tommy Robinson --update (page 13)

resolute Bandicoot

Basically you are comparing Apple's and oranges. The statistics you used where referring to international terrorism, the statistics I used referred to domestic terror. These are totally dog types of acts.

Let me get this right, 94 percent of terrorist attacks in the United States since 1980 were perpetrated by non-Muslims. FBI. What this really means is that 94% of terror attacks committed in America by Americans, were not committed by muslims?

We cant count the 34% of attacks committed by muslims living in America because they were international terrorism? Give us a brake, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.

Simon you will never convince me that all Muslims are evil - I'm sure Simon does not feel that way, I myself have had dealings with people of the muslim faith that are fine people - even been patched up by one in hospital after an accident recently. This has never been the argument my friend, the point of contention is that islam is a fundamentally oppressive and expansionist death cult that does not want to share the world stage with anybody but only to dominate. As Moe said " I have been ordered by god to make war against the unbelievers until there is nobody left accept those who say there is no god but allah and mohammed is his messenger"- that does not bode well for us.

They will not change their mind, give in or back down, this has been a constant feature for 1400 years, it only goes into remission when they are delt with using overwhelming force. But they have an effective plan to counter that also - child marriage and polygamy to breed the next generation of martyrs. Islam is a human meat grinder, pure and simple and there has probably been no other set of ideas more detrimental to mankind.

Take note that all of the lefties and doo gooders apologist that carry water for this beast will be first against the wall when it gets the upper hand, learn from the history of the 1979 Iranian revolution.

RB

Simon

Simon you will never convince me that all Muslims are evil.

Probably not, because I haven't argued that! Again, point to where I said it, not what you would like me to have said.

Simply mischaracterizing what someone else has said and then railing against it is not a convincing argument. All you are doing is attempting to distract people from the fact that your argument lacks substance and lacks the facts to back it up.

The fact is that views and opinions which we consider 'extreme' are not that unusual or extreme in the Muslim community. In fact the support among "mainstream" Muslims for rather extreme positions (making homosexuality illegal, death for apostasy or insulting mohammed) is scarily high and provides a significant amount of cover for the true extremists.

Again, there are nice Muslims (the nicest are or become ex-Muslims) but it's so "amazing" isn't it? Who knew they could act like normal human beings, and you met some ... once ... many years ago.

recovering

Cofty this has been my point all along. Muslims who accept democracy and wish to be included in our society should not be barred from doing so simply because of their religion.

Some immigration from Muslim majority countries by individuals who wish to adopt western values of personal freedom and liberal democracy is fine

Bandicoot you on the other hand , are not above manipulation of a study to further your agenda. Perhaps it is due to the substandard education you received as a JW. You do not know how to research a subject . Research methodology is something that is taught in college. You would rather twist what a study says to further your stated agenda than read And understand what a study actually says.

What all you folks should be railing against is people who support theocracy as a political system not an individual religion. They are very different things.

recovering

Simon I have backed.up my argument with facts to which you counter.with emotional arguments. How have I mischaracterized what you said? Are the quotes I have attributed to you not yours? Are you now telling me that you know support the first amendment of the U.S.Constitution? Are you telling me that now you support the immigration of Muslims ? Or.are.You going to reiterate your previous objection to their immigration?

The funny thing is I think all religion is a croc . The only reason for my stance is purely on constitutional grounds. My ethnocentric mind thinks that the U.S. Constitution is one of the best frameworks for government. do you know of a better system?

Simon

Muslims who accept democracy and wish to be included in our society should not be barred from doing so simply because of their religion.

Who's saying that should happen?

The flip side is that Muslims who don't respect democracy and wish to overthrown it with a dangerous theocracy should be barred because of their ideology.

What all you folks should be railing against is people who support theocracy as a political system not an individual religion. They are very different things.

Congrats. You just described Islam. It's fascism cloaked as religion.

What I can never fathom is why the loony leftists who see fascists everywhere can't see the ones that actually exist.

Simon

Are you now telling me that you know support the first amendment of the U.S.Constitution?

Sounds like a loaded question, along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife". Again, if you can point to somewhere I've said that I'm against the first amendment, knock yourself out.

Are you telling me that now you support the immigration of Muslims? Or.are.You going to reiterate your previous objection to their immigration?

That's too broad - do you mean support immigration because they are Muslims? Or not allow it because they are Muslims?

You know there is a middle ground, right? Which is to allow immigration based on oooh, more than one thing. But if they are the stabby stabby, blow-shit-up kiddy-rapey Muslims? I think keeping them out would be a damn good idea.

You, apparently, think that is wrong and no doubt being Muslim should not just be a factor to consider in any evaluation, it should be an instant pass. I think you're an idiot.

recovering

Who's saying that should happen?

Cofty said that quote. Others have claimed that you Simon do not claim , that all Muslims are evil.

Your above comment seems that you are again making that claim.

Islam the.religion is not united in all it's beliefs. There are some factions who are coolant and are oppressive just like their are christian and jewish sects who have a penchant for forcing their beliefs on others.

Islam, like Christianity, is not a homogenous religion. It is divided into many traditions, the main ones being Sunni, Shi'ite, and Sufi.
A very small, radical, hate-filled, extremist, fundamentalist, terrorist wing does exist. Many of its followers follow a fundamentalist version of Islam called Wahhabi. However, Islam also has a much larger peaceful, moderate wing. Unfortunately, the former seem to capture all the media's attention, while the latter is rarely heard from or even discussed by non-Muslims.

It obvious that no one individual speaks for all Muslims. Islam has no single central human authority, comparable to the pope and Vatican for the Roman Catholic Church, or to various General Assemblies and the Lambeth Conferences for the Anglican Communion. Rather, it is divided into many traditions and schools.

recovering

Being a Muslim of course should not be an instant pass. Never said that. I would.object to an Isis member being allowed to immigrate. Not because of their religion ,but because of their political belief in a theocracy and their use of terrorism to achieve it. However ones religion should never be a determinant in immigration policy according to the U.S. Constitution. If you can find a different opinion of a U.S. court .please let me know.

lol here we go with the names again. The last resort for those that can not defend their position logically. I am a big boy the name calling really does.not.affect.me.however.

Simon

However ones religion should never be a determinant in immigration policy according to the U.S. Constitution. If you can find a different opinion of a U.S. court .please let me know.

How about I tell you that you have the constitution completely backward. The clause in the constitution is that no one be required to adhere to any particular religion as a pre-requisite to holding office.

And the rights provided in the constitution are not automatically assigned to everyone in the world - it's the US constitution, primarily for it's citizens, not a world-constitution. When you're trying to immigrate, everything should be examined to determine if you are going to contribute to and uphold the principles of the host country.

zeb

anyone remember me?

I feel now bound to comment on the path of this posting.

If you live in Britain please contact your M.P and seek what redress you can for TR.

The world is in a state of flux and the changes wrought on British society over years now and others i have mentioned are not resulting in any greater stability, dignity or safety.

TR with all his human faults see this as do others such as Lord Pearson whose request for a debate on Islam in Britain... a debate thats all.. meet with practiced denial. (Google)

World politics is in a state of flux clear thinking is needed like never before.

Look wide people if you are one of those in Britain, the US or Europe in your currently safe well fed leafy suburbs who believe by even some slight measure that Britain would do well under some form of caliphate then go to bed thinking of this, who will control the nuclear weapons which are part of the British arsenal.

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

Sorry Tommy I tried..

tommy Robinson --update

Share this