Are the left being brainwashed by Islam?? - Mod warning in OP

Widdershins

Nody wrote: »

And in the 50s the right were shouting themselves hoarse shouting communist at everyone who disagreed with them; before that it was that African slaves and descendants did not have the capacity to vote as they were sub humans. Now it's about how if LGBT people were allowed to marry it would destroy marriages but here's the fact you'll realize one day; no matter how much you keep resisting that the world and society evolve and changes it will continue to evolve and nothing you do will stop that.

Nothing they do will stop change and evolution? Surely everyone's actions contribute to the eventual direction of change and evolution, or is it that people who hold only certain views have any impact on society?

Nody

constance tench wrote: »

Why then did you mention Pakistani work colleagues rather than the society you were immersed in?

Because the people I was working with where Pakistan work colleagues who had flown in for the project we were working on and Pakistanis were specifically called out earlier as well. On top of that Pakistan is one of the more devout countries out there (Saudi Arabia is not in practice but they pay their lip service and donations) in terms of actually following the scriptures.

Widdershins wrote: »

Nothing they do will stop change and evolution? Surely everyone's actions contribute to the eventual direction of change and evolution, or is it that people who hold only certain views have any impact on society?

20 years ago the idea of LGBT marriage would never even be considered; today it's fully normal. 100 years ago the idea of African Americans voting was seen as an affront to the white race, today you'd not bat an eye lid at the idea. The people who try to preserve the old ways of thinking and the old structures never succeed in the long term; that's simply a fact of history itself. So yes they would contribute to the direction by resisting it and causing a ground swelling to make a change in the younger generation but I can't recall any attempts to harken back to the old good days that actually survived as a practical implemented thought outside niche communities ala religious sects etc. So while all people do contribute at some level history shows us that society evolves and change rather than remain stagnant in the old ways of yesteryear. Does that help explain it better?

Donal55

World Hijab Day folks.

Widdershins

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yeah dont see why not

Sometimes, Moderator minds work in mysterious ways :P

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

Really so I should just go by what you & the media tell me & not by my own experience of what I've seen & heard?? Baaa Baaa Baaa:rolleyes:

I'd suggest you have enough cop-on to recognise that your supposed personal anecdotes don't tally with the reality of the world. You can insist that the moon is made of cheese too, since it might appear that way to you, but you'll have to live with better informed people suggesting you wise up.

Help!!!!

alastair wrote: »

I'd suggest you have enough cop-on to recognise that your supposed personal anecdotes don't tally with the reality of the world. You can insist that the moon is made of cheese too, since it might appear that way to you, but you'll have to live with better informed people suggesting you wise up.

So I take it you've lived outside of Ireland & close to a Muslim area?

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

So I take it you've lived outside of Ireland & close to a Muslim area?

I don't know why you feel the need to take that from my posts, since I've not been to the moon, but can vouch for it's not being made of cheese regardless.

Help!!!!

alastair wrote: »

I don't know why you feel the need to take that from my posts, since I've not been to the moon, but can vouch for it's not being made of cheese regardless.

So who are you to dismiss my experiences when I have spoken at length to many Muslims & have lived close to large Muslim populations?

Walter H Price

Nody wrote: »

Since it was out of Saudi Arabia I'd say they where quite comfortable in majority locally and from tradition.

Sorry you were living in one of the most if not the most oppressive Islamic countries on Earth where , women are literally treated as second class citizens are forbidden to drive or be in public unaccompanied by a man , they behead and publicly flog people, Homosexuality is a crime as is being an atheist, having an affair , being raped , drinking , kissing in public etc ...

But your example of how tolerant Islam is and how we've gotten it all wrong is the few Pakistani lads in work who were ok with working with Indian women, that seems a little blinkered in my view.

The Saudi girl i met last year in my masters course was a really nice, really intelligent girl and was completely torn between having to go back to Saudi , put back on her Burka and living by strict sharia law and having to give up all her relationships with her family (who were incredibly wealthy) and friends and effectively become a penniless refugee here ... it only took her about 6 weeks to decide the latter was a better option , so i'm going to go ahead and take your point but with a far more than a pinch of salt.

constance tench

Nody wrote: »

Because the people I was working with where Pakistan work colleagues who had flown in for the project we were working on and Pakistanis were specifically called out earlier as well. On top of that Pakistan is one of the more devout countries out there (Saudi Arabia is not in practice but they pay their lip service and donations) in terms of actually following the scriptures.

Can you understand how I find the video evidence in that mosque more compelling than the anecdotes of an anonymous internet forum contributor?

Wanderer78

Walter H Price wrote:

The Saudi girl i met last year in my masters course was a really nice, really intelligent girl and was completely torn between having to go back to Saudi , put back on her Burka and living by strict sharia law and having to give up all her relationships with her family (who were incredibly wealthy) and friends and effectively become a penniless refugee here ... it only took her about 6 weeks to decide the latter was a better option , so i'm going to go ahead and take your point but with a far more than a pinch of salt.

Fair play to her, that was a tough call. Mate worked in Saudi for a while, hated it for the reasons you outlined

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

So who are you to dismiss my experiences when I have spoken at length to many Muslims & have lived close to large Muslim populations?

Who am I to do so? Someone who is able to determine facts, not in the basis of a set of skewed personal anecdotes, but by actual evidence. Your stint in Ealing doesn't mean you get to propagate nonsense. I've lived years in London too - so where does that leave you?

Nody

Walter H Price wrote: »

Sorry you were living in one of the most if not the most oppressive Islamic countries on Earth where

But your example of how tolerant Islam is and how we've gotten it all wrong is the few Pakistani lads in work who were ok with working with Indian women, that seems a little blinkered in my view.

so i'm going to go ahead and take your point but with a far more than a pinch of salt.

And if I where to go and get the more extreme Christian examples such as Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who raped underage girls in the name of the bible and said look at their lot, all Christians are a-holes because they allow rape of underage girls on an ongoing basis would that be a fair assessment?

The point is that if you're going to take in your words the "Most oppressive Islamic country" as the base comparison then you better be willing to do the same for Christianity and the west as well. If on the other hand you want to know how the billions of average Muslims live you would be better off with another example.

Chips Lovell

Walter H Price wrote: »

The Saudi girl i met last year in my masters course was a really nice, really intelligent girl and was completely torn between having to go back to Saudi , put back on her Burka and living by strict sharia law and having to give up all her relationships with her family (who were incredibly wealthy) and friends and effectively become a penniless refugee here ... it only took her about 6 weeks to decide the latter was a better option , so i'm going to go ahead and take your point but with a far more than a pinch of salt.

But according to some people, there's no such thing as a moderate muslim, so she shouldn't be allowed stay here.

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

Awww did you go back through my posts to find out where i lived in London??
Not a stalker are you? I feel that you are invading my personal space :rolleyes:
Well you keep reading those facts & learning about life from the news & the internet

You keep deluding yourself that the moon is made of cheese, because it looks that way to you. I'm not subscribing to the post/alternative fact delusion.

Nody

constance tench wrote: »

Can you understand how I find the video evidence in that mosque more compelling than the anecdotes of an anonymous internet forum contributor?

Then go listen to Westboro Baptist Church preachers and tell me what you think as that's representing all Christianity by the same definition.

Walter H Price

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Fair play to her, that was a tough call. Mate worked in Saudi for a while, hated it for the reasons you outlined

she was incredibly brave to do what she did in view but at the same time how awful must a place be by the time you are prepared to give up your entire life and every relationship you've ever had to seek asylum thousands of miles away ?

we had 3 Saudis in the class two girls and her the two lads (one was her cousin) left after a massive row in the class 5 weeks in , the row started over her cousin complaining to the lecturer in front of the entire class that he was allowing her sit in class with out her hair covered, it escalated to him calling her a whore , not very pleasant to whiteness.

The two lads left after that, though to be honest i think they were sent back rather than choose to leave, the row in the class that night turned very ugly and she decided she couldn't go back very shortly after.

Help!!!!

alastair wrote: »

You keep deluding yourself that the moon is made of cheese, because it looks that way to you.

Your the one harping on about cheese not me.

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

Your the one harping on about cheese not me.

If you don't get the point, just ask.

Walter H Price

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

But according to some people, there's no such thing as a moderate muslim, so she shouldn't be allowed stay here.

she was about as Muslim as i am am Catholic as in she was born in a Muslim countries in to a Muslim family , but in reality she was an atheist didn't have much interest in the fairy stories or rules.

I have literally 0% issue with immigration from the middle east for people like her who have no interest whatsoever in Islam other then they are trying to escape it.

Help!!!!

alastair wrote: »

If you don't get the point, just ask.

You do understand that people are allowed to have different points of view than you?? So lets move on theres other people on here you can go troll

Widdershins

Walter H Price wrote: »

she was about as Muslim as i am am Catholic as in she was born in a Muslim countries in to a Muslim family , but in reality she was an atheist didn't have much interest in the fairy stories or rules.

I have literally 0% issue with immigration from the middle east for people like her who have no interest whatsoever in Islam other then they are trying to escape it.

Most of the Muslims I know are similar. Actually, they're nearly all secular muslims.

One is gay and once remarked that there's ''no exit door'' from Islam and that he's scared of the consequences both of being discovered for a gay man and for apostasy.

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

You do understand that people are allowed to have different points of view than you?? So lets move on theres other people on here you can go troll

You weren't expressing a point of view. You were making a factually incorrect claim. If you'd put "I think" in front of that claim, it would be just as nonsensical, but at least correct.

Walter H Price

Nody wrote: »

And if I where to go and get the more extreme Christian examples such as Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who raped underage girls in the name of the bible and said look at their lot, all Christians are a-holes because they allow rape of underage girls on an ongoing basis would that be a fair assessment?

The point is that if you're going to take in your words the "Most oppressive Islamic country" as the base comparison then you better be willing to do the same for Christianity and the west as well. If on the other hand you want to know how the billions of average Muslims live you would be better off with another example.

i 100% am , i would have as little tolerence for Devout christians as i do devout muslims , if extream christians want to come in here and rape kids id rather let their boats sink too.

My point was why is it not Christianophobic or racist to heavily critisise the catholic church , it teaching , the more extreme view on sex and morality of it devout but if you similarly challenge is lam you are called out as Islamophobic ? i do not fear Islam , i question it , i challenge it , i believe it to be made up bullsh!t the same as all other religions , i see it as having major failings and only being a force oppression and control the same as all other religions but often times it feels like views likes this cannot be expressed in relation to Islam but can be in relation to all other religions , i don't know why this is.

Help!!!!

Widdershins wrote: »

Most of the Muslims I know are similar. Actually, they're nearly all secular muslims.

One is gay and once remarked that there's ''no exit door'' from Islam and that he's scared of the consequences both of being discovered for a gay man and for apostasy.

I've seen one guy who was born Muslim but didnt really believe it get shunned by all the other Muslims because he ate a bacon sandwich. He said he loved the taste of bacon & didnt know why he shouldnt be allowed to eat it

Seen the same Muslims shun another Muslim because he couldnt last Ramadan for the 3rd year in a row. Poor guy was a little fatty & he loved his food

Nody

Walter H Price wrote: »

My point was why is it not Christianophobic or racist to heavily critisise the catholic church , it teaching , the more extreme view on sex and morality of it devout but if you similarly challenge is lam you are called out as Islamophobic ? i do not fear Islam , i question it , i challenge it , i believe it to be made up bullsh!t the same as all other religions , i see it as having major failings and only being a force oppression and control the same as all other religions but often times it feels like views likes this cannot be expressed in relation to Islam but can be in relation to all other religions , i don't know why this is.

And this is the part where we align; you see myself and many other posters here have no issue with people criticizing Islam but rather that Islam alone is single out. If Trump would implement stringent rules against ALL extremists from Left to Right to Jews to Muslims to Christians to what ever I'd fully agree that it is a good idea (assuming equal treatment across the board). I've also argued against white guilt speech etc. for the same reason.

But to pick one group only (Muslims) and use the extremist faction of them as the single criterion for selection is what I and many others have an issue with.

Help!!!!

Nody wrote: »

And this is the part where we align; you see myself and many other posters here have no issue with people criticizing Islam but rather that Islam alone is single out. If Trump would implement stringent rules against ALL extremists from Left to Right to Jews to Muslims to Christians to what ever I'd fully agree that it is a good idea (assuming equal treatment across the board). I've also argued against white guilt speech etc. for the same reason.

But to pick one group only (Muslims) and use the extremist faction of them as the single criterion for selection is what I and many others have an issue with.

In fairness Obama was already drawing this ban up for those countries Trump has just implemented it.

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

In fairness Obama was already drawing this ban up for those countries Trump has just implemented it.

No he wasn't.

Widdershins

Nody wrote: »

And this is the part where we align; you see myself and many other posters here have no issue with people criticizing Islam but rather that Islam alone is single out. If Trump would implement stringent rules against ALL extremists from Left to Right to Jews to Muslims to Christians to what ever I'd fully agree that it is a good idea (assuming equal treatment across the board). I've also argued against white guilt speech etc. for the same reason.

But to pick one group only (Muslims) and use the extremist faction of them as the single criterion for selection is what I and many others have an issue with.

Any Christian extremists like the Westboro Baptists are home-grown American so they can't really influence that with a travel ban, can they?

I'm not sure how they would target Jewish extremists?

I'd broadly agree with you but I can't see that there's potential to do this in practice in this particular situation.

Walter H Price

Nody wrote: »

And this is the part where we align; you see myself and many other posters here have no issue with people criticizing Islam but rather that Islam alone is single out. If Trump would implement stringent rules against ALL extremists from Left to Right to Jews to Muslims to Christians to what ever I'd fully agree that it is a good idea (assuming equal treatment across the board). I've also argued against white guilt speech etc. for the same reason.

But to pick one group only (Muslims) and use the extremist faction of them as the single criterion for selection is what I and many others have an issue with.

but Trumps travel ban makes sense , ignore the hyperbole and hysteria around this for a second , those 7 countries have been identified by the US under the previous administration as being too dangerous for american citizens to travel too due to their instability , anti american sentiment and the significant threat to american tourists and business people to being targeted by Islamic jihadis.

Now why when ISIS and other groups have said they will smuggle fighters in with refugees etc.. would you not take extra caution and extra screening for people coming from 7 countries already identified as being dangerous for Americans to travel too. Thees are temporary bans , its does not include all Muslim countries or a ban specifically on Muslim people from those 7 countries , while the department of homeland security tighten checks etc..

I think had France and Germany done similar 2 years ago the migrant crisis could have been averted.

Help!!!!

alastair wrote: »

No he wasn't.

It was mentioned on Sky news this morning but heres something you can read

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

wes

Walter H Price wrote: »

but Trumps travel ban makes sense ,

Except it doesn't, as those countries already have extremly stringent checkes placed on refugees and anyone applying for a green card. Its just Steve Bannon trying to stir up hatred and Xenophobia.

Help!!!!

wes wrote: »

Except it doesn't, as those countries already have extremly stringent checkes placed on refugees and anyone applying for a green card. Its just Steve Bannon trying to stir up hatred and Xenophobia.

Read this its quite interesting

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

It was mentioned on Sky news this morning but heres something you can read

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

I thought I was the sheep duped by the media?

Both Sky (if you heard correctly) and your mate Seth are wrong.

Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

On Seth's piece:
http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/

Walter H Price

wes wrote: »

Except it doesn't, as those countries already have extremly stringent checkes placed on refugees and anyone applying for a green card. Its just Steve Bannon trying to stir up hatred and Xenophobia.

I don't agree , i honestly think by the time your are advising your citizens not to travel to a country any country because of a real and sever threat to your life due to the beliefs and attitude of its citizenry to you and the country you are from, that it is probably a good idea to greatly restrict or stop immigration from that country.

If people were on the streets of wherever chanting death to the Irish and burning the tricolor , attacking our embassy's and our government were saying do not travel there as your life is in danger , how comfortable would you feel about allowing people from those countries come here ?

wes

Walter H Price wrote: »

I don't agree ,

On what basis is the current screening deficent? I have yet to be provided any evidence in regards to that at all.

Walter H Price wrote: »

i honestly think by the time your are advising your citizens not to travel to a country any country because of a real and sever threat to your life due to the beliefs and attitude of its citizenry to you and the country you are from, that it is probably a good idea to greatly restrict or stop immigration from that country.

If people were on the streets of wherever chanting death to the Irish and burning the tricolor , attacking our embassy's and our government were saying do not travel there as your life is in danger , how comfortable would you feel about allowing people from those countries come here ?

Ah nice little picture you paint, not exactly representative of reality however.

I oppose Trumps ban (the one we see in reality and not a fantasy), seeing as it banned people who lived in the US for years, who have commited no crime, and had innocent people being put in hand cuffs, 5 year old children seperated from there mothers etc. That is the definition of a bad policy. How anyone can defend this is beyond me. It seems that fear and hatred have sadly overwhelmed good sense for far to many people. How is it right to ban a premanent resident who has commited no crime for years of living in a country. How is right to ban a bloody 5 year old. When you find yourself supporting that, I think you need a long hard look in the mirror.

Also, if the policy was created by a facist like Steve Bannon, that on its own, would be enough for me to oppose such nonsense, and I would be rather worried about my safety from my own government, as they have allowed a facist to be involved in government at all. A facist who wants war with China no less. Dieing in nuclear armagedeon, is rather worrisome.

I personally find the fact that the Trump admin, blamed Muslims on a massacre at a Canadian mosque, when it was a Trump supporter who did it, and haven't bothered to correct there bull**** since then. I find the support for facism to be rather worrying, as I am not white, and as such a target of that group.

alastair

Walter H Price wrote: »

I don't agree , i honestly think by the time your are advising your citizens not to travel to a country any country because of a real and sever threat to your life due to the beliefs and attitude of its citizenry to you and the country you are from, that it is probably a good idea to greatly restrict or stop immigration from that country.

If people were on the streets of wherever chanting death to the Irish and burning the tricolor , attacking our embassy's and our government were saying do not travel there as your life is in danger , how comfortable would you feel about allowing people from those countries come here ?

You think the Irish should have been banned from the UK then?

And presumably the refugees from these hotbeds of terrorism, having been personally investigated for up to two years, should be removed from such a blanket ban, having been 'extremely vetted'?

BuilderPlumber

wes wrote: »

Except it doesn't, as those countries already have extremly stringent checkes placed on refugees and anyone applying for a green card. Its just Steve Bannon trying to stir up hatred and Xenophobia.

Donald Trump is totally under the thumb of Steve Bannon. Bannon's goal is to implode the presidency and administration and to create havoc. Trump knows this but his hands are tied. Bannon being a media baron has so much on Trump that he owns him.

constance tench

Nody wrote: »

Then go listen to Westboro Baptist Church preachers and tell me what you think as that's representing all Christianity by the same definition.

Do you think engaging with what-aboutery furthers your argument?

Walter H Price

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think a better question to ask would be why are they chanting death to the irish?

Americans are fed a pile of horseshít about these barbarians simply hating the idea of freedom and that's why they hate America.
That's not the reason, they hate America because Americans raped and plundered their countries and because Americans killed their fathers/ mothers/ kids so on.
They are right to hate America, America is as close to an evil nation as you will find on this globe. Responsible for the deaths of countless millions of people. They are more or less ALWAYS at war with somebody - they just fúcking love a good old fashioned war. Of the 10 countries that spend the most on their militaries every year, uncle sam spends something like 5 or 6 times what the other 9 do combined.
Stop bombing these people and maybe they'll hate you that little bit less - it's not fúcking rocket science!

No doubt there a legitimate level of hate their , i don't buy the enemy's of freedom BS and fully agree i dont know why the US and others are still getting involved in the middle east its a waste of time and money , money that could be invested in alternative energy making their oil and the Wests dependence on them redundent.

The fact remains large swaths of the citizenry in these countries are hostile towords Americans , therefore it seems logical to severely restrict their elegibility to enter America.

I'm far from a hardline republican supporter id classify myself as far more libertarian , as in economically right socially predominantly left

wes

Walter H Price wrote: »

The fact remains large swaths of the citizenry in these countries are hostile towords Americans , therefore it seems logical to severely restrict their elegibility to enter America.

There already doing that. Take a look at the vetting of immigrants and refugees that already exists. Trump and Bannon are lieing about the state of vetting. Its already extreme vetting.

Then, there is the fact of permenant residence being denied entry, who have lived there for years. If someone has lived in your country for years, and has caused no trouble, why do they need extra vettinng? Surely, years of not commting crimes etc should be a enough.

Bannon, wants to normalize hatred of immigrants and foreigners and is deliberately trying to stir up hatred. Its not about protecting any body, and if that was the case Saudia Arabia would be the top of the list.

Walter H Price

wes wrote: »

There already doing that. Take a look at the vetting of immigrants and refugees that already exists. Trump and Bannon are lieing about the state of vetting. Its already extreme vetting.

Then, there is the fact of permenant residence being denied entry, who have lived there for years. If someone has lived in your country for years, and has caused no trouble, why do they need extra vettinng? Surely, years of not commting crimes etc should be a enough.

Bannon, wants to normalize hatred of immigrants and foreigners and is deliberately trying to stir up hatred. Its not about protecting any body, and if that was the case Saudia Arabia would be the top of the list.

He ran on a promise of suspending and reviewing , he was elected , he has suspended and is reviewing as he was elected to do.

This is a temporary ban , i do disagree with it affecting those who already have a green card and are stuck abroad etc.. but once the new system is in they should have to apply and go through the new process.

I doubt very much that Trump hates foreigners , he's married to one. But either way and i know its difficult in the context of the week i don't believe the OP's intent was to start another discussion about immigration , the ban or Tump

wes

Walter H Price wrote: »

He ran on a promise of suspending and reviewing , he was elected , he has suspended and is reviewing as he was elected to do.

Being elected is no excuses for incompetence.

Walter H Price wrote: »

This is a temporary ban ,

Will believe it when it has ended, as Trump and his admin have lied repeatedly, and as such can't be trusted.

Walter H Price wrote: »

i do disagree with it affecting those who already have a green card and are stuck abroad etc.. but once the new system is in they should have to apply and go through the new process.

So they lose there jobs, homes and property in the mean time? Have to go through a multi year process again, to see there families, for the crime of being abroad at the wrong time? What about those people already in the US. Are they now illegals? You are minimising the suffereing of this throughly incompetent and vile decision by Trump.

What about Trump and the DHS ignoring court orders? Why are they above the law? Surely, some of them should go to jail for violating a court order. Last, I checked the Presidetnt can't run rough shod over the law.

Again, look at who Steve Bannon is. The man is a straight up facist and racist. He is behind this policy. This is just the start for him, if he can have his way, it will be much worse.

Walter H Price wrote: »

I doubt very much that Trump hates foreigners , he's married to one.

Just Mexicans and Muslims, as per his own words.

Walter H Price wrote: »

But either way and i know its difficult in the context of the week i don't believe the OP's intent was to start another discussion about immigration , the ban or Tump

I think the OP was just having a go personally. Lets look at the timing of this thread, a ban targetting Muslims was just passed, and a terror attack by a right wing Trump supporter just happened a couple of days ago. That imho says a lot.

Help!!!!

wes wrote: »

I think the OP was just having a go personally.

Having a go at what?? I asked a perfectly good question. Through my own personal experiences I do not understand why the left/feminists etc are bending over backwards for Muslims when Islam is against western values

Walter H Price

wes wrote: »

Being elected is no excuses for incompetence

If keeping election promises is now viewed incompetence i think we have far bigger issue then the US implementing a temporary travel and immigration ban on 7 countries.

Reuters poll in the last few days found 49% of Americans either agree or strongly agree with the ban , 41% don't and 10% undecided, so if anything hes competently doing the job the american public elected him to do with this move.

I don't think the OP was just having a go to be honest i think he raised an interesting point , i wouldn't have used the term brainwashed personally but , i do find the relationship between the social left and Islam very very strange

wes

Help!!!! wrote: »

Having a go at what??

The left, as per you thread title.

Help!!!! wrote: »

I asked a perfectly good question. Through my own personal experiences I do not understand why the left/feminists etc are bending over backwards for Muslims when Islam is against western values

Treating people fairly is not bending over backwards, and again very recently we had a right wing, anti-feminist, anti-Muslim right winger butcher 6 people in a mosque, and then having the Trump admin turn around and blame Muslims instead.

The question, I think needs to be asked is why so many on the right are ok with that? Why do they support targetting a miniority group of the actions of the few. Why are they ok with collective punishment? Your thread timing is again rather interestng. I guess you wanted to strike while the iron was hot so to speak.

wes

Walter H Price wrote: »

If keeping election promises is now viewed incompetence i think we have far bigger issue then the US implementing a temporary travel and immigration ban on 7 countries.

Violating court orders is incompetence and in fact is criminal. The chaos is a perfect example of the incomptence.

You have completely side stepped why I said it was incompetent. Being elected to do something, and then dong it isn't the same as being competent. Your defense, doesn't make any sense.

How is the chaos we have seen with the policy, where various other parts of the government were not aware of the policy, not an example of rank incompetence? How is violation of court order competence? Again, the president is not above the law. The legislature is responsible for changes to the law, the President has to work within the law, or he could have had the senate and congress that his party controls change the law. Instead a poorly wored executive order that has caused chaos.

Walter H Price wrote: »

Reuters poll in the last few days found 49% of Americans either agree or strongly agree with the ban , 41% don't and 10% undecided, so if anything hes competently doing the job the american public elected him to do with this move.

A lot of people agreeing with something is not an example of competence, just public opinion, and as we have seen with the election of Trump, its not exactly accurate all of the time.

Basically, public opinion has no bearing on the policy being competently done. Again, you have not made you case at all, and what your saying is in fact irrelevant as to whether the policy was implemented competently.

Walter H Price wrote: »

I don't think the OP was just having a go to be honest i think he raised an interesting point , i wouldn't have used the term brainwashed personally but , i do find the relationship between the social left and Islam very very strange

Well, considering the OPs anti-Muslim atatements, I would beg to differ.

Help!!!!

wes wrote: »

The left, as per you thread title.



Treating people fairly is not bending over backwards, and again very recently we had a right wing, anti-feminist, anti-Muslim right winger butcher 6 people in a mosque, and then having the Trump admin turn around and blame Muslims instead.

The question, I think needs to be asked is why so many on the right are ok with that? Why do they support targetting a miniority group of the actions of the few. Why are they ok with collective punishment? Your thread timing is again rather interestng. I guess you wanted to strike while the iron was hot so to speak.

What you going on about there was no hidden agenda behind the post. Lets get things straight here if you think I'm right wing or whatever the hell. I was an immigrant, i am married to an immigrant, my cousins who are mixed race came to live in Ireland in the 80s, I have friends of many different race/culture/religion some even Muslim. I have spoken honestly with some of them & the practising Muslims would like to have Sharia Law. I have heard the way the talk about women & gays. So I'm just trying to get my head round why what looks like a lesbian (might be wrong) woman would be singing Alluha Akbar at a womens march

wes

Help!!!! wrote: »

What you going on about there was no hidden agenda behind the post. Lets get things straight here if you think I'm right wing or whatever the hell. I was an immigrant, i am married to an immigrant, my cousins who are mixed race came to live in Ireland in the 80s, I have friends of many different race/culture/religion some even Muslim. I have spoken honestly with some of them & the practising Muslims would like to have Sharia Law. I have heard the way the talk about women & gays. So I'm just trying to get my head round why what looks like a lesbian (might be wrong) woman would be singing Alluha Akbar at a womens march

You stated that there are no moderate Muslims, that is an extremist position. Do you deny that is your position or not? Simply question.

As for being right wing or not, honestly could care less. Being an immigrant doesn't stop you having biggoted opinions about other groups, and again you have stated, there are no moderate Muslims, a position you share with ISIS btw,

I stand by my statement in regards to timing. Muslims have been targetted the last fews days, and you decide to have a go at the left, which is what the thread is, as per the title.

Now, maybe just maybe, not every Muslim is the same. I know that may be shocking for you, but maybe just maybe some people think it wrong that people are discriminated against. Maybe, the Muslims they know, aren't anti-women or homophobic. I know, maybe hard for you to believe, consdering your anti-muslims statements. Maybe people can be against religous extremists, but also be against attacks on the believers, who aren't hurting anyone?

Maybe, just maybe women, all women, Muslim or otherwise, are against Trump, who made his personal opinion clear on Women rather clear. I do note with interest, how Trump supporters are given a free pass by so many, with the defense of "economic" anxiety or some other guff.

Walter H Price

wes wrote: »

You stated that there are no moderate Muslims, that is an extremist position. Do you deny that is your position or not? Simply question.

i thinks its difficult for a Muslim to be both devout and moderate , as discussed in this thread moderate does not refer to the support of jihad , moderate to me would be a rejection of sharia which are extreme , oppressive , degrading and discriminatory laws , totally at odd with western culture and values any Muslim who supports sharia cannot be called a moderate , and in my experience there are very few devout Muslims who will not defend sharia at he very least if they are not in full support of it.

The only Muslims i have met who are truly moderate , rational m, decent people are those who have left or are looking for a way to leave Islam, such as the girl from my masters course that myself and a number of my classmates helped gain asylum here this year. She was about a Muslim as the pope but had she gone back to Saudi she'd have been in a Burka and the property of her father / husband etc for the rest of her life. She couldn't fathom why any European woman would defend or support Islam and helped completely change the view of a number of the Irish , French and Dutch girls in our class in relation to this.