[andyt]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

What I don't understand is why is the little Prog-pod here is so desperate to disbelieve facts that might contradict their dogma. Why do they prefer to believe obvious lies?

Edit: No wait. That's not accurate. It isn't that they necessarily believe their obvious BS. It's more they will make it hard on anybody who doesn't agree with it.

Got some quotes to back that up? Who's in this prog pod on CKA, and what are the obvious lies they believe?

[DrRosen]

andyt andyt:

Where he's wrong, IMO, is in bringing up historical Christian atrocities vs current Muslim ones. No doubt that Muslims are the bad boys du jour.

We need to establish a methodology first. What are we going to count? What constitutes an atrocity? Do Iraqi deaths at the hands of the US military post-911 count? If they do, it's no contest?

[andyt]

First we would need to isolate it to incidents done in the name of religion. That would definitely put the Muslims in number one. That would leave out Palestinian actions, the Taliban etc tho, since that's about territory. And, most atrocities in the name of Islam are perpetrated on other Muslims.

I admit it's not a clear cut subject. I do think that the West is in conflict with an element that has Islam as it's common denominator. Including our home grown idiots going over there to fight for Islam. We can't be idiots about this and pretend that this is not a danger, we can't be idiots like Fiddle Diddle and make it more than it is either. Either way will cause us trouble.

As for homegrown - we've have enough of that shit that we should be tough on it. I don't think we can stop all Muslim immigration, but we should also put great pressure on the community to quit supporting the idiots or get the fuck out of the country.


As an aside, I just met a Muslim nurse, wearing a hijab and all. Man she was cool, straight talking, very sure of herself. Very impressive woman. I don't meet many Muslims, but someone like her is a great antidote to the shit being spewed here and even what makes the media.

[Centre]

Well I can see why the Muslims wouldn't be into cannibalism. Too hammy..

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

What I don't understand is why is the little Prog-pod here is so desperate to disbelieve facts that might contradict their dogma. Why do they prefer to believe obvious lies?

Edit: No wait. That's not accurate. It isn't that they necessarily believe their obvious BS. It's more they will make it hard on anybody who doesn't agree with it.

Got some quotes to back that up? Who's in this prog pod on CKA, and what are the obvious lies they believe?

All non Beckers, Birchers and Birthers are by default members of the Prog Pod.

In other words, unless you're some zealot or extremist, you're out of the exclusionary extremist cabal and are instead stuck amongst the pod of filthy moderates.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

First we would need to isolate it to incidents done in the name of religion. That would definitely put the Muslims in number one.

In what way? Historically or currently?

[llama66]

DrRosen DrRosen:

andyt andyt:

Where he's wrong, IMO, is in bringing up historical Christian atrocities vs current Muslim ones. No doubt that Muslims are the bad boys du jour.

We need to establish a methodology first. What are we going to count? What constitutes an atrocity? Do Iraqi deaths at the hands of the US military post-911 count? If they do, it's no contest?

We are pretty good at killing each other...

[Gunnair]

DrRosen DrRosen:

andyt andyt:

Where he's wrong, IMO, is in bringing up historical Christian atrocities vs current Muslim ones. No doubt that Muslims are the bad boys du jour.

We need to establish a methodology first. What are we going to count? What constitutes an atrocity? Do Iraqi deaths at the hands of the US military post-911 count? If they do, it's no contest?

AGreed. Where the argument will come is the degree of how religion plays into it. One cannot deny that religion plays a role in the post 9/11 actions - there is enough calling upon God, hellfire and brimstone. However, that is as much window dressing to cover the geo-political reasoning of rolling into the Middle East with the banhammer.

So, where we draw the line is where it will get muddy.

[DrRosen]

andyt andyt:

First we would need to isolate it to incidents done in the name of religion. That would definitely put the Muslims in number one. That would leave out Palestinian actions, the Taliban etc tho, since that's about territory. And, most atrocities in the name of Islam are perpetrated on other Muslims.

Exactly. The 911 attacks, likewise, were attacks against foreign imperialism, having nothing to do with religion.

andyt andyt:

I admit it's not a clear cut subject. I do think that the West is in conflict with an element that has Islam as it's common denominator. Including our home grown idiots going over there to fight for Islam. We can't be idiots about this and pretend that this is not a danger, we can't be idiots like Fiddle Diddle and make it more than it is either. Either way will cause us trouble.

Yes, but the pertinent factor in the conflict isn't religion, it's political. The fact that "they" are more homogeneous in religion and more devout in religion is coincidental. Kind of like when we were at war with Japan. They were homogwnously yellow but their yellowness wasn't why they were fighting us.

andyt andyt:

As for homegrown - we've have enough of that shit that we should be tough on it. I don't think we can stop all Muslim immigration, but we should also put great pressure on the community to quit supporting the idiots or get the fuck out of the country.

The defining difference is the level of devotion to religion, not the particular religion. We don't have problems because they're muslim, we have problems because they wholly define themselves by religion.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

First we would need to isolate it to incidents done in the name of religion. That would definitely put the Muslims in number one.

In what way? Historically or currently?

Currently.

[andyt]

DrRosen DrRosen:

andyt andyt:

First we would need to isolate it to incidents done in the name of religion. That would definitely put the Muslims in number one. That would leave out Palestinian actions, the Taliban etc tho, since that's about territory. And, most atrocities in the name of Islam are perpetrated on other Muslims.

Exactly. The 911 attacks, likewise, were attacks against foreign imperialism, having nothing to do with religion.

andyt andyt:

I admit it's not a clear cut subject. I do think that the West is in conflict with an element that has Islam as it's common denominator. Including our home grown idiots going over there to fight for Islam. We can't be idiots about this and pretend that this is not a danger, we can't be idiots like Fiddle Diddle and make it more than it is either. Either way will cause us trouble.

Yes, but the pertinent factor in the conflict isn't religion, it's political. The fact that "they" are more homogeneous in religion and more devout in religion is coincidental. Kind of like when we were at war with Japan. They were homogwnously yellow but their yellowness wasn't why they were fighting us.

andyt andyt:

As for homegrown - we've have enough of that shit that we should be tough on it. I don't think we can stop all Muslim immigration, but we should also put great pressure on the community to quit supporting the idiots or get the fuck out of the country.

The defining difference is the level of devotion to religion, not the particular religion. We don't have problems because they're muslim, we have problems because they wholly define themselves by religion.

Can't disagree. Ultimately religion is just an excuse. But, as you say, they are more homogeneous in their religion, the religion is Islam, so that's how we label who we're fighting with. As for imperialism, probably cuts both ways, ie its them or us, and in the bottom line I'll go with us, rather than them.

So in all the Fiddle Dee rhetoric, what happens is a whole group of people are demonized, many of whom support us, or would support us if we didn't alienate them.

OTOH, some people take the excuses too far, ie we can say nothing about Muslims as far as danger is concerned. I'll admit I get more suspicious with somebody Muslim because of the tacit support many of them seem to feel toward the terrorists. It was the same with the Sihks here in Vancouver. Many of them are very good people, but on the subject of Air India and other Sikh terrorism, it was all excuses how it was the Indian government that did it, etc. It got to the point where we had the premier riding in a parade that had pictures of their "martyrs" being honored. Of course he didn't know that, he was just sucking up for their vote, but this is how these terrorists and their support continues to function and is even legitimized. We shouldn't kid ourselves or sing sweet lullabies about everybody's beautiful either. There is a danger from Islam to our way of life, and we should be alert to it.

Christian Europeans came up with the idea of the individual dignity of man, equal rights, etc. Beautiful concepts that allowed us to build a great civilization. But we took it too for, applied it to people who won't return the favor - that's where we need to stop. As far as importing people who want to do us harm, that's where my rant about too much immigration comes in. Bring in smaller numbers of any ethnic/religious/what have you group, they don't reach critical mass but have more pressure to integrate. That includes any particular European group.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

First we would need to isolate it to incidents done in the name of religion. That would definitely put the Muslims in number one.

In what way? Historically or currently?

Currently.

I'd agree with that. Religion is regularly invoked by the west when undertaking some nastiness in the ME (Bush was great at that) but that's more grandstanding and hyperbole than real belief. It sounds a lot better than, "We're going in to protect the oil." and is heads and tails better than the "They hate our freedom" mantra.

But, if we can differentiate the actions of a culture and a religion in the west, where God is invoked before a carpet bombing, how is it that it cannot be differentiated before a suicide bombing or a beheading?

In other words, if one gruesome act is done in the name of religion - a suicide bobing to kill soldiers that also kills civilians and say an air or drone strike done in the name of politicis that kills its target but also kills civilians where do we draw the line at what is worse?

Muslims because the kill in the name of Allah or Christians who kill in the name of politics?

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

OTOH, some people take the excuses too far, ie we can say nothing about Muslims as far as danger is concerned. I'll admit I get more suspicious with somebody Muslim because of the tacit support many of them seem to feel toward the terrorists. It was the same with the Sihks here in Vancouver. Many of them are very good people, but on the subject of Air India and other Sikh terrorism, it was all excuses how it was the Indian government that did it, etc. It got to the point where we had the premier riding in a parade that had pictures of their "martyrs" being honored. Of course he didn't know that, he was just sucking up for their vote, but this is how these terrorists and their support continues to function and is even legitimized. We shouldn't kid ourselves or sing sweet lullabies about everybody's beautiful either. There is a danger from Islam to our way of life, and we should be alert to it.

Don't get the Irish started.

[andyt]

Not sure what you mean, but I have as little use for IRA supporters. Just that they are a far smaller group that hasn't, that I'm aware of, caused any shit here.

[DrRosen]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Muslims because the kill in the name of Allah or Christians who kill in the name of politics?

It's not that Muslims kill in the name of Allah, it's that they do everything in the name of Allah. If we reversed nothing about the world save swapping religions (ie, The middle east being a backward, homogenous Christian world and the west predominantly muslim but with separation of church and state, freedom of religion, greatly reduced and declining importance of religion in society, majority non-practising believers or atheists, etc) the conflict would exist exactly as it does, IMO. Impoverished, disadvantaged, oppressed, "ghettoized", backward devout Christians would be just as collectively pissed. Muslims only kill in the name of Allah because that's how they identify their difference from us.