I Am Not Charlie Hebdo
Discussion
Disastrous said:
This is beyond mental!
I find XJ_Garnett pretty repugnant and would actually respect him more if he actually just came out and admitted he hates 'them' rather than hiding behind his anti-socialist, jus sanguinis rhetoric.
Aside from that, the solution is quite clearly 'don't tar every single f
kjng Muslim with the same brush and enforce tougher sanctions on extremists and terrorists whilst accepting it's not all of them.'
Jesus. This topic is disgraceful.
The man is a racist fool who derails every thread in which he participates. He goes on about socialism, while espousing what he calls Fordist capitalism. Essentially, apart from kicking out "non-indigenous" people, he wants protected trade with tariffs for imports that he thinks will allow companies to pay increased wages to workers. I find XJ_Garnett pretty repugnant and would actually respect him more if he actually just came out and admitted he hates 'them' rather than hiding behind his anti-socialist, jus sanguinis rhetoric.
Aside from that, the solution is quite clearly 'don't tar every single f
kjng Muslim with the same brush and enforce tougher sanctions on extremists and terrorists whilst accepting it's not all of them.'Jesus. This topic is disgraceful.
He is the worst kind of idiot; one who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He is also a nasty racist.
Zod said:
The man is a racist fool who derails every thread in which he participates. He goes on about socialism, while espousing what he calls Fordist capitalism. Essentially, apart from kicking out "non-indigenous" people, he wants protected trade with tariffs for imports that he thinks will allow companies to pay increased wages to workers.
He is the worst kind of idiot; one who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He is also a nasty racist.
Told you so, (a few pages back)He is the worst kind of idiot; one who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He is also a nasty racist.
The man is an idiot.
XJ Flyer said:
pork911 said:
XJ Flyer said:
pork911 said:
XJ Flyer said:
Everyone knows that Islam allows for all kinds of subterfuge etc to get its way.Which is why any such programme would need to be along the lines of ethnicity not whatever type of convenient smoke screen that the Jihadist agenda is using to push its invasion of western Europe.In France that would obviously be mostly the North African presence in the country.While here it would be mostly those of Muslim Asian ethnicity.Although no doubt their socialist appeasers would try to make that as difficult as possible by destroying population records.As for the idea of them taking up arms to get their way what's new assuming they really wanted to turn a simple administrative process into a fight.Being that we've got less to lose by getting it over with now than leaving it for future generations to sort out a situation in which the country is turned into another Yugoslav type situation.But in which Jihad tries and possibly succeeds in taking over the country from its indigenous population.
please expand on exactly what you mean by 'mostly north african', as well as 'muslim asian ethnicity' 
As I said they are only 'own citizens' based on the idea of jus soli as implemented by the Islamic appeasement agenda of the socialist cheap labour alliance.As opposed to the inconvenient ( from their point of view ) definition of jus sanguinis.
There is no "Islamic appeasement agenda" or "socialist cheap labour alliance", theres just a bunch of different politicians (of various hues) all pulling in different directions over the last 50 years ending with the result we have today.
Edited to add : I'm not sure you actually understand the sentences you string together, but the Latin phrases may impress some of the hard of thinking.
Edited by tangerine_sedge on Monday 19th January 17:47
Zod said:
The man is a racist fool who derails every thread in which he participates. He goes on about socialism, while espousing what he calls Fordist capitalism. Essentially, apart from kicking out "non-indigenous" people, he wants protected trade with tariffs for imports that he thinks will allow companies to pay increased wages to workers.
He is the worst kind of idiot; one who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He is also a nasty racist.
Understood, but I think there are bound to be two camps as its unavoidable. The one extreme side has been discussed, but from the opposite end of the spectrum what do the Islamists/Muslims/etc think should be done?? There's just criticism and smoke screens from that side - no positive solutions at all. Yet. He is the worst kind of idiot; one who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He is also a nasty racist.
Blib said:
Once again with the personal abuse. Any answer to my question? Thought not.
Apologies I hadn't seen your reply, and that's an interesting view I don't disagree with. My issue on here is that too many answer the main question by bringing up unrelated side questions, criticise those that have what they call 'racist' views, but don't contribute at all to a solution. The spectre that this raises is typical of where we are today - those that could find a solution in their communities seem to sit on their hands and just disagree with any decision that has to be made for them in the absence of anything constructive from themselves.
In other words: If you cant regulate yourselves you will be regulated. Simple. Its the way for business and personal life and always has been.
fesuvious said:
Would it not be more simple to develop the 'Shariah test'.
'As a muslim, would you prefer to live under Shariah, rather than our democracy's man-made laws?'
If the answer is yes, then it is pretty clear that here is a person who holds ideals that are completely incompatible with harmonious living in a democracy. And by extension it would be logical to presume they would support actions that might promote the greater spread of Islam, and a movement towards Shariah.
And, me, I'd stick them on a plane to any Islamic run country of their choice, one way, paid for by the UK taxpayer.
Not because I am islamaphobe, but because I am pro-Democracy, and love our free society. Here before me is a person that at a cellular level disagrees. Therefore, they shouldn't be here.
Under a 'free society' though, shouldn't anyone be free to live how they choose (including by Sharia) as long as:'As a muslim, would you prefer to live under Shariah, rather than our democracy's man-made laws?'
If the answer is yes, then it is pretty clear that here is a person who holds ideals that are completely incompatible with harmonious living in a democracy. And by extension it would be logical to presume they would support actions that might promote the greater spread of Islam, and a movement towards Shariah.
And, me, I'd stick them on a plane to any Islamic run country of their choice, one way, paid for by the UK taxpayer.
Not because I am islamaphobe, but because I am pro-Democracy, and love our free society. Here before me is a person that at a cellular level disagrees. Therefore, they shouldn't be here.
a) they do not force their choices on anyone else
b) they do not break the law of the land?
fesuvious said:
If they say 'No - I prefer the free, democratic way of life'
GREAT! Lets point out to them they no longer need to live as 'muslim', as they are a very poor example.
And then lets buy them a Chrysler, Maccies for lunch, and a session learning the national anthem, and the basics of UK history, and ensure they are aware they are valued as BRITISH citizens.
And what would happen to the great many who would say-thanks I prefer the free democratic way of life but I love my faith and my religion helps me live my life, and I am quite capable of combining being a good citizen with being a religious one?GREAT! Lets point out to them they no longer need to live as 'muslim', as they are a very poor example.
And then lets buy them a Chrysler, Maccies for lunch, and a session learning the national anthem, and the basics of UK history, and ensure they are aware they are valued as BRITISH citizens.
Also since when have Chrysler and Maccies been a shining value of british culture??
fesuvious said:
To live under Shariah and abide is incompatible with our laws, so no.
If you suggest you could allow muslims who choose to live under Shariah to do so, in the UK, then you're happy for an apostate to be put to death. On UK soil.
You'd be happy with this?
Maccies / Chrysler was a mickey take on my part.
Ah but that would contradict the law of the land.If you suggest you could allow muslims who choose to live under Shariah to do so, in the UK, then you're happy for an apostate to be put to death. On UK soil.
You'd be happy with this?
Maccies / Chrysler was a mickey take on my part.
When I say I would find Sharia acceptable I obviously don't mean full blooded fundamental Shariah where apostates are to be executed. I was meaning more the civil and economic aspects-within the two criteria of being within the law of the land and not forcing your choice on others.
fesuvious said:
Ok, so you believe muslims can pick and choose 'which bits'?
You're aware that 'Islam' means 'submission'?
You're aware that Shariah is Gods (Allahs) way? And that there is no 'picking and choosing'?
Unless you like to share your vision for which bits of shariah you'd like, and like to be accepted as part of the law and culture in the United Kingdom, and which bits you wouldn't?
You're aware that man-made laws are unacceptable under Shariah?
Yes they do pick and choose-from Wikipedia:You're aware that 'Islam' means 'submission'?
You're aware that Shariah is Gods (Allahs) way? And that there is no 'picking and choosing'?
Unless you like to share your vision for which bits of shariah you'd like, and like to be accepted as part of the law and culture in the United Kingdom, and which bits you wouldn't?
You're aware that man-made laws are unacceptable under Shariah?
Some Sunni Muslims prefer one madhhab out of the four (normally a regional preference) but also believe that ijtihad must be exercised by the contemporary scholars capable of doing so. Some rely on taqlid, or acceptance of religious rulings and epistemology from a higher religious authority in deferring meanings of analysis and derivation of legal practices instead of relying on subjective readings.
So clearly there are differences (or picking and choosing) in the application of Shariah (and that's just within the Sunni part of it). I thnk treating such a massive and heavily divided religion as a single entity is wrong.
Zod said:
Disastrous said:
This is beyond mental!
I find XJ_Garnett pretty repugnant and would actually respect him more if he actually just came out and admitted he hates 'them' rather than hiding behind his anti-socialist, jus sanguinis rhetoric.
Aside from that, the solution is quite clearly 'don't tar every single fkjng Muslim with the same brush and enforce tougher sanctions on extremists and terrorists whilst accepting it's not all of them.'
Jesus. This topic is disgraceful.
The man is a racist fool who derails every thread in which he participates. He goes on about socialism, while espousing what he calls Fordist capitalism. Essentially, apart from kicking out "non-indigenous" people, he wants protected trade with tariffs for imports that he thinks will allow companies to pay increased wages to workers. I find XJ_Garnett pretty repugnant and would actually respect him more if he actually just came out and admitted he hates 'them' rather than hiding behind his anti-socialist, jus sanguinis rhetoric.
Aside from that, the solution is quite clearly 'don't tar every single f
kjng Muslim with the same brush and enforce tougher sanctions on extremists and terrorists whilst accepting it's not all of them.'Jesus. This topic is disgraceful.
He is the worst kind of idiot; one who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He is also a nasty racist.
fesuvious said:
So, in this instance, would the 'accepting a ruling from a higher religious authority' possibly be an Islamic Authority?
Or, in other words, Islamic Scholars may choose how Shariah is implemented!
Yes, that's a useful quotation. Very helpful to my point about Shariah and man-made laws / democracy being oincompatible.
Well some rely on one method and some on another? So they do vary the interpretations of the laws rather than it being a rigid thing across all of Islam.Or, in other words, Islamic Scholars may choose how Shariah is implemented!
Yes, that's a useful quotation. Very helpful to my point about Shariah and man-made laws / democracy being oincompatible.
I maintain my point above that I don't have a problem with it as long as it operates within the law of the land and doesn't force choices on others outside of the religion.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff