'Jewish and Democratic'

biko

Lingua Franca wrote: »

So what "they" are you saying that I'm a part of? Is everyone who disagrees with you on an issue one of "them"?

Shills, keep on shilling.

When you accuse people of being shills then yes. If you can try to address the issues instead of personalising the discussion please. I don't go around name calling and neither should you.
Look, you even get worked up over a "they"...

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I dunno, they seem hestitant enough to me.

I suppose that since the neighbours haven't started any official wars with Israel since 1973 it could be said they hesitate but perhaps it's to do with that the 4 previous wars were all failures for them.
War of Independence (1948–1949)
Six Day War (1967)
War of Attrition (1969–1970)
Yom Kippur War (1973)

I'm not sure if rocket bombardment from Gaza and military response from Israel can be said to be "war" but if you count the two Intifadas 1987–1993 and 2000–2005, the 3 week Gaza War 2008 - 2009 and the latest rocket attacks in the autumn of this year it doesn't seem to me to be very hesitant.

Israel have invaded southern Lebanon twice (first to oust PLO rocket fighters and then to oust Hezbollah rocket fighters) but there are still rockets fired from there so it's not just Gaza to worry about.

Lingua Franca

biko wrote: »

When you accuse people of being shills then yes. If you can try to address the issues instead of personalising the discussion please. I don't go around name calling and neither should you.
Look, you even get worked up over a "they"...

You still haven't said which "they" I'm a part of. I at least explained why I think SeanW is a shill. And if you're wanting the discussion to stay impersonal perhaps you shouldn't be telling other posters that "they" are all out to get you.

I suppose that since the neighbours haven't started any official wars with Israel since 1973 it could be said they hesitate but perhaps it's to do with that the 4 previous wars were all failures for them.
War of Independence (1948–1949)
Six Day War (1967)
War of Attrition (1969–1970)
Yom Kippur War (1973)

Indeed, and Israel has a very strong and US backed military and nukes but given that Israel started at least one of those wars, you can hardly call them all "an attempt to invade and kill every last Israeli".

I'm not sure if rocket bombardment from Gaza and military response from Israel can be said to be "war" but if you count the two Intifadas 1987–1993 and 2000–2005, the 3 week Gaza War 2008 - 2009 and the latest rocket attacks in the autumn of this year it doesn't seem to me to be very hesitant.

biko wrote: »

Not to mention the neighbours who would not hesitate to invade and kill every last Israeli

Again, I don't think of rocket attacks from Gaza to be an attempt at another holocaust. Hamas rockets aren't capable of this sort of genocide. Herding 500,000 people into 17 square miles and denying them foodstuffs, building materials and sufficient potable water and then bombing the shit out of them with stuff like phosphorous at every given opportunity, on the other hand...

Israel have invaded southern Lebanon twice (first to oust PLO rocket fighters and then to oust Hezbollah rocket fighters) but there are still rockets fired from there so it's not just Gaza to worry about.

And here's the crux. Do you really believe that Israel is trying very hard to be stable in the region when it's known for land grabbing, bullying and ethnic cleansing and is currently trying to poke Iran? When it's response to the recent Gaza shelling was "ok then, we'll just build more settlements where we promised we wouldn't"?

Israel is a rogue state, and out of control. They're in an unthinkably difficult situation, it's true, but they're not doing themselves any favours with their god's-chosen-people arrogance and they're certainly not trying hard for stability.

SeanW

Lingua Franca wrote: »

And here's the crux. Do you really believe that Israel is trying very hard to be stable in the region when it's known for land grabbing, bullying and ethnic cleansing ... They're in an unthinkably difficult situation, it's true, but they're not doing themselves any favours with their god's-chosen-people arrogance and they're certainly not trying hard for stability.

Here's the thing: I don't disagree with this.

Again, let me re-iterate: I have no interest in defending anything Israel does that is absolutely wrong, such as disposessing people of their property, imposing a blockade of Gaza that I think is unduly harsh (they should allow free movement of civilians and no limit of foodstuffs, and other single use civilian goods).

I only want an acknowledgement from Lefties like you and Nodin that it's not all a one-way street, that Israel isn't the ONLY bad thing around, only that you lefties are honest that Israel's bad behaviour is just one problem, and that you make it clear that you have a problem with other bad things that are being done (assuming you do, which I doubt).

For example, we could talk about how a large portion of the Islamic world opresses religious minorities to some extent - this while demanding undue "respect" for their faith elsewhere.

You could make it clear that you have a problem with Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism/Salafism, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and legions of other Islamic extremists (who are themselves guilty of intolerance, stirring up hatred of "the other" and in the latter case, engaged in "ethnic cleansing") that you do with Israel. I.E. that Israel is not the only thing worth bashing.

All I'm looking for is proportionality.

SeanW

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Indeed, and Israel has a very strong and US backed military and nukes but given that Israel started at least one of those wars, you can hardly call them all "an attempt to invade and kill every last Israeli".

The stated intention of the Muslim belligerants in the '67 was to "drive the Jews into the sea."

This is another point you lefties like to play down.

Lingua Franca

SeanW wrote: »

But... but ARABS! :pac:

You've been asked several times to start another thread on the subject rather than hijack this one.

Seriously, Saudi Arabia? You really are determined to derail this thread.

SeanW wrote: »

you lefties :pac:

Bannasidhe

SeanW wrote: »

This is another point you lefties like to play down.

I'm right handed actually.

SeanW

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You've been asked several times to start another thread on the subject rather than hijack this one.

I tried that, posting, as I did, questions about the activities of the "Saudi Cultural Bureau in the United Kingdom and Ireland."

It quickly became clear that I was one of the few that actually had a problem with it, the rest of you were eerily quiet. The mods locked it fairly quickly.

In addition, it's clear to me that the multicultural left (you, Nodin etc) has a single minded obsession with bashing Israel.

A bit like Ilmar Reepalu, mayor of Malmo, who after denying that there was a problem with anti Semitism in his city, proceeded to blame the Jews themselves for it, for not denouncing Israel. Also around the same time he claimed that it was native neo-Nazis. He then later accused the Jewish community in Malmo of having been "infiltrated" by Swedish far-right party Sweden Democrats.

But here's the part you should find entertaining, when the Simon Wiesenthal Centre repeated a travel advisory for Jews visiting Sweden in 2012 (first issued in 2010 due to a rise in acts of anti Semitism, by ... guess which group?), the same Ilmar Reepalu responded that:

I get the impression that the aim of the [Simon Wiesenthal] Center is to make people forget what is going on in the state of Israel

Bannasidhe

SeanW wrote: »

In addition, it's clear to me that the multicultural left (you, Nodin etc) has a single minded obsession with bashing Israel.

:

On the grounds that I have criticised Israel in this thread so presumably am included in 'etc' please provide evidence that I (an unashamed multiculturalist and a socialist) have demonstrated ' a single minded obsession with bashing Israel' or withdraw your statement and apologise immediately.

SeanW

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On the grounds that I have criticised Israel in this thread so presumably am included in 'etc' please provide evidence that I (an unashamed multiculturalist and a socialist) have demonstrated ' a single minded obsession with bashing Israel' or withdraw your statement and apologise immediately.

Well, I've criticised Israel too, in that I've stated, repeatedly, that I have no interest in defending disposession etc.

My statement was aimed at those who bash Israel while having little or no issue with Islamic madness.

Assuming that you, like me, are not in favour of "tolerance" for Saudi Wahhabism and take an extremely dim view of their values (such as anti-Semitism) and that you view them at least as harshly as you view Israel, than my comment clearly does not apply to you.

Lucy and Harry

The State of Israel compared to many in the world is a very good state.But when country's do wrong it gets overlooked but when Israel breaks the rules you can be sure it will be all over the news.
Jews from all over the world mixing in Israel and having their own state is a good thing.
It is just a pity Palestinians had to suffer as a result.But hay the Native American Indians and Native Australians did not fare too well either.
It is a democracy but also by the situation it finds itself in a military state.It has so many enemy's over there kids have to join the army for the day when the next Jihad army shows up on its doorstep.

Banbh

Israel is not a democracy as it 'democratic' rights are based on religion.
And in comparison to other non-democratic, religion-based states, it still is among the nastiest.
Here's a guy trying to get on a bus in Israeli, coming home from work. Imagine his chances of asking for a vote. From the 'lefties' at France 24 today:
http://observers.france24.com/content/20121204-palestinian-workers-bus-segragation-israel

Bannasidhe

SeanW wrote: »

Well, I've criticised Israel too, in that I've stated, repeatedly, that I have no interest in defending disposession etc.

My statement was aimed at those who bash Israel while having little or no issue with Islamic madness.

Assuming that you, like me, are not in favour of "tolerance" for Saudi Wahhabism and take an extremely dim view of their values (such as anti-Semitism) and that you view them at least as harshly as you view Israel, than my comment clearly does not apply to you.

Doesn't it?

I am a multiculturalist.
I am a socialist.
I have criticised Israel.

Why am I excluded from your comment re: possession of 'a single minded obsession with bashing Israel'?

Perhaps it is because when I called on you to prove that comment you couldn't?

I would prefer you do not make assumptions as to what I do and do not believe or am concerned about - I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

.............

I only want an acknowledgement from Lefties like you and Nodin that it's not all a one-way street, that Israel isn't the ONLY bad thing around, .......

...you know its possible to see what threads people have started by clicking on their profile?

robindch

SeanW -

SeanW wrote: »

In addition, it's clear to me that the multicultural left (you, Nodin etc) has a single minded obsession with bashing Israel.

I've posted a couple of times about your usage of the useless term "multicultural left" and I've asked you to drop it unless you provide some meaningful context that we can all agree on.

So far, you haven't provided that context, so now, as mod, I'm now asking you to drop the term permanently together with the general "anti-leftist" prose under threat of cards, bans etc, unless you wish to describe exactly what you mean by any of these terms and why any of them has any relevance to this debate.

Thanks.

SeanW

Ok, I will try to explain my use of the term.

IMHO a multicultural leftist has some or all of the following viewpoints:

1. Mutliculturalism is an unqualified success. Anyone who has any issues with the idea whatsoever is a racist or a bigot or a right wing bastard, or an Anders Breivhik supporter.
2. Cultural/moral relativism is embraced. No "minority" culture may be criticised no matter how vile or barbaric it is, especially Wahhabism/Salafism.
3. The downsides of multiculturalism are not to be discussed, for example Saudi involvement in the education system of the U.K. (teaching children that Jews are monkeys and pigs, homosexuals and apostates should be killed, rule of the kaffir should be resisted etc)
4. Evidence of Islamic extremism seeping into Western civilisation is ignored or played down.
5. But when it comes to Israel, the blinkers come off. Israel is put under a lot more scrutiny than other countries, esp Middle Eastern countries.
6. Some, like the mayor of Malmo, are so blinded by their disgust for Israel, that they cannot see bigger problems much closer to home.

Banbh

I see from this scatter-gun of wild accusations that we are in tabloid territory.
There is no point in trying to pick through them as they fly off at tangents in all directions away from the subject of the thread.

Nodin

I'll once more point out....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82432107&postcount=194

and add that even individual posts made in each fora can be examined, using the tools available.

biko

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You still haven't said which "they" I'm a part of. I at least explained why I think SeanW is a shill. And if you're wanting the discussion to stay impersonal perhaps you shouldn't be telling other posters that "they" are all out to get you.

"They" are the opposition - whoever is in disagreement with you.
I will not discuss this further as tbh it's getting a bit weird now.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Indeed, and Israel has a very strong and US backed military and nukes but given that Israel started at least one of those wars, you can hardly call them all "an attempt to invade and kill every last Israeli".

I wasn't saying anywhere that Gaza rockets are intended to kill every last Israeli (their rockets aren't powerful enough) but the wars where all the neighbours attack simultaneously would have decimated the population and taken the land for themselves.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Again, I don't think of rocket attacks from Gaza to be an attempt at another holocaust. Hamas rockets aren't capable of this sort of genocide. Herding 500,000 people into 17 square miles and denying them foodstuffs, building materials and sufficient potable water and then bombing the shit out of them with stuff like phosphorous at every given opportunity, on the other hand...

Rockets from Gaza (some with phosphorous too) will never be enough to kill all Jews but at least Hamas will try. The Hamas charter states all Jews should be killed.
Funnily Hamas says they themselves don't think the charter is that important (an odd contradiction but ok they might be telling the truth this time) but in my opinion it's shown by Hamas choosing to rocket civilian targets instead of military targets they they don't care as long a jews die.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

And here's the crux. Do you really believe that Israel is trying very hard to be stable in the region when it's known for land grabbing, bullying and ethnic cleansing and is currently trying to poke Iran? When it's response to the recent Gaza shelling was "ok then, we'll just build more settlements where we promised we wouldn't"?

Israel is a rogue state, and out of control. They're in an unthinkably difficult situation, it's true, but they're not doing themselves any favours with their god's-chosen-people arrogance and they're certainly not trying hard for stability.

If Iran gains nuclear weapons, who do you think is the most likely target? Of course Israel will work diplomatically to make sure this doesn't happen.


Do you think that if Israel gave up lands it would stop the rockets? Is there a precedence for this theory?

Do you think that the wars that Iran, Syria, Jordan and Egypt started was for the Palestinians only?
That once Israel was gone they would withdraw and then let the Palestinians just move in?

Lingua Franca

biko wrote: »

I wasn't saying anywhere that Gaza rockets are intended to kill every last Israeli (their rockets aren't powerful enough) but the wars where all the neighbours attack simultaneously would have decimated the population and taken the land for themselves.

Which wars were these?

Rockets from Gaza (some with phosphorous too) will never be enough to kill all Jews but at least Hamas will try. The Hamas charter states all Jews should be killed.

[citation needed] Kill ALL the Jews? That isn't quite true, is it?

Funnily Hamas says they themselves don't think the charter is that important (an odd contradiction but ok they might be telling the truth this time) but in my opinion it's shown by Hamas choosing to rocket civilian targets instead of military targets they they don't care as long a jews die.

They don't consider it relevant today. You can all you like, but it doesn't make it so.

If Iran gains nuclear weapons, who do you think is the most likely target? Of course Israel will work diplomatically to make sure this doesn't happen.

Israel HAS nukes, who is the mostly likely target of those? Are they for defensive purposes? In that case, why can't other countries defend themselves? Israel is poking Iran here, not the other way around.

Do you think that if Israel gave up lands it would stop the rockets? Is there a precedence for this theory?

Well, we'll never know as Israel continues it's land grab.

Do you think that the wars that Iran, Syria, Jordan and Egypt started was for the Palestinians only?

Of course not. Do you presume that "they" are all naive as well?

That once Israel was gone they would withdraw and then let the Palestinians just move in?

Doubtful, I think one of them have ended up governing the Palestinians themselves. Which, while not ideal, would be preferable to their current plight.

SeanW

Ok, use of the search function reveals the following:

You, mirroring a demand from an Islamic nutcase (Irish Islamic Vanguard) for Sharia marriage laws (polygamy), where he had made this demand in virtually the same post as a condemnation of a man jailed for blashphemy in Indonesia.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79334622&postcount=92

You, claiming the Arab belligerants in the '67 war to destroy Israel 'didn't really mean it' or something, when they stated that their intention was to "drive the Jews into the sea"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80612520&postcount=43

You, dismissing out of hand a posters (entirely valid) fear of extremism.
http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/ali-selim%E2%80%99s-mask-begins-to-slip-by-our-irish-islamist-expert/

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81285411&postcount=517

The Clongriffin Mosque - I thought it might be a good idea to ask if there was going to be any Saudi/Wahabbist influence before letting it be built. You gave the impression that it could be run by Abu Hamza or Anjem Choudhury and you wouldn't care.
Bannishide was very explicit in saying that it should not be scrutinised at all!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81306995&postcount=559

You playing down a protest by crazed nutcases screaming "USA YOU WILL PAY" for not censoring the Egyptian filmmaker as "just a protest" or something like that:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81182372&postcount=262
No cause for concern then.

My thread about the activities of the Saudi Cultural Bureau in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82170410
You were noticable by your silence, but you did thank a post the general content was "meh" probably becuase that's your view of Islamic extremism. So again, no cause for concern?

You engaging in "whataboutery"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81309276&postcount=376

You, playing down another march by crazed Islamists in Australia (Behead those who insult Islam?) as just "a march"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80797448&postcount=187
Again, no reason for concern.

SeanW

Lingua Franca wrote:

biko wrote:

Do you think that if Israel gave up lands it would stop the rockets? Is there a precedence for this theory?

Well, we'll never know as Israel continues it's land grab.

There is precedent, for example we saw what happened when Israel gave up the Gaza Strip ...

biko

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Which wars were these?

I'm referring to the 1948 and 1973 wars but mainly the 1967 war.
Arab radio May 18, 1967:
"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

May 20 1967 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:
"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation"

Now, this was quite a long time ago but it doesn't seem attitudes towards Israel have changed much in the region.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Israel HAS nukes, who is the mostly likely target of those? Are they for defensive purposes? In that case, why can't other countries defend themselves? Israel is poking Iran here, not the other way around.

Poking how? By threatening to bomb their nuclear plants? The EU/UNSC have tried to stop Iran's plans on nuclear weapons since many years and been fobbed off.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Doubtful, I think one of them have ended up governing the Palestinians themselves. Which, while not ideal, would be preferable to their current plight.

Interesting you would say that, let's see how these other countries are treating Palestinians today.

Allowing Palestinians entry into Arab countries is not so simple. For this reason thousands were stranded in newly constructed refugee camps at the Jordanian and Syrian borders. They subsisted, some for years, fighting the elements in punishing deserts and surviving on UN handouts. Finally, many of them were sent to various non-Arab countries. It was a pitiful spectacle of an Arab betrayal of Palestinians. The more passionate Arab regimes seem to speak of Palestine, the more inconsiderate they actually are of the plight of Palestinians. History has been consistently cruel this way.

Mohammed Nabil Taha, an 11-year-old Palestinian boy, died this week at the entrance to a Lebanese hospital after doctors refused to help him because his family could not afford to pay for medical treatment.
The tragic case of Taha highlights the plight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who live in impoverished refugee camps in Lebanon and who are the victims of an Apartheid system that denies them access to work, education and medical care.

Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian scholar of Palestinian heritage, the media chose to deliberately ignore the conditions of the Palestinians living in refugee camps in Lebanon. He writes that the "tendency to blame Israel for everything" has provided Arab leaders an excuse to deliberately ignore the human rights of the Palestinian in their countries.

I am as outraged by this as you but I re-iterate from an earlier post of mine, the Palestinians are merely pawns used by the Arab nations to get back at Israel.

Now I don't have a ready solution, no-one does, but a two-state solution seems the most likely working outcome. Even this will be very difficult as I think the likes of Hamas will just continue fighting until all of Israel is gone.
Since the neighbouring nations are now getting radicalised through the Arab Spring it doesn't look good for Israel at all.
I can see another total war in the future once the Muslim Brotherhood have gained full control of Egypt and Syria.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Ok, use of the search .................

A truly pathetic effort. You seem to have ignored the threads condemning the bahrain government,Indonesian Government, practices related to the caste system, revolutions in various Arab states, turkish actions against the Kurds...........

Instead - and I find this striking - you seem to focus on interactions with yourself. I had suggested using the facility in relation to the subject of the thread and your contention of too strong a focus on Israel, not as some method of dragging up dead threads and rehashing their arguments with you here and now.

For the record, I do indeed regard many/most of your contentions regarding Islam as hysterical, exaggerated and overstated, nor does the line you've taken in this thread give me any reason to change my conclusion.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

A truly pathetic effort. You seem to have ignored the threads condemning the bahrain government,Indonesian Government, practices related to the caste system, revolutions in various Arab states, turkish actions against the Kurds...........

I didn't ignore your threads on other matters, I just didn't see the relevance.

For the record, I do indeed regard many/most of your contentions regarding Islam as hysterical, exaggerated and overstated, nor does the line you've taken in this thread give me any reason to change my conclusion.

And the line you've taken on Islamic extremism gives me no reason to change my conclusion that you wouldn't be out of place in Neville Chaimberalins' cabinet.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

I didn't ignore your threads on other matters, I just didn't see the relevance.
..........

I pointed it out in response to your statement -

I only want an acknowledgement from Lefties like you and Nodin that it's not all a one-way street, that Israel isn't the ONLY bad thing around, only that you lefties are honest that Israel's bad behaviour is just one problem, and that you make it clear that you have a problem with other bad things that are being done (assuming you do, which I doubt).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82426959&postcount=184

Do you see the relevance now?

Banbh

Israel's Central Elections Committee decided on Wednesday not to disqualify Arab parties Balad and the United Arab List (Ra'am)-Ta’al from running for the 19th Knesset. However, the committee voted to disqualify MK Hanin Zuabi (Balad). The decision was based chiefly on her involvement in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in May 2010.

Read more about Israeli 'democracy' from Haaretz at http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-election-committee-disqualifies-mk-hanin-zuabi-from-running-for-knesset-1.485895

Ironically "the elections committee has yet to decide on petitions to ban the far right-wing party Otzma Leyisrael (‏Strength for Israel‏) on the grounds it rejects the concept of Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state".

robindch

SeanW wrote: »

IMHO a multicultural leftist has some or all of the following viewpoints:

1. Mutliculturalism is an unqualified success. Anyone who has any issues with the idea whatsoever is a racist or a bigot or a right wing bastard, or an Anders Breivhik supporter.
2. Cultural/moral relativism is embraced. No "minority" culture may be criticised no matter how vile or barbaric it is, especially Wahhabism/Salafism.
3. The downsides of multiculturalism are not to be discussed, for example Saudi involvement in the education system of the U.K. (teaching children that Jews are monkeys and pigs, homosexuals and apostates should be killed, rule of the kaffir should be resisted etc)
4. Evidence of Islamic extremism seeping into Western civilisation is ignored or played down.
5. But when it comes to Israel, the blinkers come off. Israel is put under a lot more scrutiny than other countries, esp Middle Eastern countries.
6. Some, like the mayor of Malmo, are so blinded by their disgust for Israel, that they cannot see bigger problems much closer to home.

You haven't defined the term "multicultural" except in terms of itself, you haven't defined at all what you mean by the term "left", and I don't believe that your use of the two terms together conveys anything beyond the usual usage within the private and peculiar world of far-right wingers.

In particular, I'm aware of no poster here in A+A -- please correct me if I'm wrong, anybody -- who holds any of the first four of the views you've listed. And while items 5 and 6 are undeniably related to anti-Israeli feeling which is probably fairly common here in A+A, they don't have anything to do with any definition of multiculturalism or leftism that I've come across, even within the usage limits of right-wing propaganda.

Anyhow, As I've pointed out perhaps three or four times at this stage, your continued use of the terms "multicultural" and "leftist", as well as their use together, is useless and counter-productive and now, with my mod hat on, I'm formally asking to stop using them as they contribute nothing to the debate and agreement is unlikely to be reached upon their meaning.

If you wish to discuss any of the six specific issues you've listed, do feel free to do so as they're broadly within the remit of A+A.

recedite

SeanW wrote: »

I tried that, posting, as I did, questions about the activities of the "Saudi Cultural Bureau in the United Kingdom and Ireland."
It quickly became clear that I was one of the few that actually had a problem with it, the rest of you were eerily quiet. The mods locked it fairly quickly.

Ah now, to be fair, that wasnt in this forum. This one is much more liberal.
Though I get the feeling you don't like liberalism either.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

I pointed it out in response to your statement -


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82426959&postcount=184

Do you see the relevance now?

Yes. and I did note that you started a thread on the murders of the Jewish children in Tolouse (sp?). But at the time, everyone thought it was far righters e.g. neo Nazis. I wonder if you had known from the outset that it was a Muslim extremist, would you have been so quick on the "New thread" button?

robindch wrote:

In particular, I'm aware of no poster here in A+A -- please correct me if I'm wrong, anybody -- who holds any of the first four of the views you've listed.

I'm reasonably sure Nodin does, at least to some extent. He has no problem with Wahhabism/Salafism and its import into the West, and he does not like to talk about Islamic extremism, especially in the West.
There are a couple of others I suspect in this regard as well.

And while items 5 and 6 are undeniably related to anti-Israeli feeling which is probably fairly common here in A+A, they don't have anything to do with any definition of multiculturalism or leftism that I've come across, even within the usage limits of right-wing propaganda

With respect, I disagree, anti-Israeli feeling is something can be attributed to the "left" just as excessive pro-Israeli feeling can be attributed to the "right" e.g. American neo-conservatives, certain elements of loyalism and/or the far-right in the Northern Ireland and England.

robindch wrote:

I'm formally asking to stop using them as they contribute nothing to the debate and agreement is unlikely to be reached upon their meaning.

Fair enough.

recidite wrote:

Ah now, to be fair, that wasnt in this forum. This one is much more liberal.
Though I get the feeling you don't like liberalism either.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by liberalism, but I'm not against sharing my land with people from different lands and different cultures. That includes moderate Islam as a component. But I don't tolerate intolerance and when people start preaching - and teaching their children - that rule of the kaffir should be resisted, Jews, homosexuals and apostates should be killed, a certain community should isolate themselves and await the day the corrupt Western system is destroyed from within, or practice honor killings ... yeah I draw the line there.

So I'm not very "liberal" (whatever that means) towards the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudi Cultural Bureau or extremist preachers that advocate intolerance, isolation, bombings, murder etc. How very un-PC of me

recedite

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not against sharing my land with people from different lands and different cultures. That includes moderate Islam as a component. But I don't tolerate intolerance and when people start preaching - and teaching their children - that rule of the kaffir should be resisted, Jews, homosexuals and apostates should be killed, a certain community should isolate themselves and await the day the corrupt Western system is destroyed from within, or practice honor killings ...

I can't argue with that
(mainly because its a strawman )
Now, supposing we adapt those fine words to the topic at hand; Israel, the Jewish State.

I'm not against sharing my land with people from different lands and different cultures. That includes moderate Islam as a component. But I don't tolerate intolerance and when people start preaching - and teaching their children - that rule of the Jew should be resisted, arabs, homosexuals and apostates should be relocated, God's chosen community should isolate themselves ....

How does it look now? Still agree with it?