patrick.net

Strategist says

You know what Rashid/Rashomon/Bigsby, your comebacks are pretty powerful. I have to give you that. But defending a barbaric religion like Islam will only lead you to humiliation and defeat.

Not all Nazis were bad people. Some were nice. Some were even witnesses at Nanking.

curious2 says

When you say you've been working for them 20 years, yet you appear to spend all your time online defending them and criticizing westerners, is that what they're paying you to do?

Didn't you just already ask that? Didn't I already answer it? I've made a grand total of 40 more posts than you. Who pays you to spend all your time online?

Rashomon says

Didn't you just already ask that? Didn't I already answer it? I've made a grand total of 40 more posts than you. Who pays you to spend all your time online?

You've been commenting for less than one year, I've been commenting five years.

Update: I see you answered some of the questions, but not whether you can say Islam is a hateful fraud perpetrated by a dead charlatan, which it is.

Rashomon says

Strategist says

Have you heard them say outright that a 56 year old man having sex with a 9 year old child is immoral? I doubt it.

Did you actually read my initial response? Try and work out what it meant.

It meant they would say it is immoral, but you have not actually heard it.
I would like anyone to show me a practicing Mullah to come out and say a 56 year old man having sex with a 9 year old child is immoral.
I don't believe it's possible.

curious2 says

of several reasons including the British dole subsidizing polygamous families, so the polygamous are over-represented in the younger generations. While secular families barely maintain replacement rate, the British dole breeds jihadis as fast as possible, and the numbers show up in opinion polls. While most people are becoming more tolerant, Muslims are becoming generationally more intolerant, as per Islam.

Here's the Mystery.

There are an open and blatant websites, Secondwife and Polygamy.com.
Polygamy is illegal in Britain and White Britons are punished for it, even for technicalities (I believe one Scotsman got separated decade ago as young man, remarried without finalizing divorce, and got the book thrown at him).
It is a no brainer for Scotland Yard to get a warrant for Credit Card Numbers/Names and check it against Welfare Rolls and anywhere else Married information would show.
And, with just a little bit of paperwork, charge 100s of people effortlessly.

Why is there one law for White Britons, while Pakistani Polygamy is totally ignored?

How can Men with multiple wives allow their additional wives to draw welfare as if single, when they all live under one roof and share everything?

Not only is it not "One Law For All", it's subsidizing polygamy for SOME, as you say.

Strategist says

You know what Rashid/Rashomon/Bigsby, your comebacks are pretty powerful. I have to give you that. But defending a barbaric religion like Islam will only lead you to humiliation and defeat.

I'm defending the people I know and like. I'm not defending the bullshit spouted by the idiots running amock
curious2 says

You've posted more comments in less than one year than I've posted in five years.

I did ask, but you didn't answer.

I did answer. And I have plenty of free time, so I post on here. And I post far less than many - just under 1200 comments since August. You've posted nearly 7000 since 2012, so I don't really get your point. I post more than you less than others. Big deal.

Anyway, I have to go to work.

And on that note, why is it:

Africa for the Africans
Asia for the Asians

Anti-Colonialism/Imperialism, YAY!

but

Europe for the Europeans is evil and racist?

Rashomon says

I did answer

I've corrected my earlier comment. I yield to facts, but never to fraud. You seem to do precisely the opposite: you persist in defending the hateful fraud of the dead charlatan Mohamed, no matter how many facts prove that it is a hateful fraud.

BTW, I'm curious why you said the comment below, which is what fooled me (briefly) about who had posted more:

Rashomon says

I've made a grand total of 40 more posts than you.

Strategist says

Rashomon says

Strategist says

I have never met a single Muslim who would admit a 56 year old man having sex with a 9 year old child is immoral. I bet neither have you.

Probably because it wasn't that unusual to marry a child in pretty much any country around the world in the 6th/7th Century. I don't know anybody who wouldn't say it was immoral if it happened now.

Have you heard them say outright that a 56 year old man having sex with a 9 year old child is immoral? I doubt it.

Hey Rashomon, lets hear you say it. Go ahead, we are waiting.

curious2 says

BTW, I'm curious why you said the comment below, which is what fooled me (briefly) about who had posted more:

The posts since civility was introduced. And by the way, I joined in 2011 and have made only a couple of hundred posts more than you in that time despite you joining 6 months later. Care to take back your comment or perhaps I should ask who pays you to comment?

Strategist says

Hey Rashomon, lets hear you say it. Go ahead, we are waiting.

It's a stupid question. Asked many people you know what they think of King X marrying a child bride from Spain in the 1300s recently? See my point?

curious2 says

I've corrected my earlier comment. I yield to facts, but never to fraud. You seem to do precisely the opposite: you persist in defending the hateful fraud of the dead charlatan Mohamed, no matter how many facts prove that it is a hateful fraud.

What exactly do you think I'm defending? Feel free to clarify.

Rashomon says

Care to take back your comment or perhaps I should ask who pays you to comment?

Rashomon says

Anyway, I have to go to work.

Since you left to go to work 45 minutes ago, and are now commenting, it looks like this is your work. Nobody pays me to comment, but you seem to have that sorted, so maybe you can hook me up with your agent. One restriction: I won't defend a hateful fraud that commands believers to murder disbelievers.

Rashomon says

curious2 says

I've corrected my earlier comment. I yield to facts, but never to fraud. You seem to do precisely the opposite: you persist in defending the hateful fraud of the dead charlatan Mohamed, no matter how many facts prove that it is a hateful fraud.

What exactly do you think I'm defending? Feel free to clarify.

Several users, including me, have pointed out the same pattern in your comments.

Rashomon says

I joined in 2011

Your account says you joined in 2016. Did you change accounts? Are you BIgsby? Why change accounts?

Rashomon says

Strategist says

Hey Rashomon, lets hear you say it. Go ahead, we are waiting.

It's a stupid question. Asked many people you know what they think of King X marrying a child bride from Spain in the 1300s recently? See my point?

So you can't say it. I wonder why, Rashid?

Strategist says

So you can't say it. I wonder why, Rashid?

You're getting tedious. What I am saying is clear. It's obviously wrong by today's standards. Do you want me to climb into a time machine and go back and explain to people in the 7th/8th/9th... Century why their actions are wrong because of what we now believe in the 21st Century?

Ok, I have to admit, I was a little surprised to see the word "Asian" in your header. I now know the difference between British Asian and what we consider Asian here in the U.S., but it still is disconcerting that Americans will see this headline and assume some Chinese person went over and bombed UK parliament. It is interesting (and inaccurate) that to avoid writing "Islamic" or "Muslim" the British press will use "Asian" instead.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14688/british-parliament-terror-attack-underscores-ben-shapiro

"British Parliament Terror Attack Underscores The Stupidity of British Media's ‘Asian’ Descriptions

Media reports from the British press in the aftermath of Wednesday’s truck and knife attack on Parliament, resulting in the death of at least three people and “catastrophic” injuries to more than a dozen more, have focused in on the identity of the perpetrator in vague terms. We know, according to The Telegraph (UK) that the attacker was described by witnesses as an “Asian guy in about his 40s carrying a knife about seven or eight inches long.” The Daily Star (UK) calls the suspect a “black or Asian man who was spotted running with an eight-inch knife.” The Daily Mirror (UK) called him “reportedly Asian in appearance.”

In America, Asian has a different connotation than it does in the British press. It generally means people of Pakistani or Indian descent, not people from Southeast Asia, as it does in the United States. It’s also often a cover for Islamic background – the press will generally avoid talking about the religion of a suspect in favor of focusing in on ethnicity, and they’ll broaden out the ethnic label to include people who aren’t Pakistani in order to avoid the impression that the Pakistani perpetrator might be a Muslim.

...And using the overbroad ethnic descriptor “Asian” – pretending that Indians and Pakistanis are part of the same ethnic group for purposes of avoiding ideological conclusion-jumping – is purposeful obfuscation of accuracy. Perhaps this terrorist isn’t Muslim. That’s perfectly possible. But it’s not fine to give the public misleading information on the grounds that they may jump to conclusions suggested by probabilistic thinking, and lump in innocents in the process."

curious2 says

Since you left to go to work 45 minutes ago, and are now commenting, it looks like this is your work. Nobody pays me to comment, but you seem to have that sorted,

Yeah, because no-one has ever had a free moment during their work day to comment on here (and my work day hasn't actually started yet it being just after 6.30 and all).

curious2 says

Your account says you joined in 2016. Did you change accounts? Are you BIgsby? Why change accounts?

I changed because I took a break and couldn't remember my log on details - I'd created an email solely for this place and hadn't saved the details.
I keep coming back for some inexplicable reason. Masochism no doubt. I don't like the views frequently expressed on here by many. It's become populated by a number of people spouting pretty hateful racist/sexist/younameit views along with CIC's nonsense of course. We should all probably find something more productive to do with our time because posting on this/any forum is clearly a waste of it.

Rashomon says

I don't like the views frequently expressed on here by many. It's become populated by a number of people spouting pretty hateful racist/sexist... views along with CIC's nonsense of course. We should all probably find something more productive to do with our time because posting on this/any forum is clearly a waste of it.

Cheer up. I warned you about getting your butt kicked when you defend a religion like Islam.

curious2 says

Several users, including me, have pointed out the same pattern in your comments.

Actually, all I'm doing is defending their rights in general if they are behaving in a law abiding way - since when should we legislate on dress code, for example, - how many of you would be up in arms on here if a similar type of measure was brought against non-Muslims in your country? You are just cherry picking your attacks.

You can't give your sworn enemy "rights" if you want to win.

Rashomon says

Actually, all I'm doing is defending their rights in general if they are behaving in a law abiding way - since when should we legislate on dress code, for example, - how many of you would be up in arms on here if a similar type of measure was brought against non-Muslims in your country? You are just cherry picking your attacks.

Saudi Arabia legislates dress code. And every fucking aspect of life.

Rashomon says

how many of you would be up in arms on here if a similar type of measure was brought against non-Muslims in your country?

Yet you defend censorship and dress codes when Muslims impose them. The censorship and dress codes are expressly Islamic, and against non-Muslims, yet you defend them.

Also, your claims to be defending people whom you call nice (or whatever) seem disingenuous. For example, if you know some smokers, you could say, "Smoking is horrible, no one should smoke, and the executives who deceived people about it should be in prison, but I know some nice people who got hooked on it when they were kids and I feel sorry for them." If you know some Oxycontin addicts, you could say, "Oxycontin is a corporate fraud with a body count, the executives who were caught and convicted of fraud should be in prison, but I know some people who got hooked on that junk when they were kids, and they seem like nice people." You claim to know a lot of Muslims, so you could say, "Islam is a hateful fraud perpetrated by a dead charlatan, no one should believe that garbage, but I know some people who were fooled into believing it when they were young and susceptible, and they seem nice (so far)." Yet, you say none of those things.

Like the Saudis and the NATO politicians & media paid by them, you insist on spreading Islam itself, using the victims as vessels to spread it. That's like saying you want to spread smokers and addicts to more countries, and subsidize smoking, because you feel sorry for the smokers and addicts who seem nice. It's obviously absurd and thus appears disingenuous. If you care about the hapless Muslims, then help them get out from under Islam. Instead of defending Islamic censorship and dress codes, demand secularism in the countries where they live.

Strategist says

Saudi Arabia legislates dress code. And every fucking aspect of life.

So you judge what is acceptable based on what Saudi Arabia does?

curious2 says

Yet you defend censorship and dress codes when Muslims impose them. The censorship and dress codes are expressly Islamic, and against non-Muslims, yet you defend them.

Where have I done that? I don't recall ever defending those things. I accept the restrictions here because it is my choice to work here. That's not the same as defending them, and isn't it the point that we praise the greater freedoms of the West, but then you have people like Strategist saying 'well SA does it, so...' Well, so what? You want to be more like SA? Apparently yes in Strategist's case.

curious2 says

Like the Saudis and the NATO politicians & media paid by them, you insist on spreading Islam itself, using the victims as vessels to spread it

No, I don't. I think it's reasonable that the West takes in a number of refugees from the Syrian crisis on a temporary basis because hey, that is the decent thing to do.

Rashomon says

Strategist says

Saudi Arabia legislates dress code. And every fucking aspect of life.

So you judge what is acceptable based on what Saudi Arabia does?

I think Muslims are hypocritical and have no right to complain. Just as Saudi Arabia bans all other religions from being practiced, I would gladly support banning Islam from being practiced in the US.
What good has Islam ever done for us?

Rashomon says

Probably because it wasn't that unusual to marry a child in pretty much any country around the world in the 6th/7th Century. I don't know anybody who wouldn't say it was immoral if it happened now.

LOL!

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5489/islamic_reformation_fails_as_child_marriage_re_affirmed

Islam specifically approves of all of Mohammed's actions, including fucking 9 year olds, because Mohammed is defined as the "role model for all of humanity".

It has been reaffirmed repeatedly.

BTW Slavery is still officially approved of by Saudi Islamic scholars.

rando says

Islam specifically approves of all of Mohammed's actions, including fucking 9 year olds, because Mohammed is defined as the "role model for all of humanity".

It has been reaffirmed repeatedly.

He married the child when she was 6 and supposedly had sex with her when she was 9. I don't believe it. Mohammad was a perverted pedophile. There was nothing to stop him from raping this child when she was 6. I don't believe he was able to resist his pedophile instincts.

Rashomon says

that is the decent thing to do.

Your transparent attempt at a high ground manoeuvre fails miserably when you're defending Islam. Have you told your Gulf State "friends" that they must open their borders to MENA and Iraqi refugees, and pay to import them? Or, are you saying you can't expect Muslims to be decent?

Hint: if you want to claim the high ground, you should have said NATO and the Gulf States were wrong to wage war in Syria over pipeline deals, and are wrong to continue warring there, and should get out of Syria and Yemen immediately.

Rashomon says

curious2 says

Yet you defend censorship and dress codes when Muslims impose them. The censorship and dress codes are expressly Islamic, and against non-Muslims, yet you defend them.

Where have I done that? I don't recall ever defending those things. I accept the restrictions here because it is my choice to work here.

Follow the links to see where. By your "choice" logic, we can require everyone who chooses to come here to call Islam a hateful fraud perpetrated by a dead charlatan, which it is.

rando says

LOL!

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5489/islamic_reformation_fails_as_child_marriage_re_affirmed

Islam specifically approves of all of Mohammed's actions, including fucking 9 year olds, because Mohammed is defined as the "role model for all of humanity".

It has been reaffirmed repeatedly.

BTW Slavery is still officially approved of by Saudi Islamic scholars.

Why lol? What you said doesn't negate my point that morality in the 7th Century was different to the 21st and to hold the actions of those alive then to the standards of today is ridiculous. As I said, I haven't personally heard any Muslims stating that similar actions TODAY would be acceptable.

curious2 says

Follow the links to see where. By your "choice" logic, we can require everyone who chooses to come here to call Islam a hateful fraud perpetrated by a dead charlatan, which it is.

There is a difference between accepting local customs because you make a decision to live somewhere and defending them by the way, but I presume you already know that and are simply trying to misrepresent what I said. Are we supposed to change the laws in the West so that they mirror the things you complain about in the ME? Seriously, think about what you (and Strategist) are saying - 'they do it over there, so why can't we do it here' is a stupid argument.

And you'll have to explain the logic of your comment above. A personal choice on my part does not equate to a legal requirement to do what you said. In fact it would go directly against US laws.

curious2 says

Your transparent attempt at a high ground manoeuvre fails miserably when you're defending Islam. Have you told your Gulf State "friends" that they must open their borders to MENA and Iraqi refugees, and pay to import them? Or, are you saying you can't expect Muslims to be decent?

I take it from that that you don't actually understand what the situation is over here - something that I already explained in a different post, but hey, paint me unsurprised that you would ignore that.

curious2 says

Hint: if you want to claim the high ground, you should have said NATO and the Gulf States were wrong to wage war in Syria over pipeline deals, and are wrong to continue warring there, and should get out of Syria and Yemen immediately.

Hint: you need to read up more on the reasons for the conflict rather than what you pick up on Infowars, Breitbart, or wherever it is you go.

Anyway, I've I had my fill of discussing this. You may as well copy and paste any of the myriad other threads on it as they all repeat exactly the same things. I'm attempting to offer another perspective, one from someone who actually lives in the ME, who knows Muslims, and who has more than a passing knowledge of the history of the region, of the political machinations and grievances that underpin many of the regional disputes, of life here in general. Clearly you don't care to hear that. Fine. This forum is almost entirely caught up in portraying any and all issues in simple black and white terms. There is little nuance here on any topic. Even less middle ground. Time for another break until the Donald does something so laughable that I can't resist commenting on it.

It does negate you point. In countries with Sharia Law, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, child marriages are allowed. After all, if their perfect role model practiced it, how could they disallow it.
A perfect should endeavor to abolish bad cultural practice, not encourage it.

Tenpoundbass says

These are the barbarians we want to give equal rights to? We deserve what we get.

The jist of it all.
The main reason of why refugees / immigrants from countries with moral standards of previous centuries should be banned from entering the US until they bring their practiced moral codes up to 21st century standards.

Rashomon says

morality in the 7th Century was different to the 21st

Strategist says

These are the barbarians we want to give equal rights to?

Well, there are the Mexican cartels. And don't forget Road Warrior, Lord Humungus.

YellowGood says

It does negate you point. In countries with Sharia Law, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, child marriages are allowed. After all, if their perfect role model practiced it, how could they disallow it.

A perfect should endeavor to abolish bad cultural practice, not encourage it.

A dirty old Muslim can have sex with a little child with no punishment, but speaking out against the practice will get you the death penalty.
This, my friends is the logic of dangerous barbarians.