BF2S Forums Look Out Great Britain, Your Appeasement Is Showing!!

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. You are telling me that you proved Islam is a peaceful tolerant religion?? I doubt it. You proved that the teaching of the prophet Muhammad was not violent and murderous or that following his teachings IS NOT Islam? I do not think so. You have already admitted that the term appeasement can be used as a negative, and that was my exact intention. YOu simply can not find away to admit that, without loosing face after all of the arrogance you have demonstrated in this thread, along with your groupies. Cam, you have won nothing.

2. I never said the British Govt. was hiding anything, I said they are re-naming it to sound less offensive. I think this is wrong. I think Islamic terrorism is so offensive it should be in your face, and dealt with as such. It is a fact that GB did this, it is my opinion and yours as to why. You haven't proven anything more than I have.

3. You do not have to, but I will not let you dictate my intenions. I said it exactly the way I meant it, and the context, was correct.

1. I proved that the teachings of Islam are peaceful and that homicide levels in Muslim nations are comparable or better than those of western nations. If you want me to repost these for the THIRD TIME then please scroll back through to the relevant page and read before asking for a repost. The term appeasement can be used in a negative context when used in a very specific that you happen to have stated was not the manner in which you used the word, as such you are wrong.

2. They are re-naming it to give it a more accurate description which, as we have gathered over numerous pages of debate, is a good thing especially given the cunning subliminal message contained within the new phrase. You obviously do not have to accept the overwhelming number of reasons why this is good and, quite frankly, the scant/non-existent reasons that this is bad ('sugar coating' doesn't explain much) - that is your prerogative.

3. To use it negatively you have to use it in the 'Neville Chamberlain' sense of the word, which you state you did not. The only other way it could be negatively used is if the user is not an advocate of peace and conciliation - so which is it?

1. for every post you make trying to prove the Islam is peaceful and tolerant, I can post saying it is not..I also have the teaching of the prophet Muhammad on my side....you failed to show me, the stats for religion motivated killings are less than that of the west. It is the religion that I am accusing of being violent isn't it. You also fail to prove that we are comparing apples to apples. You are not including killings in the ME that are legal based on Islamic law, so your comparisions are not accurate. I used the term appeasement exactly as I meant it. I said it as a negative and I meant it as such. get over it.

2. I see no reason to re-phrase anything. By your own admittance it is only a few crazies that have a problem with the west, right?  So what need is there to even address it? 500 gazillion Muslims have no problem with the west, remember?

3. I am not an advocate at kissing ass and political correctness. I am not an advocate of sensativity to the point of calling something it is not. It is terrorism being comitted by Islamic militants for reasons that are based in Islam. These terrorists ARE following the teaching of Muhammad.  There is absolutely no reason on earth to call it anything but what it is. Besides we are only talking about a few nutjobs aren't we? So why make an issue out of it in the first place?

adam1503 wrote:

lol I thought this thread was over.

You havent learned yet.  These threads become lowing vs euros then cam vs lowing

lowing wrote:

1. for every post you make trying to prove the Islam is peaceful and tolerant, I can post saying it is not..I also have the teaching of the prophet Muhammad on my side....you failed to show me, the stats for religion motivated killings are less than that of the west. It is the religion that I am accusing of being violent isn't it. You also fail to prove that we are comparing apples to apples. You are not including killings in the ME that are legal based on Islamic law, so your comparisions are not accurate. I used the term appeasement exactly as I meant it. I said it as a negative and I meant it as such. get over it.

Last I heard the US had the death penalty too. The US consistently kills over 50 people a year based on their legal system. Russia killed somewhere upward of that figure up to 1996 following the fall of communism and China's figures dwarf both. As far as I'm aware none of these three nations are islamic and the US justice system is probably based on judaeo-christian values. "Thou shalt not kill" ironically being addressed using killing.

None of the following Muslim nations practice the death penalty (except for wartime offences like treason): Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Western Sahara, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Djibouti.

In Islamic law, the death penalty is appropriate for two groups of crime:

- Intentional murder: In these cases the victim's family is given the option as to whether or not to insist on a punishment of this severity.

- Fasad fil-ardh ('spreading mischief in the land'): Islam differs from Christianity in that it permits the death penalty for anyone who threatens to undermine authority or destabilise the state.

What constitutes the crime of 'spreading mischief in the land' is open to interpretation, but the following crimes are usually included:

- Treason / Apostasy (when one leaves the faith and turns against it)
- Terrorism
- Piracy of any kind
- Rape
- Adultery
- Homosexual activity

The main controversial elements there are adultery and homosexual activity but I never contended for a moment that Islam was very tolerant. It is after all 'submission to the will of allah and his will only'. In an islamic nation, if you play by the rules (or emigrate if needs be), you shouldn't have much to fear. Islamic law is not the issue here as neither of us will ever have to live under it and it doesn't affect us in any way, shape or form. The fact that the more modern Islamic nations are dispensing with it shows that Muslims are forging a more tolerant path forward.

Back to my THIRD REPOST (!):

In brief, war is permitted:

- in self defence
- when other nations have attacked an Islamic state
- if another state is oppressing its own Muslims

War should be conducted:

- in a disciplined way
- so as to avoid injuring non-combatants
- with the minimum necessary force
- without anger
- with humane treatment towards prisoners of war

The idea of a total and unrestricted conflict is completely unIslamic.

- Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors. [Qur'an 2:190]

When an enemy is defeated he should be made prisoner rather than be killed:

- So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. [Qur'an 47:4]

Abu Bakr (the First Caliph) gave these rules to an army he was sending to battle:

- Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path.
- You must not mutilate dead bodies.
- Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man.
- Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.
- Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food.
- You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone

PS We've been through the 'appeasement' definition issue now enough times. You used it inappropriately, get over it.

lowing wrote:

2. I see no reason to re-phrase anything. By your own admittance it is only a few crazies that have a problem with the west, right?  So what need is there to even address it? 500 gazillion Muslims have no problem with the west, remember?

Re-phrasing was necessary because a) it generated unwarranted general anti-muslim sentiment a la potential 1930s Germany (BNP is ramping up its activities as we speak), b) the original phrase was inaccurate and too general and hence misleading and c) it offended British muslims. 

lowing wrote:

3. I am not an advocate at kissing ass and political correctness. I am not an advocate of sensativity to the point of calling something it is not. It is terrorism being comitted by Islamic militants for reasons that are based in Islam. These terrorists ARE following the teaching of Muhammad.  There is absolutely no reason on earth to call it anything but what it is. Besides we are only talking about a few nutjobs aren't we? So why make an issue out of it in the first place?

That is why, with people like you in charge, the globe is going to continue to be a raging warzone for many aeons to come. People who miss the Cold War and want to perpetuate the bullshit, seemingly in favour of a perpetual war against anyone who'll fight or anyone who remotely resembles an enemy with no regard for logic, capability or strategy. The reasons behind this terrorism are about as political as they are supposedly religious. On 9/11 AQ attacked the World Trade Centre (major financial centre and symbol), the Pentagon (symbol of US military might) and intended to hit the Capitol (symbol of US political power). If they were involved in a general 'religious war' against the west then why has Chrisitan South America not been so much as singed by this 'holy war'? Why has sub-Saharan Africa largely been unaffected? There are far softer targets in Africa - if they wanted to take over the world shouldn't they start there and move on? Why haven't they launched searing attacks into China - a country that has several hundred million muslims to begin with? The fact of the matter is that the guys doing the brainwashing are political. They don't like the fact that the US has shat all over them and made their lives misery through endorsements of dictators, etc. and are lashing out at them and their allies. Poor people looking for scapegoats. Most of the terrorism comes from the likes of Afghanistan - a stone age country. This is about how developed nations are, not about whether they're islamic or not. A stone age country will produce far more terrorism because it has uneducated nobodys with nothing to lose in it.

PS If these terrorists are CONTRAVENING several of the teachings of Muhammed how can they possibly be good muslims (see points above)?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-28 04:23:53)

lowing wrote:

You didn't answer my question. My argument is that Islam is a violent religion, now, how many Christ motivated killings are there in the US to how many Islamic killings? Your half a page of BS does not answer this.

I can get into a Quaran quote alllllllllllllll day long Cam, ya really wanna?


pacify, sooth, subside, conciliation all are synonyms to the word appease, they are not exclusively used as action to favor an enemy. This is a fact and it fits my accusations.

Nice of you practically admit that you will get on your fuckin' knees and kiss the ass of your enemies in order to perpetuate world peace. THAT is exactly why you are labeled as an apologist, appeaser, and willing to push for peace AT ANY PRICE.

If I am not mistaken most ISLAMIC TERRORISTS are coming from Jordan, and Syria and Saudi Arabia. Not Afghanistan

Now we seem to have some classic lowing goalpost shifting:

lowing wrote:

1. I did not concede this was appeasement to terrorists, I never said it was in the  first place.

lowing wrote:

kiss the ass of your enemies

Enemies??? I thought we weren't talking about terrorists here??

So, we are arguing about mainstream Islam and then you try and accuse me of 'admitting' I'll 'get on my knees' for the miniscule minority who happen to be terrorists? Frankly lowing, Muslims are not my enemy - they're not anybody's enemy, people are just trying to turn them into one with petty labels that generalise to a ridiculous degree. If you think they are then we have serious problems.

As to the 'Q'uran quotes', I'll ask you one question:

Do you think Judaism is an inherently violent religion?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-30 09:20:10)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

You didn't answer my question. My argument is that Islam is a violent religion, now, how many Christ motivated killings are there in the US to how many Islamic killings? Your half a page of BS does not answer this.

I can get into a Quaran quote alllllllllllllll day long Cam, ya really wanna?


pacify, sooth, subside, conciliation all are synonyms to the word appease, they are not exclusively used as action to favor an enemy. This is a fact and it fits my accusations.

Nice of you practically admit that you will get on your fuckin' knees and kiss the ass of your enemies in order to perpetuate world peace. THAT is exactly why you are labeled as an apologist, appeaser, and willing to push for peace AT ANY PRICE.

If I am not mistaken most ISLAMIC TERRORISTS are coming from Jordan, and Syria and Saudi Arabia. Not Afghanistan

Now we seem to have some classic lowing goalpost shifting:

lowing wrote:

1. I did not concede this was appeasement to terrorists, I never said it was in the  first place.

So, we are arguing about mainstream Islam and then you try and accuse me of 'admitting' I'll 'get on my knees' for the miniscule minority who happen to be terrorists? Frankly lowing, Muslims are not my enemy - they're not anybody's enemy, people are just trying to turn them into one with petty labels that generalise to a ridiculous degree. If you think they are then we have serious problems.

As to the 'Q'uran quotes', I'll ask you one question:

Do you think Judaism is an inherently violent religion?

Like I said in the other thread, you underestimate their will, intellegence, means and support. It is GB lost to farmers.

I think Christs' teachings are in no way violent. I think his message ( on paper) is perfect. We simply can not live up to it. The Quran on the other hand..........

lowing wrote:

You didn't answer my question. My argument is that Islam is a violent religion, now, how many Christ motivated killings are there in the US to how many Islamic killings? Your half a page of BS does not answer this.

Half a page of factual information you call BS? Not exactly good debating. Refute individual factual points ... if you can.

You seem to have dodge the very obvious fact that this terrorism is very much politically motivated and that it is also a consequence of social-economic factors. Unemployed nobodys in Saudi Arabia with nothing meaningful to believe in or live for are easily swayed by populist anti-western rhetoric reminiscent of Cuban anti-US rhetoric. The key is that bad imams can invoke cherrypicked improper interpretations of Islam that ignore many of the hard and fast rules from the Quran that I have drawn your attention to in order to direct politically motivated terror operations. It's like those weird Christian cults who brainwash people into suicide pacts or cult membership and whatnot for psychotic, financial or sexual reasons - they use a subverted version of the true creed for their own purposes. This occurs less often in western society because we are more affluent and are less susceptible to such folly as we have fuller lives with purpose. Socio-economic conditions are the primary driver of this terrorism, Islam itself is not the problem. It's like hick towns or unemployment blackspots in the US or parts of rural Ireland - a general malaise and economic hopelessness leads to problems like drugs and violence. Of course as first world countries these problems do not manifest themselves as anti-social activity quite as much as happens in certain middle eastern second/third world nations.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-30 09:14:00)

lowing wrote:

I have not departed from shit. I have always maintained that Islam does not fit into western civilization, our morals or our freedoms. I will stand by that.

You have 'departed from shit'. We aren't talking about the compatibility of Islam in western civilisation - now you're just throwing in additional discussion topics not previously broached in this thread with reckless abandon. At least stick to the points being debated and quit shifting goalposts as a means of diversion.

lowing wrote:

The difference is those that are willing to practice Islam and set out to destroy the west and the infidels, per the teaching of Muhammad and those that support the action but are not directly involved. I feel there is a significant number of Muslims that have not pulled the trigger, but if someone else did they would seek to benefit from it.

So essentially you're happy to call all Muslims 'the enemy' just because 'they might' want to attack us on a mission of conquest even though that is strictly not permitted according to the laws of Islam taken as a whole. Not to mention the ridiculously small number of incidences, especially in the west, of the type of terrorism we're talking about. That my friend is laughing stock material. That really is quite comical siege mentality paranoia and at last you have taken off the cloak you have donned this last 30 pages and shown your true feelings (a little bit of 'sugar coating' up until now...).

lowing wrote:

As far as I am concerned the Jews have blended in quite well in western society. What are their practiced beliefs on women? I do not see the Jews as a threat since they are not in the practice of world wide terrorism in the name of God. I know why you asked about the Jews,  and my answer is, I do not feel threatened by the Jewish community. I am not picking up the paper or turning on the TV and getting informed of the latest "Anti Semitic Activity". I promise you this, the day the Jews blowing shit up all over the world, in the name of God, I will be concerned.

I also know why you didn't ask about the teachings of Christ vs. that of Muhammad. You know you have no defense.

Here is an edited excerpt from the Torah:

Leviticus  Chapter 20

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

This is but one reference in a book that contains a litany of barbaric quotes. Now thankfully, modern Judaism - what everybody accepts Judaism to be today, as practice by pretty much all but the ultra-orthodox Jews - has little to do with this archaic outdated bloodthirstiness.

I bring this up because you said that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims were not 'practising Islam as Mohammed intended' - that those Muslims were essentially 'not proper Muslims'. By deduction you must also believe, on the evidence presented above, that Jews are 'not practising Judaism as Moses intended', i.e. the vast overwhelming majority of 'Jews' are 'not proper Jews'. It's quite funny really - you try to stoke up anti-Muslim fervour when you are in fact stating that the vast majority of Muslims 'aren't really Muslims', which begs the question: What's your problem with this 99% of people who aren't practising Islam 'properly' (as you would see it)? lol

We should all thank our lucky stars that most people take their religious texts as metaphorical messages rather than binding instructions. I won't call them 'bad' or 'not proper' Jews, Christians or Muslims for not cherrypicking the stupid outdated bloodthirsty quotes as their 'guide to living'...

PS Pre-1948 certain Jews were carrying out ostensibly religiously motivated acts of terror, the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem to name but one, in the name of following a scripture that decreed that they had a divine right to 'the land of Israel'. It's kind of why Israel exists today. In case you didn't realise Zionism is a religious zeal based ethos that pretty much demands the suffering of others in order to be satisfied (i.e., certain 'people' need to be ousted from their homes and properties).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrachi_% … Zionism%29

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-30 16:53:33)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have not departed from shit. I have always maintained that Islam does not fit into western civilization, our morals or our freedoms. I will stand by that.

You have 'departed from shit'. We aren't talking about the compatibility of Islam in western civilisation - now you're just throwing in additional discussion topics not previously broached in this thread with reckless abandon. At least stick to the points being debated and quit shifting goalposts as a means of diversion.

lowing wrote:

The difference is those that are willing to practice Islam and set out to destroy the west and the infidels, per the teaching of Muhammad and those that support the action but are not directly involved. I feel there is a significant number of Muslims that have not pulled the trigger, but if someone else did they would seek to benefit from it.

So essentially you're happy to call all Muslims 'the enemy' just because 'they might' want to attack us on a mission of conquest even though that is strictly not permitted according to the laws of Islam taken as a whole. Not to mention the ridiculously small number of incidences, especially in the west, of the type of terrorism we're talking about. That my friend is laughing stock material. That really is quite comical siege mentality paranoia and at last you have taken off the cloak you have donned this last 30 pages and shown your true feelings (a little bit of 'sugar coating' up until now...).

lowing wrote:

As far as I am concerned the Jews have blended in quite well in western society. What are their practiced beliefs on women? I do not see the Jews as a threat since they are not in the practice of world wide terrorism in the name of God. I know why you asked about the Jews,  and my answer is, I do not feel threatened by the Jewish community. I am not picking up the paper or turning on the TV and getting informed of the latest "Anti Semitic Activity". I promise you this, the day the Jews blowing shit up all over the world, in the name of God, I will be concerned.

I also know why you didn't ask about the teachings of Christ vs. that of Muhammad. You know you have no defense.

Here is an edited excerpt from the Torah:

Leviticus  Chapter 20

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

This is but one reference in a book that contains a litany of barbaric quotes. Now thankfully, modern Judaism - what everybody accepts Judaism to be today, as practice by pretty much all but the ultra-orthodox Jews - has little to do with this archaic outdated bloodthirstiness.

I bring this up because you said that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims were not 'practising Islam as Mohammed intended' - that those Muslims were essentially 'not proper Muslims'. By deduction you must also believe, on the evidence presented above, that Jews are 'not practising Judaism as Moses intended', i.e. the vast overwhelming majority of 'Jews' are 'not proper Jews'. It's quite funny really - you try to stoke up anti-Muslim fervour when you are in fact stating that the vast majority of Muslims 'aren't really Muslims', which begs the question: What's your problem with this 99% of people who aren't practising Islam 'properly' (as you would see it)? lol

We should all thank our lucky stars that most people take their religious texts as metaphorical messages rather than binding instructions. I won't call them 'bad' or 'not proper' Jews, Christians or Muslims for not cherrypicking the stupid outdated bloodthirsty quotes as their 'guide to living'...

PS Pre-1948 certain Jews were carrying out ostensibly religiously motivated acts of terror, the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem to name but one, in the name of following a scripture that decreed that they had a divine right to 'the land of Israel'. It's kind of why Israel exists today. In case you didn't realise Zionism is a religious zeal based ethos that pretty much demands the suffering of others in order to be satisfied (i.e., certain 'people' need to be ousted from their homes and properties).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrachi_% … Zionism%29

1. Cam, This thread is about the appeasement of GB toward the Islamic community because GB wants warm and fuzzy feelings between them and Islam. THe only reason GB or anyone else for that matter would want these warm and fuzzy feelings is because the world has seen what Muslims in a lather are capable of. Then we went round and round about the term appeasement. I have shown you the context in which I used the word ( pacify, sooth, subside, conciliation ) all o fwhich was the correct useage for my argument. Based on this I maintain that Islam is a violent, intolerable, religion. There is proof of this in this religions teachings as well as its actions.

You maintain that there are only few bad Muslims and the rest fit perfectly into western society. The fact is, Radical Islam is financed by someone or something, namely charites, money laundering etc.... all from Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran etc........So basically, if you think these "few" Muslims are not supported by a significantly vast party, then you are in denial.

You can also stop the drama queen routine, and your "reckless abandon" speech. I have never said anything about "ALL MUSLIMS". These are your words not mine. I said a significant number of supporters. Both visual and vocal and under the table. As far as your laughable insignificant scenarios let me just point out that it only takes 1 radical with 1 WMD the size of a grain of sand, to take out a city block or two. You are naive and in denial as to how you think the west can not be hurt by radical Islam and its supporters.

If you wanna say that Jews are not acting as their teachings demand, fine lets say so. I give a fuck not!, You can call them anything you want to, I will support you, the bottom line is, they are not posting videos demanding for all Jews to come together and destroy the west. There are no Jews that are trying to fly airplanes into buildings or warships . I am not threatened by them. If they start making the news with such events, again I promise you , I will be on this forum mother fuckin' them. So, basically, if you do not wanna call they Jews, what do you wanna call them, cuz I don't give a shit. THey are not fucking with my country.


So to sum up.

1. GB is trying to pacify, concilate, sooth, Muslims in an effort to win favor and not alienate them.

2.Islam is a violent intolerable religion as it is taught and practiced by many.

3. Islam does not mesh into western civilitiation because our freedoms and morals are not believed as proper by Islam.

4. I agree with you Jews are not really Jews because they are not following the bible,I don't give a shit. So, whatcha wanna call them instead? I still don't have a problem with them ( whatever ya wanna call them) because they do not threaten my country. If they did, I got a problem.

I think that about covers it, Cam

lowing wrote:

Cam, This thread is about the appeasement of GB toward the Islamic community because GB wants warm and fuzzy feelings between them and Islam. THe only reason GB or anyone else for that matter would want these warm and fuzzy feelings is because the world has seen what Muslims in a lather are capable of.

There are 1.6 million British people who are Muslim and who deserve parity of esteem with their Christian, Rasta, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish and Atheist Britons. This is not about the British government being 'scared of muslims' and they do not for one second think that being more politically correct and sensitive to legitimate grievances is going to deter or prevent those inclined towards attacking western countries. They are simply being decent. If you think otherwise then I'm afraid we MUST agree to disagree.

lowing wrote:

Then we went round and round about the term appeasement. I have shown you the context in which I used the word ( pacify, sooth, subside, conciliation ) all o fwhich was the correct useage for my argument. Based on this I maintain that Islam is a violent, intolerable, religion. There is proof of this in this religions teachings as well as its actions.

Pacify, sooth, subside, conciliate people who have been insulted - not those who carry out acts of terror. You seem to have continually forgotten who exactly it is we are referring to at numerous points throughout this long and incredibly pointless forum venture.

lowing wrote:

You maintain that there are only few bad Muslims and the rest fit perfectly into western society. The fact is, Radical Islam is financed by someone or something, namely charites, money laundering etc.... all from Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran etc........So basically, if you think these "few" Muslims are not supported by a significantly vast party, then you are in denial.

No denial lowing. I went through why shitholes likes Saudi Arabia spawn terrorism. Deadend lives soaked with jealousy looking for scapegoats. If it were otherwise they would be attacking all manner of soft targets such as Ireland, Latin America or any number of predominantly non-Muslim African countries. The fact, which you choose to ignore, is that they aren't. It's entirely directed at the rich western world. Their supposedly 'vast network' of money channels doesn't really seem to be having much impact on us - acts of terrorism are so few and far between I can only imagine someone must be siphoning some of this money off into their back pockets... Again, we have been over this ad infinitum, you're beginning to sound like one of those 'liberal new world order conspiracy theorists'. Paranoia is not very becoming. One solution: border control. Affluence breeds moderation and apathy and British Muslims are just that - moderate normal practitioners of their religion: that is why British muslims do not deserve to have their name tarnished by those who wish to play the modern day 1933 Hitlers.

lowing wrote:

You can also stop the drama queen routine, and your "reckless abandon" speech. I have never said anything about "ALL MUSLIMS". These are your words not mine. I said a significant number of supporters. Both visual and vocal and under the table. As far as your laughable insignificant scenarios let me just point out that it only takes 1 radical with 1 WMD the size of a grain of sand, to take out a city block or two. You are naive and in denial as to how you think the west can not be hurt by radical Islam and its supporters.

'Significant numbers' is not a term I would use in association with what in actuality is 'a tiny minority'. lol

1 radical with 1 WMD? OK then lowing, let's kill all the Muslims!!!! lol Of course the radicals can hurt us, but what the fuck are you going to do about it? You just have to be vigilant, police your nation well and plough millions into intelligence gathering...

lowing wrote:

If you wanna say that Jews are not acting as their teachings demand, fine lets say so. I give a fuck not!, You can call them anything you want to, I will support you, the bottom line is, they are not posting videos demanding for all Jews to come together and destroy the west. There are no Jews that are trying to fly airplanes into buildings or warships . I am not threatened by them. If they start making the news with such events, again I promise you , I will be on this forum mother fuckin' them. So, basically, if you do not wanna call they Jews, what do you wanna call them, cuz I don't give a shit. THey are not fucking with my country.

So you are in agreement with me that the vast majority of Jews do not practice Judaism as Moses intended and as a consequence you MUST LOGICALLY also agree that the vast majority of Muslims do not practice Islam as Mohammed intended. As such, I don't really see your problem with the British government being polite to people who are simply nominally Muslim. Thank you.

PS Zionism doesn't affect you because you don't live in the middle east. Hooray for empathy. They quite regularly bulldoze houses that quite often still contain residents (as well as News Reporters and American peace activists if I recall correctly), excuse the digression.

lowing wrote:

1. GB is trying to pacify, concilate, sooth, Muslims in an effort to win favor and not alienate them.

A good and decent thing, although it's more about respect than either of the two things you mention.

lowing wrote:

2.Islam is a violent intolerable religion as it is taught and practiced by many.

Not as practised by the vast majority, as discussed at length. 'Many' should read 'some', you're being deliberately misleading in your tone.

lowing wrote:

3. Islam does not mesh into western civilitiation because our freedoms and morals are not believed as proper by Islam.

I'm in partial agreement with the meshing thing but unlike you I don't feel any need to victimise, demean, insult, degrade or falsely accuse western Muslims as a great many of them have integrated fully (especially younger generations) and besides, we do share a lot of morals with Islam (Musa = Moses in the Q'uran) although Islam is more restrictive. 

lowing wrote:

4. I agree with you Jews are not really Jews because they are not following the bible,I don't give a shit. So, whatcha wanna call them instead? I still don't have a problem with them ( whatever ya wanna call them) because they do not threaten my country. If they did, I got a problem.

I call them Jews. Because the modern incarnation/interpretation of a religion is in fact the religion as I see it. Hence the reason I call Muslims Muslims even though the vast majority of them, just like Jews, don't practice it as Mohammed may have wanted them to...

And that my friend is my final word. I am dispensing with the futility of this thread on the advice of an anonymous karma giver and due to the continuous changing of the point being argued, the precedence conjecture/conspiracies seems to take over fact and the rather blatant disrespect for logic/reason shown in this thread. It has been entertaining though.

Thanks,
Cam

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-31 10:44:50)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cam, This thread is about the appeasement of GB toward the Islamic community because GB wants warm and fuzzy feelings between them and Islam. THe only reason GB or anyone else for that matter would want these warm and fuzzy feelings is because the world has seen what Muslims in a lather are capable of.

There are 1.6 million British people who are Muslim and who deserve parity of esteem with their Christian, Rasta, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish and Atheist Britons. This is not about the British government being 'scared of muslims' and they do not for one second think that being more politically correct and sensitive to legitimate grievances is going to deter or prevent those inclined towards attacking western countries. They are simply being decent. If you think otherwise then I'm afraid we MUST agree to disagree.

lowing wrote:

Then we went round and round about the term appeasement. I have shown you the context in which I used the word ( pacify, sooth, subside, conciliation ) all o fwhich was the correct useage for my argument. Based on this I maintain that Islam is a violent, intolerable, religion. There is proof of this in this religions teachings as well as its actions.

Pacify, sooth, subside, conciliate people who have been insulted - not those who carry out acts of terror. You seem to have continually forgotten who exactly it is we are referring to at numerous points throughout this long and incredibly pointless forum venture.

lowing wrote:

You maintain that there are only few bad Muslims and the rest fit perfectly into western society. The fact is, Radical Islam is financed by someone or something, namely charites, money laundering etc.... all from Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran etc........So basically, if you think these "few" Muslims are not supported by a significantly vast party, then you are in denial.

No denial lowing. I went through why shitholes likes Saudi Arabia spawn terrorism. Deadend lives soaked with jealousy looking for scapegoats. If it were otherwise they would be attacking all manner of soft targets such as Ireland, Latin America or any number of predominantly non-Muslim African countries. The fact, which you choose to ignore, is that they aren't. It's entirely directed at the rich western world. Their supposedly 'vast network' of money channels doesn't really seem to be having much impact on us - acts of terrorism are so few and far between I can only imagine someone must be siphoning some of this money off into their back pockets... Again, we have been over this ad infinitum, you're beginning to sound like one of those 'liberal new world order conspiracy theorists'. Paranoia is not very becoming. One solution: border control. Affluence breeds moderation and apathy and British Muslims are just that - moderate normal practitioners of their religion: that is why British muslims do not deserve to have their name tarnished by those who wish to play the modern day 1933 Hitlers.

lowing wrote:

You can also stop the drama queen routine, and your "reckless abandon" speech. I have never said anything about "ALL MUSLIMS". These are your words not mine. I said a significant number of supporters. Both visual and vocal and under the table. As far as your laughable insignificant scenarios let me just point out that it only takes 1 radical with 1 WMD the size of a grain of sand, to take out a city block or two. You are naive and in denial as to how you think the west can not be hurt by radical Islam and its supporters.

'Significant numbers' is not a term I would use in association with what in actuality is 'a tiny minority'. lol

1 radical with 1 WMD? OK then lowing, let's kill all the Muslims!!!! lol Of course the radicals can hurt us, but what the fuck are you going to do about it? You just have to be vigilant, police your nation well and plough millions into intelligence gathering...

lowing wrote:

If you wanna say that Jews are not acting as their teachings demand, fine lets say so. I give a fuck not!, You can call them anything you want to, I will support you, the bottom line is, they are not posting videos demanding for all Jews to come together and destroy the west. There are no Jews that are trying to fly airplanes into buildings or warships . I am not threatened by them. If they start making the news with such events, again I promise you , I will be on this forum mother fuckin' them. So, basically, if you do not wanna call they Jews, what do you wanna call them, cuz I don't give a shit. THey are not fucking with my country.

So you are in agreement with me that the vast majority of Jews do not practice Judaism as Moses intended and as a consequence you MUST LOGICALLY also agree that the vast majority of Muslims do not practice Islam as Mohammed intended. As such, I don't really see your problem with the British government being polite to people who are simply nominally Muslim. Thank you.

PS Zionism doesn't affect you because you don't live in the middle east. Hooray for empathy. They quite regularly bulldoze houses that quite often still contain residents (as well as News Reporters and American peace activists if I recall correctly), excuse the digression.

lowing wrote:

1. GB is trying to pacify, concilate, sooth, Muslims in an effort to win favor and not alienate them.

A good and decent thing, although it's more about respect than either of the two things you mention.

lowing wrote:

2.Islam is a violent intolerable religion as it is taught and practiced by many.

Not as practised by the vast majority, as discussed at length. 'Many' should read 'some', you're being deliberately misleading in your tone.

lowing wrote:

3. Islam does not mesh into western civilitiation because our freedoms and morals are not believed as proper by Islam.

I'm in partial agreement with the meshing thing but unlike you I don't feel any need to victimise, demean, insult, degrade or falsely accuse western Muslims as a great many of them have integrated fully (especially younger generations) and besides, we do share a lot of morals with Islam (Musa = Moses in the Q'uran) although Islam is more restrictive. 

lowing wrote:

4. I agree with you Jews are not really Jews because they are not following the bible,I don't give a shit. So, whatcha wanna call them instead? I still don't have a problem with them ( whatever ya wanna call them) because they do not threaten my country. If they did, I got a problem.

I call them Jews. Because the modern incarnation/interpretation of a religion is in fact the religion as I see it. Hence the reason I call Muslims Muslims even though the vast majority of them, just like Jews, don't practice it as Mohammed may have wanted them to...

And that my friend is my final word. I am dispensing with the futility of this thread on the advice of an anonymous karma giver and due to the continuous changing of the point being argued, the precedence conjecture/conspiracies seems to take over fact and the rather blatant disrespect for logic/reason shown in this thread. It has been entertaining though.

Thanks,
Cam

Do not blame me for the content of this thread, you and your groupies are the ones that spent 31 pages, dissecting a word. I spent 31 pages defrending my usage. I can only respond to what was posted. I also will not be told by you or anyone else that I didn't mean what I said. I meant exactly what I said.

As far as the rest of your BS, we will agree to disagree, as usual please take note though, in all of your ramblings,  you will not find anywhere that I endorse "killing all of the Muslims". I say, Islam is intolerant and violent, Radical ISlam is bigger than you let on and has a vast network of support, and Islam does not mesh with western society, ALL FACT!! Basically, you are a fuckin' drama queen.

But anyway, you wanna stop, we stop

ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:

Lowing, you really are beginning to sound desperate. Please stop for the sake of your sanity and reputation.

Appreciate your concern, but I am doing well here in the world of reality..........How are things in fantasy land??

lowing wrote:

...As far as the rest of your BS, we will agree to disagree, as usual please take note though, in all of your ramblings,  you will not find anywhere that I endorse "killing all of the Muslims". I say, Islam is intolerant and violent, Radical ISlam is bigger than you let on and has a vast network of support, and Islam does not mesh with western society, ALL FACT!! Basically, you are a fuckin' drama queen.

well, let me ask you this then, lowing.
With all you have said here, and what was discussed over those 32 pages, what exactly are you advocating, endorsing or suggesting we do about this threat that radical islam supposedly presents to us ?

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

...As far as the rest of your BS, we will agree to disagree, as usual please take note though, in all of your ramblings,  you will not find anywhere that I endorse "killing all of the Muslims". I say, Islam is intolerant and violent, Radical ISlam is bigger than you let on and has a vast network of support, and Islam does not mesh with western society, ALL FACT!! Basically, you are a fuckin' drama queen.

well, let me ask you this then, lowing.
With all you have said here, and what was discussed over those 32 pages, what exactly are you advocating, endorsing or suggesting we do about this threat that radical islam supposedly presents to us ?

Good question, first I guess I would have to insist that all nations drop the denial about radical Islam. If you are still saying "supposedly" in your questions about radical Islamic threats, then there is not much that can be done. Not until you at least acknowledge radical Islam is a real threat.


After you stop worrying about hurt feelings and pull your heads out of the sand or your asses I would say exposing the money trail that feeds terrorist networks and stopping it at its source. No country shall give safe harbor to terrorists or their money. Those that do will be forced to answer for it.