Explosion in bar in Ansbach, Germany

SnakePlissken · 25-07-2016 01:56PM

HensVassal wrote: »

And regards walking around Dubai slugging a beer......newsflash...you can't do that in New York either OR Dublin. It's against the law. Stop trying to equate laws with customs.

Yes but the punishment for same isn't 100 lashes now is it?

Grayson · 25-07-2016 01:57PM

Bambi wrote: »

If we were having a debate on history then you might actually have a point

If you look at the number of Muslims killed by Christians in the last few decades it's really high. Between the two Iraq wars, Afghanistan and all the drones strikes (And that's not even including the hundreds of thousands who were killed because of sanctions) it's a terrifying number.

Grayson · 25-07-2016 02:01PM

ricero wrote: »

Liberals bringing up christianity has blood on its hands. Yes hundreds of years ago but we are civilised people now. We dont blow people up or shoot people every week. Honestly some people just cant help themselves having a pop at christianity

Drone strikes? Invading muslim countries? American Presidents claiming that they're doing what God wants. Bush said he came to the conclusion that Afghanistan and Iraq needed to be invaded after prayer. Bush and Blair prayed together when meeting to discuss the Iraq invasion.

I'm assuming when you say "we don't" you mean you and I. And that it would be stupid to associate us with the actions of religious idiots like Bush. However it's equally stupid to associate all muslims with terrorists.

BoJack Horseman · 25-07-2016 02:02PM

Grayson wrote: »

If you look at the number of Muslims killed by Christians in the last few decades it's really high.

Are you not smart enough to understand the difference between 'killing' & "killing in the name of.."???

As others have said.... the mental gymnastics is olympic level!

Last week when Francois Hollande announced the return of the CDG carrier group to the persian gulf, he didn't end his speech looking up & pointed saying; "this is for you Jesus!".

Grayson · 25-07-2016 02:03PM

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I make up stuff to support racist arguments.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

(see, That's what misquoting someone is like)

HensVassal · 25-07-2016 02:04PM

Smondie wrote: »

IF THEY ARE NOT FLEEING ISIS BUT AIRSTRIKES, THEY MUST LIKE LIVING UNDER ISIS.

I said that they were not only fleeing ISIS but also airstrikes. Did you not read what I wrote? Where do you get that inane logic?

jmayo · 25-07-2016 02:05PM

techdiver wrote: »

Why should they be fighting though??

Call me a coward, but i'd prefer to live my life out in another country than be cannon fodder or brutally murdered for nothing. **** nationalism as far as I'm concerned. My number one priority is the safety of my family and myself. What would be the point of me just getting killed by these people. I would be ill equipped and lack any knowledge of training to take them on. Should I just walk up to them waving a stick??

i love this pseudo-macho talk on the internet from "brave" people, who talk ****e about what they would and wouldn't do when faced with the reality of being killed themselves. I suppose you are the same type who thinks everyone should fight back when confronted with a weapon waving scumbag on the street.

Sometimes people have to stand and fight.
Most of the Kurds are doing it.

And the biggest laugh of all is that people claim the ones appearing in Europe are fleeing to make a better life for themselves and their families.
Except we don't see any families much, just lots of young adult males. :rolleyes:

I love how these threads work out.
The counter arguments are becoming standards at this point, although the nun one is a new one I believe.

Poster A: islam is backwards and in lots of muslim countries women are foced to wear hijab or burka
Poster B: catholic church nuns had to wear a habit.

Poster A: islam is backwards, you have clerics telling people to stone adulterers and raped women to death.
Poster B: but the catholic church ran the magdalene launderies

Poster A: in some muslim countries women have no basic rights, have no right to drive, to be out with a man not her husband or close relative and their word is taken as lesser to that of a man in a court.
Poster B: in Ireland women can't have an abortion and used not be able to get contraception

Poster A: islamic teachings tell the believers to kill and non believers
Poster B: but the old testament tells people to take an eye for an eye

Poster A: islam has al-qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS and these organisations have resulted in thousands dead
Poster B: christianity has the Westboro Baptist Church, Branch Davidians.

Poster A: muslims are responsible for wholesale slaughters in numerous countries in Africa, Asia and Middle East over the last number of decades
Poster B: christians are responsible for the crusades in 11th, 12th and 13th centuries

Ones I forgot: (for completeness like)
Poster A: in most muslim countries gays are targeted and can even be lawfully killed in some
Poster B: in Ireland we have only just allowed them get married and it used to be illegal and they could be sent to jail although it was most often ignored

Dyr · 25-07-2016 02:08PM

Grayson wrote: »

If you look at the number of Muslims killed by Christians in the last few decades it's really high. Between the two Iraq wars, Afghanistan and all the drones strikes (And that's not even including the hundreds of thousands who were killed because of sanctions) it's a terrifying number.

Which christians? The Swiss guard of the roman catholic church? The lutheran militia? The Salvation Army?

Or do you just mean the united states of america because you're performing mental gymnastics to try engage in whataboutery?

dav3 · 25-07-2016 02:08PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Are you not smart enough to understand the difference between 'killing' & "killing in the name of.."???

As others have said.... the mental gymnastics is olympic level!

Last week when Francois Hollande announced the return of the CDG carrier group to the persian gulf, he didn't end his speech looking up & pointed saying; "this is for you Jesus!".

You can understand why the below quote would be deemed divisive though can't you?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

But it's ok, that was just the president of the united states being quoted there.

Arne_Saknussem · 25-07-2016 02:11PM

There were certainly people who told George Bush to invade Iraq and Afganistan, God wasn't one of them though.

HensVassal · 25-07-2016 02:12PM

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I'm going to assume you mead Hasidic? But what you're choosing to ignore is that these dress codes practiced by Hasidics and Amish, are practiced equally by both genders, the same can only be said once Muslim men adopt the burka... As I can't see this happening, comparing the dress codes of these three religions is a fallacy

Yes, I meant Hasidic or Hasidum....I just didn't feel like getting the correct spelling and went ahead and typed it mispelt. But thanks for the nitpicking.

As for men wearing hijabs or what not, now you're just being ridiculous. Moroccan men wear Jalabads that cover their heads, Saudis wear robes and head dresses, etc. Again I don't know if these garments are religious or cultural, but I'd tend to lean toward the latter.

And it seems that everyone is zeroing in on the burkha as if every single Muslim woman in the world of 1.5 billion is wearing it and that's a shabby trick at trying to skew the debate.

Polo_Mint · 25-07-2016 02:13PM

dav3 wrote: »

You can understand why the below quote would be deemed divisive though can't you?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

But it's ok, that was just the president of the united states being quoted there.

Thats Different. The Western God is Good

The Eastern God is Bad.

:rolleyes:

SnakePlissken · 25-07-2016 02:13PM

This is 2016, where you can safely deride and mock every religion on this earth from Christianity and Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism.. Especially Judaism it would appear, just don't you dare criticise Islam, especially if you're just going to bring facts and proven statistical data into the fold, that's just intolerant

Walter H Price · 25-07-2016 02:14PM

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

There were certainly people who told George Bush to invade Iraq and Afganistan, God wasn't one of them though.

Yeh think Daddy , Karl Rove and Halliburton may have had more to do with George W going into Iraq, then old JC or God.

Either way it wasn't a christian crusade it was a war , shame they went into the wrong country it should have been Saudi

Grayson · 25-07-2016 02:15PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Are you not smart enough to understand the difference between 'killing' & "killing in the name of.."???

As others have said.... the mental gymnastics is olympic level!

What were the westerners killing in the name off? Does it matter to the hundreds of thousands of children who died?

Either way, western leaders who conducted the invasions said that they were doing Gods work. They believed that's what God wanted them to do. Their faiths played an important part.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/george-bush-memos-rumsfeld-scripture-push-iraq-war-article-1.411419

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent President George Bush top secret wartime memos with cover sheets that mixed Scripture and battle photos to cast the Iraq invasion as a holy Christian crusade.

Rumsfeld, not a man who wore religion on his sleeve, appeared to be trying to manipulate - or curry favor with - the Bible-quoting Bush, according to an explosive story in GQ.

Some Pentagon analysts worried that if the memo covers leaked, they would inflame the Islamic world, undercut Washington's Arab allies and bolster those who claimed America was out to Christianize the Muslim world.

One official was so disturbed he kept the report covers and recently gave them to GQ writer Robert Draper, a leading chronicler of the Bush administration.

"Commit to the LORD, whatever you do, and your plans will succeed - Proverbs 16:3," appeared on a April 1, 2003 report over a photo of a U.S. soldier near a highway sign pointing to Baghdad. The next day, U.S. forces reached the Iraqi capital.

"Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps the faith - Isaiah 26:2," appeared on a April 3, 2003 memo over a photo of a U.S. tank entering Baghdad.

Here's a screenshot of one.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/20/article-1184546-0501FCB0000005DC-424_468x339.jpg

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Bush also said that when he looked at Iraq he saw Gog and Magog at work. He said this to the French president in looking to justify the Iraq invasion.

Polo_Mint · 25-07-2016 02:15PM

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

There were certainly people who told George Bush to invade Iraq and Afganistan, God wasn't one of them though.

But he said God told him, Is that not one in the same as Muhammad telling the Muslims?

or could it be how you interpret the teaching?

Arne_Saknussem · 25-07-2016 02:18PM

Polo_Mint wrote: »

But he said God told him, Is that not one in the same as Muhammad telling the Muslims?

or could it be how you interpret the teaching?

If i really have to explain it, it was the ****e talk of a politician.

It was a war fought for profit, not one driven by ideology. So no it's not the same, it's different.

HensVassal · 25-07-2016 02:21PM

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Can you point out where i said this?

These garments are worn to varying degrees in all islamic nations, some more moderate than others. But it doesn't change the fact that the origins of these garments is that they were forced upon women by men. This is not something that liberated women choose for themselves. In some cases girls as young as 6 years old are forced to wear them to 'physically and mentally prepare themselves for adult life'.

You can dress it up how you want, put words in other peoples mouths that they didn't say, give anecdotal evidence of what you've seen but it won't change the fact that these garments historically derive from the subjugation of women by men and have no place in a modern society.

Maybe you should read this. It discusses the history and evolution of headcoverings and veils which long preceded the advent of Islam. It was in fact prevalent in all the religions and civilizations/culture going back millenia. In many case it was used to distinguish upper-class women (veiled) from commoners (unveiled). Many unveiled women adopted the custom as a means to upward mobility, etc.

http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/veil.html

But no, everyone on here simply thinks that muslim men force women to hide their faces because that's the easy and lazy thing to think.

Maximus Alexander · 25-07-2016 02:23PM

Stealthfins wrote: »

Go to Limerick city,you'll see Burkas.
I've seen them in Galway also,and Ennis,Dublin...

God that must have been so traumatic for you.

Stigura · 25-07-2016 02:24PM

HensVassal wrote: »

Oh boy.

These people are not only fleeing the nutcases in ISIS but air-strikes that are killing indiscriminately. So you've got a wife and two baby daughters and an elderly mother in tow but you're going to just tell them to stay at home while you go off and fight against battle-hardened jihadists? Yeah, ok.

No. It would seem these fit, young men leave the women, where ever they are, and set off on a personal exodus into Europe.

Examine any image of these vast columns and play 'spot the women and children'. Good luck with that!

HensVassal · 25-07-2016 02:25PM

SnakePlissken wrote: »

If you're country was invaded by foreign mercenaries tomorrow, and you had no dependents as we've seen of the men migrating enmasse to Europe, and were able bodied, yes I'll quite happily call you a coward if your response to that was to turn and run.

Again, just to spell this out once more, I'm not talking about the families who've fled these warzones, I'm talking about the young single men who comprise the vast bulk of migrants, cowards, one and all.

I suppose the allied nations during WWII should have abandoned Europe to the Reich by that same logic, thankfully those brave men and women weren't so spineless... For shame

And where is your proof that the "vast bulk" of the migrants are young men? Some bullshit propaganda editorial on Fox News designed to stoke up the calls of "deport the lot of 'em!" ?

Because according to the UN figures, women outnumber men in the Syrian refugee demographic. Not only that but young males aged 12-17, you know BOYS, make up 6.3% of the refugees. The majority of the refugees 51.1% are under the age of 17....kids, and 38.% are under the age of 12.

Males aged 18-59 make up 21.5% of the refugees. Since I doubt anyone would class guys in their 50's as being "fighting fit" the percentage of males age 18 to say 45 is probably in the 13-14% ranges.

But you go ahead and spread the bullshit that the vast majority of them are young, "military age" males who've abandoned their country and their women folk. But it's a pack of filthy lies.

dav3 · 25-07-2016 02:26PM

Walter H Price wrote: »

Yeh think Daddy , Karl Rove and Halliburton may have had more to do with George W going into Iraq, then old JC or God.

Either way it wasn't a christian crusade it was a war , shame they went into the wrong country it should have been Saudi

Well, with all the god talk and crusade talk, perhaps the man leading the charge really did believe all this and tens of thousands were killed in the name of god.

Certainly his words were used and are still used to this day to radicalise people.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1001020294332922160

"This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while."

Grayson · 25-07-2016 02:26PM

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

If i really have to explain it, it was the ****e talk of a politician.

It was a war fought for profit, not one driven by ideology. So no it's not the same, it's different.

So when a westerner says it he doesn't really mean it. That's the best argument you can come up with.

beach_walker · 25-07-2016 02:27PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

God that must have been so traumatic for you.

What's in your bonnet? The poster was responding to a direct question and statement... "How many Burkas have you seen on European streets so far? I've never seen one in my life."

Walter H Price · 25-07-2016 02:27PM

Polo_Mint wrote: »

But he said God told him, Is that not one in the same as Muhammad telling the Muslims?

or could it be how you interpret the teaching?

Let be honest here the War in Iraq was about Money, Oil and settling old scores, Bush was a dolt being lead by the nose by some very powerful businesses and political lobby groups, it was not a crusade and had F all to do with religion.

The "jihad" or whatever the F**k all thees attacks are , is just pure religious fanaticism they are targeting westerners because our culture offends them , though they chose to come here, no one asked them too its a systemic issue specifically with the Islamic faith and it needs to be addressed properly by European Governments.

Widdershins · 25-07-2016 02:28PM

HensVassal wrote: »

Maybe you should read this. It discusses the history and evolution of headcoverings and veils which long preceded the advent of Islam. It was in fact prevalent in all the religions and civilizations/culture going back millenia. In many case it was used to distinguish upper-class women (veiled) from commoners (unveiled). Many unveiled women adopted the custom as a means to upward mobility, etc.

http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/veil.html

But no, everyone on here simply thinks that muslim men force women to hide their faces because that's the easy and lazy thing to think.

Perhaps you might think on the issue before calling people lazy . The issue is the extensive coversings of women in modern day islam not social haircoverings and veils pre islam .''This non-respectable and therefore vulnerable status of unveiled women also plays out in the Muslim context, going back to a Koranic passage which specifically designates veiling as marking out Muslim women not to be molested on the streets. '' were this irrelevant now it would be a mere footnote in history like the first paragraph . The article also goes into great detail about exactly what you are trying to deny.

dav3 · 25-07-2016 02:28PM

SnakePlissken wrote: »

This is 2016, where you can safely deride and mock every religion on this earth from Christianity and Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism.. Especially Judaism it would appear, just don't you dare criticise Islam, especially if you're just going to bring facts and proven statistical data into the fold, that's just intolerant

You don't feel safe to deride islam? What country do you currently live in?

Arne_Saknussem · 25-07-2016 02:33PM

HensVassal wrote: »

Maybe you should read this. It discusses the history and evolution of headcoverings and veils which long preceded the advent of Islam. It was in fact prevalent in all the religions and civilizations/culture going back millenia. In many case it was used to distinguish upper-class women (veiled) from commoners (unveiled). Many unveiled women adopted the custom as a means to upward mobility, etc.

http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/veil.html

But no, everyone on here simply thinks that muslim men force women to hide their faces because that's the easy and lazy thing to think.

Selected quotes from the link you posted:

Hijab raises complex questions of choice. Families often demand that women, and sometimes girls too, wear hijab in the belief that it is the only way decent females should appear in public. But for some Muslim women, especially present-day working class women, the scarf opens up a mobility in public places otherwise denied them, making it possible for them to attend college or to work outside the home.

State coercion clearly violates freedom of choice in both cases, but this issue is never simple. It is not only the French state that forces young women who believe in wearing hijab to leave their hair uncovered, but also young men who enforce the wearing of hijab, attacking young women who wear "non-Islamic" dress on the streets of North African banlieues in Paris and elsewhere.

Family coercion remains invisible to the outside world, but occasionally bursts into media view when some atrocity is committed, such as socalled "honor killings." In 2007 a Canadian father and brother murdered the teenage Aqsa Parvez for refusing to wear the hijab. In many other cases, unrelated men enforce hijab-wearing on women in the public sphere. In 2006 a group called the Just Swords of Islam threw acid in a young woman's face for not wearing hijab, and issued a statement that "We will have no mercy on any woman who violates the traditions of Islam and who also hang out in Internet cafes."

In 2007 the Tehreek-i-Islami group threatened Pakistani women with the same atrocity if they did not cover their heads. That year, a gunman assassinated the female minister of social welfare, Zilla Huma Usman, for the stated reason that she did not cover her head. Similar attacks were carried out in Kashmir in 2001, targeting women who did not put on a chadar. For post-invasion Iraq, Robert Fisk writes that "In Basra in 2008, police were reporting that 15 women a month were being murdered for breaching 'Islamic dress codes'." These are only a few reported examples.

The chador has been mandatory for Iranian women for a quarter century, and even in hot weather, standard women's outdoor wear requires a long coat. Khomeini's Revolutionary Guards went around attacking women on the streets for "bad hijab" (incomplete covering of hair), sometimes scraping off their lipstick with razor blades as well.

Looks like i was wrong afterall, modern women living the life they choose. Girlpower!

Arne_Saknussem · 25-07-2016 02:36PM

Grayson wrote: »

So when a westerner says it he doesn't really mean it. That's the best argument you can come up with.

Do you really believe that American invaded Afganistan & Iraq is because they believed George Bush when he said God told him to do it? Seriously?

Remember there's no passage in the Bible that requests George Bush to invade Iraq.

Dyr · 25-07-2016 02:37PM

HensVassal wrote: »

Maybe you should read this. It discusses the history and evolution of headcoverings and veils which long preceded the advent of Islam. It was in fact prevalent in all the religions and civilizations/culture going back millenia. In many case it was used to distinguish upper-class women (veiled) from commoners (unveiled). Many unveiled women adopted the custom as a means to upward mobility, etc.

http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/veil.html

But no, everyone on here simply thinks that muslim men force women to hide their faces because that's the easy and lazy thing to think.

That's gas, you linked to a loony tune page that has to admit that europeans have no history of requiring women to cover their faces

All the while ignoring that this is not a history debate of course

Explosion in bar in Ansbach, Germany

Comments