Stochastic Terrorism

Fromthetrees

I said I think not all Muslim woman attend Sharia Courts voluntarily, you said I merely 'think' this, I provided a source of testimonials from Muslim woman saying this was in fact the case, you now dismiss these woman because of an 'agenda'.

I would have thought that it would be quite obvious that Western woman who are educated, informed and fully emancipated human beings would find it hard to subscribe to Sharia Courts, why is it so hard to understand that Muslim woman would feel this too?
I said Sharia Courts are interfering in criminal cases.
Dr Suhaib Hasan, who is seen presiding over one woman's request for a divorce, asks her whether her husband has ever subjected her to violence.

"He has hit me in the past, yes," she replies. "He hit me once."

"Once only," Hasan replies. "So it's not a very serious matter."
Domestic abuse is a criminal case not a civil case.

What has traveller's thumping the head off each other got to do with parallel legal systems making legally binding rulings?

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In what way would a Sharia Council negatively effect Ireland? How would it effect Ireland anymore that the traditional traveller method of settling a beef where two traveller men meeting up and punch each other until someone quits?

That's a seperate culture that's within Ireland method of dispute resolution. Do you "fear" this?

I actually would have a problem with this, same as I have a problem with the way that Travellers often don't think the laws of the state apply to them. I can't get my head around operating parallel systems within one country depending on what church you go to or who your parents are. I'm not saying I'm objectively right about this, but it's certainly how I feel about it.

The Bishop!

Fromthetrees wrote: »

It's dangerous and naive to think anti Islamic sentiment in Europe is the sole construct of Zionist propagandists.

Again, nobody is saying here that it's a sole construct.

Do you honestly think the Swiss or the Dutch populations are manipulated/brainwashed into voting for anti Islamic parties?

I do as a matter of fact. Not all of them now, but i think that there is definitely an element of manipulation at play. Of tapping into natural fears and prejudices of the unknown and outsiders.
Wilders' propaganda film 'Fitna' is a perfect example of this.

Politicians the world over have done (manipulate) to garner votes and support. The shifting of blame for a real or perceived problem on to a group that did not cause the problem; whether it's the unemployed, the unions, the blacks, the Irish, Muslims, Jews.

Do you think that Islamic terrorism in Europe hasn't had an effect on the psyche and voting patterns of the non Islamic voters?

And again, the thread is not really about the root causes of anti Islam sentiment or trying to assign all fear of Islam or Muslims solely to the networks activities. Many may have reservations about unchecked immigration or religious fundamentalism. Many have legitimate concerns in regard to preserving a secular society. It's fine if you want to discuus that, but this is not about them at all.

This is about lies and fabrications. It's about incitement to hatred and dehumanisation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjGJPPRD3u0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkMolLriAkQ

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I said I think not all Muslim woman attend Sharia Courts voluntarily, you said I merely 'think' this, I provided a source of testimonials from Muslim woman saying this was in fact the case, you now dismiss these woman because of an 'agenda'.

The agenda is clear. If her issue was tribunals run by the elders of a minority group to settle certain civil matters then she would devote equal time to the Jewish courts operating in the UK. Her site should be called onelawforall(except Jews).com.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I would have thought that it would be quite obvious that Western woman who are educated, informed and fully emancipated human beings would find it hard to subscribe to Sharia Courts, why is it so hard to understand that Muslim woman would feel this too?

Western women, including Muslims don't have to subscribe.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I said Sharia Courts

They are Sharia Councils.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

are interfering in criminal cases.
Dr Suhaib Hasan, who is seen presiding over one woman's request for a divorce, asks her whether her husband has ever subjected her to violence.

"He has hit me in the past, yes," she replies. "He hit me once."

"Once only," Hasan replies. "So it's not a very serious matter."
Domestic abuse is a criminal case not a civil case.

That's is simply not interfering in any criminal case. If the women filed a criminal complaint these alledged words have zero baring on a crimal prosecution.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

What has traveller's thumping the head off each other got to do with parallel legal systems making legally binding rulings?

Religious tribunals and travellers fighting are both forms of dispute resolution within their respective communites.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I actually would have a problem with this, same as I have a problem with the way that Travellers often don't think the laws of the state apply to them. I can't get my head around operating parallel systems within one country depending on what church you go to or who your parents are. I'm not saying I'm objectively right about this, but it's certainly how I feel about it.

I agree on all points. If there were any meaningful paralell legal systems. Yet if a Muslim builder is hired by a fellow Muslim to build a wall in his garden and it falls down and both agree and are happy to have the dispute resolved in a Sharia Council then I couldn't care less.

The Bishop!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree on all points. If there were any meaningful paralell legal systems. Yet if a Muslim builder is hired by a fellow Muslim to build a wall in his garden and it falls down and both agree and are happy to have the dispute resolved in a Sharia Council then I couldn't care less.

Off topic a bit here, but i lived in North London for a good few years. Loved my time there. It's not for some, but i think most who live there love it aswell. So many nationalities and cultures, all living together peacefully for the most part.

I wasn't there at the time, but i remember reading about the Harrow Mosque protest. Am sure you heard about it.
Back in 2009, at this time of year actually, the Stop Islamisation of Europe crowd tried to plan a demonstration there against it being built. They put out an open appeal to the Jewish community hoping to get 1,000 Jews to carry the Israeli flag and support the protest.

The local Rabbi's got wind of this and basically told them to go **** themselves.:pac:

“As leaders of the Jewish community in Harrow, we are writing to express our support for our Muslim friends and neighbours, especially those at Harrow Central Mosque, who are under attack from those whose only purpose is to spread hatred and fear.
We share the desire of the Muslim community of Harrow to respect our mutual traditions, to learn from each other's cultures and ways of life, and to live together in peace.

That's why i love London.:)

Pam Geller was so disgusted by this gesture of goodwill and fraternity that she even wrote to the Harrow Times and described the Rabbi's as "morally ill"...

Fromthetrees

The Bishop! wrote: »

Again, nobody is saying here that it's a sole construct.



I do as a matter of fact. Not all of them now, but i think that there is definitely an element of manipulation at play. Of tapping into natural fears and prejudices of the unknown and outsiders.
Wilders' propaganda film 'Fitna' is a perfect example of this.

Politicians the world over have done (manipulate) to garner votes and support. The shifting of blame for a real or perceived problem on to a group that did not cause the problem; whether it's the unemployed, the unions, the blacks, the Irish, Muslims, Jews.



And again, the thread is not really about the root causes of anti Islam sentiment or trying to assign all fear of Islam or Muslims solely to the networks activities. Many may have reservations about unchecked immigration or religious fundamentalism. Many have legitimate concerns in regard to preserving a secular society. It's fine if you want to discuus that, but this is not about them at all.

This is about lies and fabrications. It's about incitement to hatred and dehumanisation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjGJPPRD3u0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkMolLriAkQ

I agree the above videos have a propagandist feel to them and I
agree with some of the sentiment in your post.
The bottom line though is that many of the families of the victims of 9/11 didn't want a Mosque to be built on the site where their loved ones died and I think they're right. If unsavoury characters get involved in the campaign then that's that, it doesn't change what the victims want.
If there were plans to build a British army museum or a UVF (that won't happen obviously) museum on the site where the Dublin and Monaghan bombings happened I would think it's wrong, and if the victims families opposed them, I would support them, and it would be right.
Your saying Dutch and Swiss voters voting for anti Islamic parties are being manipulated and brainwashed by Zionists right? I don't buy that, sorry, it feels like it's almost too easy an answer to explain away a frightening trend.

Fromthetrees

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The agenda is clear. If her issue was tribunals run by the elders of a minority group to settle certain civil matters then she would devote equal time to the Jewish courts operating in the UK. Her site should be called onelawforall(except Jews).com.


Western women, including Muslims don't have to subscribe.


They are Sharia Councils.


That's is simply not interfering in any criminal case. If the women filed a criminal complaint these alledged words have zero baring on a crimal prosecution.


Religious tribunals and travellers fighting are both forms of dispute resolution within their respective communites.

So you think that because that website/organisation has an 'agenda' that it invalidates the story told by Muslim woman who were abused by this system? How exactly? If Jewish woman came out and said they were abused by their system then I'd like to read about it.
I don't understand this logic, women are abused but your not allowed say it unless you attack Jews too.
Abuse is abuse, agenda or no agenda.

Society doesn't accept traveller's way of dispute resolution, it doesn't meet the standards of how 'we' do it, I think Sharia Law doesn't meet the standards of how we legislate in this country, therefore I reject it as being unacceptable.
How will it effect me? It won't in all likelihood, same way traveller's fighting doesn't involve me, does it mean I think the state should endorse either forms of dispute resolution, my answer is no.

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

So you think that because that website/organisation has an 'agenda' that it invalidates the story told by Muslim woman who were abused by this system? How exactly?

No. I said if the woman who runs onelawforall was actually interested in "one law for all" then she would devote equal condemnation to Jewish courts.

Do you dispute this?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

If Jewish woman came out and said they were abused by their system then I'd like to read about it.

OK

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]

Welcome...

...to the website of the Agunot Campaign. Our purpose is to remedy the injustice suffered by Jewish women whose husbands deny them a religious divorce (called a 'get') after their marriages have irretrievably broken down. A woman in this position is called an 'agunah' meaning a 'chained woman' (plural 'agunot').

Agunot are unable to re-marry in an orthodox synagogue. If an agunah contracts a civil marriage, then each child of that marriage is a 'mamzer' - that is, illegitimate according to Jewish law. This status passes down through the generations; thus the son or daughter of a mamzer is also a mamzer. The mamzer suffers severe penalties, such as being restricted to marrying only another mamzer or a convert.

http://www.agunot-campaign.org.uk/

[/FONT]

AND

Kosher concubines

The Chief Judge of the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court, Rabbi Eliyahu Abergel, has ruled that in cases where a man has not fathered any children, and his wife cannot or does not want to bear children, the man may take a concubine.

In his recently-published book, Dvarot Eliyahu ("Eliyahu's Rulings"), the rabbi writes, "establishing a family is an important commandment. A woman who refuses to, or cannot, bring children into the word, and refuses to grant her husband a divorce, is preventing him from building a family and spreading his seed. In such a situation, the husband is permitted to take a concubine and there is no constraint under halachah [Jewish law]. This ruling will enable husbands to fulfill the commandment of procreation, even if it means taking a regular mistress. The concubine may also live with the couple."
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5086

Now tell me, what does this change?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I don't understand this logic, women are abused but your not allowed say it unless you attack Jews too.
Abuse is abuse, agenda or no agenda.

Let me explain: If you claim to be against something on principle and there are two groups involved in the same thing you are against and you demonise one as uniquely XYZ and omit mentioning the other then you clearly aren't being honest.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Society doesn't accept traveller's way of dispute resolution, it doesn't meet the standards of how 'we' do it, I think Sharia Law doesn't meet the standards of how we legislate in this country, therefore I reject it as being unacceptable.

"Rejecting it as being unnaceptable" is a massive climbdown from something to be legitimately fearful of.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

How will it effect me? It won't in all likelihood, same way traveller's fighting doesn't involve me, does it mean I think the state should endorse either forms of dispute resolution, my answer is no.

I respect that but again this is a massive climbdown from something to be legitimately fearful of.

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The bottom line though is that many of the families of the victims of 9/11 didn't want a Mosque to be built on the site where their loved ones died and I think they're right.

Not that there ever was any Mosque to be built on Ground Zero (this was opportunistic Islamophobic propoganda) why shouldn't there be a Mosque close to the site?

Would you object to a Christian Church being erected in Oslo? Why/Why not? And (again) what is the difference?

Fromthetrees

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. I said if the woman who runs onelawforall was actually interested in "one law for all" then she would devote equal condemnation to Jewish courts.

Do you dispute this?


OK


AND


Now tell me, what does this change?


Let me explain: If you claim to be against something on principle and there are two groups involved in the same thing you are against and you demonise one as uniquely XYZ and omit mentioning the other then you clearly aren't being honest.


"Rejecting it as being unnaceptable" is a massive climbdown from something to be legitimately fearful of.


I respect that but again this is a massive climbdown from something to be legitimately fearful of.

I think, the following, are things to legitimately fear, I would like to be proved wrong though and none of the following effects Ireland and is highly unlikely to in the near future.

-Religious/ethnic ghettos.
-Riots
-Nearly a quarter of British Muslims think 7/7 was justified.
-The rise of far right groups.
-The rise of far right politicians.
-Terrorist attacks by Islamic and anti Islamic groups.
Do I have to keep going?
I think the above are pretty sound reasons to be fearful, don't you?

Found this on their site.
The One Law for All Campaign is opposed to all religious councils and tribunals including the Beth Din. If you look at our petition it calls for an end to all of them.But we’re focusing on Sharia because it is something close to our hearts and experience (at least for those of us who started the campaign),
This sounds fair to me.
Victims of child sex abuse by The CC in Ireland would not be expected to "devote" an "equal" amount of time to "condemning" Protestant pedophile priest's, that's it.

Fromthetrees

If Anders Breivik carried out his murders in the name of the Christian Church and the family members of his victims objected to one being built than I would be in full support of their wishes.
This isn't exactly an extreme opinion to hold, to me it just feels like the right thing to do for the victims.

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I think, the following, are things to legitimately fear, I would like to be proved wrong though and none of the following effects Ireland and is highly unlikely to in the near future.

-Religious/ethnic ghettos.
-Riots
-Nearly a quarter of British Muslims think 7/7 was justified.
-The rise of far right groups.
-The rise of far right politicians.
-Terrorist attacks by Islamic and anti Islamic groups.
Do I have to keep going?
I think the above are pretty sound reasons to be fearful, don't you?

No. In your own words they are "highly unlikely" and either way have nothing to do with voluntary civil tribunals based on Islamic principles.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Found this on their site.
The One Law for All Campaign is opposed to all religious councils and tribunals including the Beth Din. If you look at our petition it calls for an end to all of them.But we’re focusing on Sharia because it is something close to our hearts and experience (at least for those of us who started the campaign),
This sounds fair to me.
Victims of child sex abuse by The CC in Ireland would not be expected to "devote" an "equal" amount of time to "condemning" Protestant pedophile priest's, that's it.

That's not a fair comparison. It is implicit that "One Law For All" is concerned with the "all", it is not called "One Law For What Is Close To Our Hearts".

If I claimed to be anti-immigration and I only ever spoke out against black immigrants wouldn't it be reasonable to consider that my anti-immigration stance was actually anti-black racism?

Fromthetrees

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. In your own words they are "highly unlikely" and either way have nothing to do with voluntary civil tribunals based on Islamic principles.


That's not a fair comparison. It is implicit that "One Law For All" is concerned with the "all", it is not called "One Law For What Is Close To Our Hearts".

If I claimed to be anti-immigration and I only ever spoke out against black immigrants wouldn't it be reasonable to consider that my anti-immigration stance was actually anti-black racism?

I said there 'highly unlikely to happen in Ireland', which is true as we're still a relatively white Christian nation (over 90%). The north would tick most of these off though.
All the things have happened already in Britain and other European nations and it is something to be legitimately feared in those countries.
The thing is, I would expect formerly Muslim women who reject their faith, got death threats for being apostates while they fled a system in which they were abused, and these women were abused, would concentrate most of their ire for this religion first and foremost while still in principle being against all religions from being involved in legal matters.

Are there specific anti black immigration organisations in the UK/Europe that are pro Chinese immigration?
I feel there's a lot whataboutery here.
Your point seems to be, they don't give out about the Jews enough, mine is abuse of women cannot be tolerated, everything else just feels like noise.

enfant terrible

enno99 wrote: »

The Hannity's /Beck's O'Reilly's while being despicable human beings are only mouthpieces for the system

O' Reilly's not an extremist.

Brown Bomber

enfant terrible wrote: »

O' Reilly's not an extremist.

:pac::pac: Bill "Muslims killed us on 9/11" O'Reilly" isn't an extremist? Pull the other one.

Maybe you'd also be interested in the moderate views of fmr Klansman David "Jews killed us on 9/11" Duke too?

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

If Anders Breivik carried out his murders in the name of the Christian Church and the family members of his victims objected to one being built than I would be in full support of their wishes.

Breivik carried out his actions as a Christian crusader and saviour of Christendom.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

This isn't exactly an extreme opinion to hold, to me it just feels like the right thing to do for the victims.

Inhibiting the religous rights of a single community in a specific geographic location based on the acts of a single person, not representative of the punished community is very extremist.

Monty Burnz

enfant terrible wrote: »

O' Reilly's not an extremist.

O'Reilly may not be an extremist, but he is a total idiot, wilfully stupid. Like many people, he sees only what he wants to see and ignores facts.

Brown Bomber

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I said there 'highly unlikely to happen in Ireland', which is true as we're still a relatively white Christian nation (over 90%). The north would tick most of these off though.
All the things have happened already in Britain and other European nations and it is something to be legitimately feared in those countries.

It seems to me like the only solution from your perspective is racially distinct secular regions. Is that fair to say?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The thing is, I would expect formerly Muslim women who reject their faith, got death threats for being apostates while they fled a system in which they were abused, and these women were abused, would concentrate most of their ire for this religion first and foremost while still in principle being against all religions from being involved in legal matters.

Which is fine if they are upfront about it. They are not, as evidenced by the groups name "onelawforall".

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Your point seems to be, they don't give out about the Jews enough, mine is abuse of women cannot be tolerated, everything else just feels like noise.

No. My point is that if you claim take issue with religous councils in Britain, where there are two, and only focus on one then you are clearly biased and therefore of questionable integrity.

enfant terrible

Monty Burnz wrote: »

O'Reilly may not be an extremist, but he is a total idiot, wilfully stupid. Like many people, he sees only what he wants to see and ignores facts.

I find him one of the better opinion pundits.

I'd take him over Hannity, Maddow or Olbermann any day.

Monty Burnz

enfant terrible wrote: »

I find him one of the better opinion pundits.

The brilliant Stephen Colbert models his Colbert Report persona on O'Reilly, and O'Reilly was one of the main inspirations for his concept of 'truthiness'.

Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]
American television comedian Stephen Colbert coined the word in this meaning[2] as the subject of a segment called "The Wørd" during the pilot episode of his political satire program The Colbert Report on October 17, 2005. By using this as part of his routine, Colbert satirized the misuse of appeal to emotion and "gut feeling" as a rhetorical device in contemporaneous socio-political discourse.[3] He particularly applied it to U.S. President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.[4] Colbert later ascribed truthiness to other institutions and organizations, including Wikipedia.[5] Colbert has sometimes used a Dog Latin version of the term, "Veritasiness".[6] For example, in Colbert's "Operation Iraqi Stephen: Going Commando" the word "Veritasiness" can be seen on the banner above the eagle on the operation's seal.

enfant terrible

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The brilliant Stephen Colbert models his Colbert Report persona on O'Reilly, and O'Reilly was one of the main inspirations for his concept of 'truthiness'.

I know ya he's funny.

John Stewart is funny too but I wouldn't take what he says too seriously as most young people do, as he says himself he's a comedian not an analyst.

Monty Burnz

enfant terrible wrote: »

I know ya he's funny.

John Stewart is funny too but I wouldn't take what he says too seriously as most young people do, as he says himself he's a comedian not an analyst.

I'd take them a lot more seriously than I would any of those pundits - they wouldn't be funny unless they dealt with the truth. At least half of the humour in those programmes depends on showing up the total idiocy of the likes of O'Reilly.

enfant terrible

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd take them a lot more seriously than I would any of those pundits - they wouldn't be funny unless they dealt with the truth. At least half of the humour in those programmes depends on showing up the total idiocy of the likes of O'Reilly.

I'm guessing your young, when your older you'll see how silly that is.

Mocking people in politics is easy and has been done for decades and spitting image did it better.

Monty Burnz

enfant terrible wrote: »

I'm guessing your young, when your older you'll see how silly that is.

Why is it silly? O'Reilly and company talk total horsesh!t, so much so that Colbert and John Stewart can making a living simply by pointing it out. If anything, I'd say taking O'Reilly or anyone else on 'fair and balanced' Faux News seriously is a rather silly thing to do.

There is intelligent left wing, right wing and centrist opinion out there if you look for it.

enfant terrible

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why is it silly? O'Reilly and company talk total horsesh!t, so much so that Colbert and John Stewart can making a living simply by pointing it out. If anything, I'd say taking O'Reilly or anyone else on 'fair and balanced' Faux News seriously is a rather silly thing to do.

There is intelligent left wing, right wing and centrist opinion out there if you look for it.

Faux news :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

enfant terrible wrote: »

Faux news :rolleyes:

Indeed. It's basically a propaganda organisation for the far right.

enfant terrible

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed. It's basically a propaganda organisation for the far right.

Do you watch much of it?

Monty Burnz

enfant terrible wrote: »

Do you watch much of it?

Too much. It's actually quite depressing. Do you genuinely think it gives a fair representation of news events and current affairs?

enfant terrible

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Too much. It's actually quite depressing.

What left wing media depresses you?