anti Islam rally

Hoop66

Those who are saying "it's not racist because Islam isn't a race":

Ask yourself honestly, would you be so anti-Islam if the majority of Muslims where white?

yipeeeee

Hoop66 wrote: »

Those who are saying "it's not racist because Islam isn't a race":

Ask yourself honestly, would you be so anti-Islam if the majority of Muslims where white?

I know a lot of.people who hate islam because of its treatment of women.

Never heard colour been mentioned

Saipanne

Hoop66 wrote: »

Those who are saying "it's not racist because Islam isn't a race":

Ask yourself honestly, would you be so anti-Islam if the majority of Muslims where white?

I don't discriminate. I dislike all religion.

Hoop66

Yeah, but they don't really. It's because they're brown.

You missed where I said honestly.

Hoop66

Saipanne wrote: »

I don't discriminate. I dislike all religion.

So do I, but I don't think I have the right to tell other people what they can and can't believe.

Most atheists these days are just fascists in disguise.

Saipanne

Hoop66 wrote: »

Yeah, but they don't really. It's because they're brown.

You missed where I said honestly.

No. I particularly dislike the abrahamic variety, but that includes all colours.But even eastern religions are fairly abhorrent.

Saipanne

Hoop66 wrote: »

So do I, but I don't think I have the right to tell other people what they can and can't believe.

Most atheists these days are just fascists in disguise.

I'm not an atheist. Nor am I telling people what to believe.

Any more pointless drivel?

mackerski

NoMore MrNiceGuy wrote: »

The northern irish issue wasn't in the most part religious based. It was a matter of colonialism, ethnic supremacism and to a certain extent sectarianism.

And sectarianism has nothing to do with religion?

Shenshen

yipeeeee wrote: »

I know a lot of.people who hate islam because of its treatment of women.

Never heard colour been mentioned

I always find that an interesting argument - most countries in the golden West have had nothing even approaching equality for women until about 60 years ago.
They had the right to vote, and that's where it pretty much stopped.

While I thouroughly disagree with the more extreme Islamic interpretations of what a woman is and what her rights should be, I am wary of expecting such a new development as female equality to become widespread everywhere on earth in such a short time span.

Hoop66

Saipanne wrote: »

I'm not an atheist. Nor am I telling people what to believe.

Any more pointless drivel?

I didn't mean you especially. I just find the more militant atheist as bad as, if not worse, than the religious types.

Apologies if you felt I was attacking your personal beliefs.

shruikan2553

Hoop66 wrote: »

I didn't mean you especially. I just find the more militant atheist as bad as, if not worse, than the religious types.

Apologies if you felt I was attacking your personal beliefs.

That is true but real fascists dress in black and go around telling people what to do :pac:

Saipanne

Hoop66 wrote: »

I didn't mean you especially. I just find the more militant atheist as bad as, if not worse, than the religious types.

Apologies if you felt I was attacking your personal beliefs.

Not worse that's just hyperbolic nonsense, but they are certainly hypocrites, in militant form. But most atheists I know just want freedom FROM religion. Not too much to ask.

greendom

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

I do not think George or Tony promised 72 virgins waiting in the afterlife for anyone will to become a maryter for the cause.

no they promised the discovery of weapons of mass destruction. Both promises were equally false.

SeanW

Vomit wrote: »

Sure, a huge angry mob shouting and chanting against a minority religious/ethnic group... the world needs more of that..for sure.

Islam is not a minority, it's the worlds second largest religion and the fastest growing. Almost everywhere. It's secularists that are the minority.

bb1234567 wrote: »

Just try to imagine how german muslims must feel right now, how german muslims with young children attending school must feel. Seeing literally thousands of fellow germans taking time out of their day to voice their hatred for your kind

Considering that a lot of "German" Muslims hate Germany, despise its culture, don't speak its language, I shouldn't imagine this will make too much difference.

Nor should I imagine it unusual that people who are hated in their own country should return the favour.

COYVB

Hoop66 wrote: »

Ask yourself honestly, would you be so anti-Islam if the majority of Muslims where white?

I'd be amazed if it was the colour of Muslims' skin that most people have an issue with, rather than their treatment of women and gays, and their dark age rules and laws

COYVB

Hoop66 wrote: »

Yeah, but they don't really. It's because they're brown.

Those same people don't get all bent out of shape about indians though

SEPT 23 1989

Its not about the colour of their skin

shruikan2553

COYVB wrote: »

I'd be amazed if it was the colour of Muslims' skin that most people have an issue with, rather than their treatment of women and gays, and their dark age rules and laws

Poor treatment of women?
Poor treatment of gay people?
Dark age rules and laws?

You would think we are used to this stuff by now.

Shenshen

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Poor treatment of women?
Poor treatment of gay people?
Dark age rules and laws?

You would think we are used to this stuff by now.

Wait, are we talking about Muslims or Ugandan Christians?

RossFixxxed

rather than their treatment of women and gays, and their dark age rules and laws

That could describe half of us on Boards.

shruikan2553

Shenshen wrote: »

Wait, are we talking about Muslims or Ugandan Christians?

Dont even need to go that far, although to many people as long as you dont kill anyone over it it's ok, or even if you just killed them a few decades ago.

Cantremember

RossFixxxed wrote: »

That could describe half of us on Boards.

There's a difference between crushing someone's skull with stones and hammering a keyboard.

Saipanne

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Poor treatment of women?
Poor treatment of gay people?
Dark age rules and laws?

You would think we are used to this stuff by now.

Yeah, no sense being against those things. You're right.

RossFixxxed

Cantremember wrote: »

There's a difference between crushing someone's skull with stones and hammering a keyboard.

It didn't explicitly say in the charter NOT to hammer someone with stones... But I better just stick to the keyboard from now on.

I assume it was clear I was being glib, and highlighting the extremes we're all about to fly off on. This is AH after all, where my stupid thoughts can be posted to the public at large, then curl up and die.

Cantremember

Shenshen wrote: »

Wait, are we talking about Muslims or Ugandan Christians?

In this thread Islam but all "revealed" religions are cut from the same nonsensical cloth.

shruikan2553

Saipanne wrote: »

Yeah, no sense being against those things. You're right.

Its makes sense to be against it, it just hard to take someone seriously when they are a part of a similar group. Think KKK telling WBC it needs to be more tolerant of others.

Saipanne

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Its makes sense to be against it, it just hard to take someone seriously when they are a part of a similar group. Think KKK telling WBC it needs to be more tolerant of others.

Explain how I am part of said group? How I choose to be part of and believe in said group?

BuilderPlumber

No, I would not attend one. But agree that a lot of evil is done in the name of Islam. But that's what needs to be tackled.

Fascist uses of Islam have been a constant problem since WW2 and especially since the late 1970s. Events like the Israel/Palestine conflict, the Suez crisis and the Lebanon war all inspired movements. A fascist military junta hiding behind religion and fronted by an elderly depressed priest as a figurehead set up shop in Iran in 1979 and another one in Pakistan was set up without a priest as figurehead and both inspired much worse regimes. But post-1979 Iran and the Zia regime of Pakistan had the sadistic system in Saudi Arabia as templates to base their fascist systems on. Among the worst of these regimes were the Islamic Republic of Sudan, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban) and of course the mess that is Somalia. Fascist organisations like Boko Haram, al Qaeda, al Shabaab and ISIS/ISIL all have taken things to a new level.

What ALL of these regimes and organisations have in common? They are lead by a paranoid dictator or set of individuals who impose dress and other moral codes on the people (e.g. banning alcohol, playing cards and pig meat), who say their system is god's law on earth, who impose brutal capital incl. stoning and amputation punishments and who have turned their countries into poorer shells of their former selves.

Sure, pre-Rev Guards Iran, pre-Zia Pakistan and especially pre-Taliban Afghanistan were anything but perfect but were way better places than what one would find in any of them in the 1980s. 1996-2001 in Afghanistan set up the worst ruling regime since the Khmer Rouge without doubt.

What's different about these regimes? Some are comparatively moderate (Iran under the Rev Guards is much much preferable to Taliban Afghanistan for example and even Saudi Arabia). Some have moderate wings and voices that are fighting back against extremist fascists (e.g. Iran has always had sensible people like Rouhani and Khatami who win certain freedoms not in other countries). Some countries are largely peaceful compared to others (again, Iran). Some have managed to keep fascists abusing Islam out of government entirely (modern Pakistan). Some have no functioning government in many place and are taken over by fascists (Iraq, Somalia, north Nigeria, Libya) who threaten to become their new rulers.

What to do with them? It varies from country to country:

Iran: let the regime run its course and the West should bring it in from the cold and start proper relations not the devious ones it has had. That would strengthen people like Hassan Rouhani and a democracy would form. Extremists would not get anywhere and fascism would bit by bit be squeezed from the system. Iran remains the best hope in the region and we need to have one peaceful success story.

Iraq and Syria: Western intervention ruined Iraq. Toppling Saddam ruined Iraq and helped ruined the world's economy. Since 2003, daily life in Iraq was about avoiding bombs and bombers. In 2011, it spilled into Syria. ISIS do need to be got rid of and I guess inclusive governments are needed in both countries as Sunni/Shia/Kurd splits have caused the most problems.

Libya: Again, getting rid of its longterm dictator did not do any favours for the country or its people. Much worse there now than 5 years ago for certain. North and West Africa are very volatile and the likes of Gadaffi and Mubarak seemed the best of a bad lot. Egypt has reverted back to military dictatorship and it may be the only option it has.

Sudan: though still a nasty so-called 'Islamic Republic', the junta has moderated its behaviour a lot in recent times. The brutal wars have come to an end and the Janjaweed are not as active as they once were. Again, the hope with places like here is they can become less fascist as time goes by.

Afghanistan and Pakistan: the main thing here is to keep the Taliban at bay. They have not gone away and despite not being in power since 2001, they are very much in control in many areas of both countries. The worst case scenario is a nuclear armed so-called 'Islamic Republic' lead by a nutcase. And Pakistan is the only viable candidate here. Other nuclear states in the region are India and Israel. Iran may or may not become a nuclear power. But all three along with the current Pakistani govt are extremely unlikely to launch a nuclear missile on anyone. Most states are rational (even North Korea) when it comes to this but an anarchic terrorist organisation with a nuke is a different matter.

The West: we need to differentiate fascist abuse of Islam from Islam itself and we need to report on the moderate and positive forms of the religion in the media. One would only assume that the negative, fascism version that bans everything is the only form. But the media have agendas and it is quite racist and enjoys 'Islam = stone age culture compared to the West = liberal, modern, enlightened' comparison.

Wurzelbert

Hoop66 wrote: »

Those who are saying "it's not racist because Islam isn't a race":

Ask yourself honestly, would you be so anti-Islam if the majority of Muslims where white?

erm, don’t think race has anything to do with it...
certainly though islamic aggression since day one and western/islamic conflict over the centuries haven’t done much to foster peace and love...and in more recent times, with the two religions seeing more of each other and often living side by side, the backward ways of islam have become more of a factor...as has been mentioned, the treatment of women and all that...

shruikan2553

Saipanne wrote: »

Explain how I am part of said group? How I choose to be part of and believe in said group?

I never said you were a part of it.

A lot of people in Europe would be Christian, a Christian giving out about the treatment of women, gay people or dark age laws is a bit hypocritical. Sure in Europe they aren't being killed but that is hardly an excuse, "well, we dont kill them so its not that bad" and people have been arrested for looking a bit gay in an African country.

You can become part of said group by being baptised and practicing a religion that follows the teaching of Christ.