wrong. The anti-Jewish censorship has not produced violence or social unrest (relatively speaking) in Europe. However, the intolerant and social wh*ring muslims being carried over from dead Iraq and other f**ked up Islamic theocracies are poisoning speech and civil liberties to accommodate their backward religion and cultural practices.

Trying to generalize the whole "it's all our faults" gag is going to win any medals. This isn't rocket science.

:camera:

:light:

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Lots of countries have racially based restrictions on freedom of speech laws. They are not all blatantly obvious. The roots to many of them, I think, can be found in guilt of not doing anything to help the Jews exterminated by Germany in WW2. Research Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Finland racial laws. IMHO, here in the US, the restrictions we have on speech (regarding race) are self imposed by social and political correctness, and shoved down our throats by the media.

Wrong. The anti-Jewish censorship has not produced violence or social unrest (relatively speaking) in Europe. However, the intolerant and social wh*ring muslims being carried over from dead Iraq and other f**ked up Islamic theocracies are poisoning speech and civil liberties to accommodate their backward religion and cultural practices.

Trying to generalize the whole "it's all our faults" gag is going to win any medals. This isn't rocket science.

:camera:

:light:

:wine:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And for the record, my problem with you and the rest of the your crowd isn't that you're "critical of our enemy", it's that you think every Muslim everywhere is "our enemy".

Quote me on that. Go ahead.

 

[hellokeith]

Liberals/Secularists categorize Christians as extreme for not wanting nudy bars in their neighborhood, and then welcome Muslims with open arms who don't want women out in public period. Looks like those who cry intolerance need some self-perspective..

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Liberals/Secularists categorize Christians as extreme for not wanting nudy bars in their neighborhood, and then welcome Muslims with open arms who don't want women out in public period. Looks like those who cry intolerance need some self-perspective..

Nice caricature you painted there.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Liberals/Secularists categorize Christians as extreme for not wanting nudy bars in their neighborhood, and then welcome Muslims with open arms who don't want women out in public period. Looks like those who cry intolerance need some self-perspective..

First of all as a Secularist I can understand why a Fund A Mental Case like yourself wouldn't want a Nudie Bar in your neighborhood as the temptation to visit probably would be to great for you. Secondly as a Secularist the last thing I want is some asshole Muslim Fund A Mental Case telling me how to live, they are even more intrusive than you and your ilk are (Extremists who abuse Christianity to push your Puritan Beliefs on others).

 

[Noobtastic]

First of all as a Secularist I can understand why a Fund A Mental Case like yourself wouldn't want a Nudie Bar in your neighborhood as the temptation to visit probably would be to great for you.

This seems to be a common habit by naysayers. Having to nail the opposition with personal attacks to mask your absurdly-flawed agenda. Nice try!

Secondly as a Secularist

What is this supposed to mean? That you do not belong to a partisan/zealot/group think party/organization/cult/religion?

Secularism is not a synonym for rational or logic. It is a religion.

the last thing I want is some asshole Muslim Fund A Mental Case telling me how to live, they are even more intrusive than you and your ilk are (Extremists who abuse Christianity to push your Puritan Beliefs on others).

You totally missed the point.

Let me break it down for you, and if you need me to count the syllables just say:

A) The "secularists" on a general scale have an overwhelming beef with the "Christian" majority in America. They believe the "indoctrination" by "Christian" citizens has gone too far, and that their solution of secularism will heal everything.

B) Secularism implies SECULARISM, meaning they do not associate or give candy bars to one organization and not the other. This rule has been violated, by you and your secular brethan, as the new wave of muslim crazies are being excused with tolerance, progress, diversity, blah blah blah. They refuse to recognize the documented hazards in Europe and Asia when a muslim majority exists within a non-muslim society.

That's basically secularism in a nut shell.


Hate the Christian, love the muslim. Then when someone cries bloody murder they revert to the, "All religions r teh suxors".


Have a nice day.

Vote Obama!



[/quote]

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Liberals/Secularists categorize Christians as extreme for not wanting nudy bars in their neighborhood, and then welcome Muslims with open arms who don't want women out in public period. Looks like those who cry intolerance need some self-perspective..

Yeah? Well you like kiddie porn.

Ooh, I like the unsubstantiated characterization game.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And for the record, my problem with you and the rest of the your crowd isn't that you're "critical of our enemy", it's that you think every Muslim everywhere is "our enemy".

Quote me on that. Go ahead.

Fine...

When non-Muslim governments condemn and bestow their intolerance to us, its own people, while preaching tolerance for Muslims and Islamic Supremacists. That is the anti-western, anti-American hypocrisy that you share with them and that I oppose. Least my beef is with our killers and their enablers, and not with our killer?s victims.

That look familiar? It should, it's from this very thread, but by no means unique in terms of the viewpoint you express. Right there, you complain about tolerance for Islamic supremacists (which I believe is NOT something anyone is expressing) by you ALSO complain about tolerance for Muslims...with absolutely no qualifiers to suggest that means anything other than all Muslims everywhere. And you go on to say that that tolerance (for all Muslims) is anti-western and anti-American, and that your beef is "with our killers". Since you beef is with "Muslims and Islamic Supremacists", I'm trying to figure out a way to read that sentence in a way that doesn't suggest you think all Muslims everywhere are our enemies.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And for the record, my problem with you and the rest of the your crowd isn't that you're "critical of our enemy", it's that you think every Muslim everywhere is "our enemy".

Quote me on that. Go ahead.

Fine...

When non-Muslim governments condemn and bestow their intolerance to us, its own people, while preaching tolerance for Muslims and Islamic Supremacists. That is the anti-western, anti-American hypocrisy that you share with them and that I oppose. Least my beef is with our killers and their enablers, and not with our killer?s victims.

That look familiar? It should, it's from this very thread, but by no means unique in terms of the viewpoint you express. Right there, you complain about tolerance for Islamic supremacists (which I believe is NOT something anyone is expressing) by you ALSO complain about tolerance for Muslims...with absolutely no qualifiers to suggest that means anything other than all Muslims everywhere. And you go on to say that that tolerance (for all Muslims) is anti-western and anti-American, and that your beef is "with our killers". Since you beef is with "Muslims and Islamic Supremacists", I'm trying to figure out a way to read that sentence in a way that doesn't suggest you think all Muslims everywhere are our enemies.

You are applying western ideals to Islamic culture. There are NO individuals in islamic society. Citizens are conditioned in grade school to follow islamic text, and with it islamic agenda (both nationally and internationally). These wave of immigrants sprinting to Europe because of their enticing social services are taking refugee in secluded communities whilst breeding their extremist brood to the max.

Why do you think rape/crime/overall angst is rapidly increasing in European cities with highly dense islamic populous?

I remember reading a dutch bakery had to close because the government-sanctioned Muslims for Europe were accusing the popular crescent shaped croissant of insulting islam.

Stop deluding yourself.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

First of all as a Secularist I can understand why a Fund A Mental Case like yourself wouldn't want a Nudie Bar in your neighborhood as the temptation to visit probably would be to great for you.

This seems to be a common habit by naysayers. Having to nail the opposition with personal attacks to mask your absurdly-flawed agenda. Nice try!

Secondly as a Secularist

What is this supposed to mean? That you do not belong to a partisan/zealot/group think party/organization/cult/religion?

Secularism is not a synonym for rational or logic. It is a religion.

the last thing I want is some asshole Muslim Fund A Mental Case telling me how to live, they are even more intrusive than you and your ilk are (Extremists who abuse Christianity to push your Puritan Beliefs on others).

You totally missed the point.

Let me break it down for you, and if you need me to count the syllables just say:

A) The "secularists" on a general scale have an overwhelming beef with the "Christian" majority in America. They believe the "indoctrination" by "Christian" citizens has gone too far, and that their solution of secularism will heal everything.

Their beef isn't with Christians, their beef is with Extremists who use the guise of religion to try a force their beliefs on others. That also includes Extremists who use Islam to try and do the same thing

B) Secularism implies SECULARISM, meaning they do not associate or give candy bars to one organization and not the other. This rule has been violated, by you and your secular brethan, as the new wave of muslim crazies are being excused with tolerance, progress, diversity, blah blah blah. They refuse to recognize the documented hazards in Europe and Asia when a muslim majority exists within a non-muslim society.

That's basically secularism in a nut shell.

According to your twisted logic

Hate the Christian, love the muslim. Then when someone cries bloody murder they revert to the, "All religions r teh suxors".


Have a nice day.

Vote Obama!

[/quote]
On the Contrary Religions aren't the problem, extremists like yourselves and those who condem others under the guise of religion whether it be Christianity, Islam or even Hinduism are.