patrick.net

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.

Nuke the planet excluding the usa.
But of course only after we have forcefield technology fully developed...

This just in. Another innocent Muslim just tried to mov down a crowd in Belgium.

A French national of North African origin has been arrested in the Belgian city of Antwerp on suspicion of driving at a crowd, officials say.
A car was driven "at high speed" on De Meir, the northern city's main shopping street, before it was intercepted. There were no reports of any injuries.
Knives, a non-lethal gun and some unidentifiable liquid were found in the car, prosecutors say.

Warning, these pictures I'm about to post are graphic, so If you don't care to see, please don't scroll down. Please nobody quote this post, I don't want to see these pictures all over this thread.

This is the American that was slain in the attack.

This is his wife, also American, she is still alive at this point.

Please don't scroll up if you are uncomfortable looking at a dead body.

Ironman says

Khalid Masood.

A fine Irish name.

After 9/11, when it became clear that all the attackers were Muslims, and Indian friend at work (presumably a Hindu) told me, in that sing-song Indian accent:

Now you see how they are.

I could not believe how "Islamophobic" the guy was being, though the word did not exist yet. He went on to say that Indians have known for many centuries exactly how the Muslims are, and what Islam teaches, and maybe it was a good thing that the West finally learned this truth as well. I cut it short because the conversation was not suitable for work.

But he was totally right.

That is how they are, because that is what Islam teaches.

Rashomon says

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.

As I've explained already, people who choose to come to our country can be required to meet various conditions. We have an oath for all immigrants including upholding the Constitution. Muslims believe in a doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our government and the imposition of Sharia, which is basically totalitarianism, which we've prohibited for a century. We can, legally, require people to renounce totalitarianism as evil, and Islam as a hateful fraud perpetrated by a dead charlatan, as a condition of coming here. If they don't want to do that, then they don't have to come here.

Rashomon says

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.

You're suffering cognitive dissonance. If you had followed the links, you would have seen they go to the Guardian. In other comments, I've also linked to the text of the Constitution and the text of the Koran. But you can't handle the fact that you're wrong, so you hallucinated to maintain your prior belief. I don't recall ever linking Infowars, and I had almost never even seen Breitbart prior to the Orlando attack, when the Obama administration and the Democrats' nominee for President tried to suppress the connection to Islam. I remember the FBI refusing to publish the 911 transcript, then redacting it to remove all reference to Islam. The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it: facts leaked out via the Canadian press and Brazilian TV, and Breitbart, and the FBI had to produce the full transcript because Congress had it and threatened to publish directly. So, if you are getting paid for your comments, you've failed, and your Gulf paymasters might now flog you as a bad kuffar. Even if you are so badly hallucinating that you believe your comments, you're not persuading anyone. Some of the Nazis' collaborators enjoyed a nice life too, and talked about how nice they believed the Nazis to be, but that didn't persuade many people, and in fact the collaborators were despised for decades even after the Nazis fell.

rando says

After 9/11, when it became clear that all the attackers were Muslims, and Indian friend at work (presumably a Hindu) told me, in that sing-song Indian accent:

Now you see how they are.

I could not believe how "Islamophobic" the guy was being, though the word did not exist yet. He went on to say that Indians have known for many centuries exactly how the Muslims are, and what Islam teaches....

It took me years after 9/11 to see that. Back then, I used to believe the major commercial and government media, and mistook Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for "allies". It was actually the tsunami of fake and misleading news about Obamneycare that taught me to see through the media channels I had stupidly trusted. I could see the headlines and endorsements were opposite to reality, and the President's promises were diametrically opposite to observable data and what he'd said only a year earlier. I started finding sites like the Shame Project, exposing how journalists and commercial media are corrupted by speaking fees and other side channel payments. Then it all made sense: the drumbeat for the Iraq war (promoted by NY Times and others based on phony WMD and the image of a mushroom cloud), and then the drumbeat for war in Syria (chemical weapons that came probably from Turkey but got blamed falsely on Syria). The relentless campaign to spread Islam fits a pattern that goes back at least as far as the American war in Viet Nam. Part of the problem is media manipulation by the military industrial complex and medical industrial complex, and part of it is purveyors of Islam figuring out how to pull those strings and make the marionettes dance to their agenda. They've done for Islam what Edward Bernays did for bacon, except this time we're what's for breakfast.

Thanks, those are good links.

Lol about Bernays and bacon.

zzyzzx says

May I ask where you found that cartoon? Google images doesn't seem to have it yet, and it's particularly poignant.

curious2 says

May I ask where you found that cartoon? Google images doesn't seem to have it yet, and it's particularly poignant.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ImGoingToHellForThis/

zzyzzx says

curious2 says

May I ask where you found that cartoon? Google images doesn't seem to have it yet, and it's particularly poignant.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ImGoingToHellForThis/

Thanks, I found these also:

curious2 says

Then it all made sense: the drumbeat for the Iraq war (endorsed by NT Times and others based on phony WMD and the image of a mushroom cloud),

What are you talking about? The Media, academia and pop-culture were at best reluctantly in support of the Iraq war and turned on the war on a fucking dime to hurt Bush and Republicans a few months later. I don't recall the Media or either political party banging the war drums for troops in Syria either.

curious2 says

The relentless campaign to spread Islam fits a pattern that goes back at least as far as the American war in Viet Nam. Part of the problem is media manipulation by the military industrial complex and medical industrial complex, and part of it is purveyors of Islam figuring out how to pull those strings and make the marionettes dance to their agenda.

I'm confused.

You seem to agree that - Yes, radical Islam is an expansionist ideology which is violent and a total blight on humanity. But are you also arguing that the US is somehow in cahoots and only wants to beat up on A-Rabs because they want profits for the military/medical industrial complex?

And if that is what you are saying about America's motivations, isn't that the same ISIS propaganda and 9/11 troofer bullshit that radical Imams ape in their mosques recruiting ISIS members?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4342438/Trolls-blast-Muslim-woman-seen-walking-attack.html

The pedestrian wearing a brown headscarf and grey coat was pictured holding one hand to her head while walking past a victim being treated on the pavement.

curious2 says

They've done for Islam what Edward Bernays did for bacon, except this time we're what's for breakfast.

Great Post, and double plus good for Bernays reference. Another Bernays classic:

Liberated, Modern women can smoke their "Torches of Freedom". Female smoking skyrocketed after his PR Campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom

So fuckin' woke that more and more people know who Bernays was.

Freud told him to stop using his family connections with him to promote himself, being an old school Victorian holding no tolerance for propaganda and manipulation, but firm middle class self-discipline.

So, looks like we got an Obama type with a Upper Middle Class Hippie Mom with immigrant father, grew up in a 300k Pound house, parents divorced, never saw his dad, and the Kid grew up hating the world, committed a shitload of crimes including stabbings and "Grievous Bodily Harm", and eventually converted to the Religion of Peace.

That's when he really started getting violent.

socal2 says

The Media, academia and pop-culture were at best reluctantly in support of the Iraq war and turned on the war on a fucking dime to hurt Bush and Republicans a few months later. I don't recall the Media or either political party banging the war drums for troops in Syria either.

Regarding Iraq war endorsements, thanks, I've corrected my comment: editorials divided about equally into three camps (support, opposition, ambivalence), but the NY Times and others were promoting it based on little or no evidence. Regarding Syria, I remember the exaggeration campaign about the "red line", saying we must go to war there, probably at the behest of Turkey and KSA and the MIC.

socal2 says

I'm confused.

You are indeed confused, because you start with partisan loyalty and then see only what you want to see within that frame.

socal2 says

You seem to agree that - Yes, radical Islam is an expansionist ideology which is violent and a total blight on humanity. But are you also arguing that the US is somehow in cahoots and only wants to beat up on A-Rabs because they want profits for the military/medical industrial complex?

Ever since Nixon's secret deals with Saudi Arabia, disclosed by the Obama administration, the USA has fallen increasingly under the influence of KSA. The purpose of NIxon's deals was to continue financing the American war in Viet Nam, which enabled him to increase his own power by spending a lot of money, and yes the only beneficiaries were the medical/military industrial complex including associated political patronage networks. As the influence of KSA has grown, it has distorted American policy: we are simultaneously fighting for and against Islam, financing the Saudis and Sunni militias while fighting expensively other Sunni forces including the Islamic State that agree with more than 90% of what the Saudis and Sunni militias believe. Our policy is incoherent except for the role of Petrodollars and the MIC, and backfires by every measure except for producing huge power (including in the form of revenue) for the corporate and Saudi sponsors of the Bush and Clinton campaigns. It is a bipartisan problem, which confuses you because you insist on looking only through a partisan frame.

socal2 says

And if that is what you are saying about America's motivations, isn't that the same [ISIL/Daesh] propaganda...that radical Imams ape in their mosques recruiting [ISIL/Daesh] members?

No, it isn't the same, but there is overlap. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. You don't see that because you use a partisan frame, insisting that your side is always right and the enemy is therefore always wrong. As for the troofers, I've posted enough comments disagreeing with them, and I'm not interested in returning to the issue.

If Nixon hadn't bowed to Saudi Pressure and worked with them to have all the Arab States (and sadly, also pressured the Shah) send fighter planes with trained pilots to Pakistan in 1971, whereas the Indian Army, on the verge of victory, would have set up several tiny puppet states (including a Free Balochistan) instead of a dangerous Nuclear Power with an increasingly Islamist population nearing control of them.

Likely the Taliban and Pashtu fanatics would have never been such a major problem in Afghanistan. If the USSR invaded, we would have worked more with the Uzbeks and Tajiks. Instead we basically let Pakistan's ISI give all the arms and training to their radical Pashtu fellow ethnics.

Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.