The Sioux, Pawnee and the Cheyenne nations heartily endorse that message.
Of course, not all socialists are Marxists, and it is very difficult to imagine someone like Bernie Sanders sending anyone to the wall or to the gulag.
And why the rates of interracial marriage would be plummeting, if they weren’t already at ZERO!
That’s true. Bernie Sanders seems pretty pacifist from everything I’ve heard. But dyed in the wool Marxists do exist and Sanders gives them more publicity and acceptability.
Amazing. I feel the same way about you.
Do Republicans give white supremacists more publicity and acceptability?
So that’d be a Yes on the wanting me dead, then.
Sure. Just look at the etymology and recent widespread use of cuckservative.
Or they get killed off by foreign governments as in Chile.
And, of course, your claim is wrongly posed. Marxists have tended to gain power by wrenching it from the hands of other dictators or authoritarian regimes, so it is logical that such regimes would continue the killing once they had power. When they were able to gain power through elections, they were murdered off before they could demonstrate how they would act. (And, of course, your examples fail in Nicaragua where the Marxist regime not only failed to kill off their enemies, (despite being attacked by the U.S. supported thugs they overthrew), but stepped down when they were defeated in democratic elections.)
Marxism is already dead and you are silly to be making noises about it, anyway.
Hey, at least Pinochet gave them free helicopter rides…
The problem is that even though not all Marxist regimes are murderous, on average, they still kill enormous amounts of people. Dictators and democratic regimes pale in comparison.
Guess what? Even THAT’S not grounds for banning. Look up “Cesario”. What a freaking joke.
Hippies and Jews? Who are you, Eric Cartman?
Lots of governments–even democracies–kill large groups of people.
Your initial claim was the dumb remark that Marxism was a threat to our society, (despite the fact that as a movement on the national level it died with the U.S.S.R. and the change in economic policies in China). You then tried to support your statement with the claim that there was something inherent in Marxism that led to murder. Now that that claim has been disproved, you want to fall back on “Well, they are still meanies.”
Trying to create boogeymen out of Marxists has been silly for 25 years, (actually longer); you ought to get over it.
Somebody obviously doesn’t pay attention. The mods rather clearly do give far more leeway in what can be said about Muslims than what can be said about other groups, most notably Jews.
Dex himself has flat out admitted this.
Sorry but when merely claiming that Jews are prone to engage in terrorism gets a warning for hate speech upgraded to an instaban while openly calling for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims doesn’t even earn a mod note you’re being ridiculous.
If your point is I was being hyperbolic, you’re right. Yes you can get warned for making bigoted comments about Muslims, but you have vastly wider latitude than you do in regards to Jews.
And also, lots of people get away with making bigoted comments about Jews, but not remotely to the same extent. And no, I’m not accusing any mods of being anti-Muslim bigots, just having blind spots.
Harpo was a pretty cool Marxist, with his little horn and the way chased the cute womans.
Having seen your post on ATMB where you said you don’t believe in enforcing the “hate speech” rule I withdraw the question because I didn’t see it when I posted this.
Also, FWIW, I do respect even if I personally disagree with it and think you could easily narrowly construe a definition for the term without suppressing speech.
After all, you do this with the term “trolling” which is if anything, even more vague and difficult to draw the line as to what does and doesn’t constitute it.
While it is true that a dependable definition of “hate speech” is elusive, we should remember that the Luminous Ones are the chosen of Cecil. “Cringe and obey” is sufficient instruction.
So what? I don’t care about how progressive certain of Islam’s ideas were in their historical context. I care about how progressive they are today.
‘An eye for an eye’ was a pretty good idea in its historical context, too. But it’s a pretty fucking shitty idea in 2015. There are certain beliefs in Islam which, regardless of how fucking wonderful they were 1,400 years ago, are pretty awful today. A belief that martyrs who die fighting “enemies of Islam” get fast-tracked to paradise, for instance, is simply incompatible with 21st century weaponry.
This is a bad idea, unique to Islam, which needs to be discredited. Kindly stop getting in the fucking way.
So you really don’t think the things these respective “Great beards in the sky” tell their respective followers to believe makes any difference to how they act?
I know about Sufism you disingenuous, strawmanning little cretin. If every Muslim in the world was a Sufi the world would be a much safer place. Let me ask you a few questions about Sufism, since you’re so fucking knowledgeable:
1). Who, according to religious scholar Mohammed Zaman, has historically been “unrelentingly hostile to Sufism”? Is it:
a). The cast of Friends?
b). Buffy the Vampire Slayer?
c). The Boston Philharmonic Orchestra?
d). Salafist Muslims?
2). Why are Sufis persecuted? Is it:
a). Salafist Muslims consider Sufism to be shirk heresy, based on their reading of Islamic texts?
b). There is no B. That’s fucking it!
I repeat, because you obviously missed it the first time, the biggest victims of Islamic extremism are other Muslims!
But wait. I forgot. According to you, the Koran is just a 1,300 year old scrap of nothing and people who commit violence in its name only do so because they’re inherently violent assholes, (which explains the long, bloody conflict between the Amish and the Quakers :rolleyes:). Do you even understand that your own argument implies that a higher percentage of Muslims are inherently violent than in other religions? I mean, I am merely arguing that the bad behaviour of Islamic extremists is down to the extremist beliefs that they hold. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that they were somehow born that way. And yet I’m still the bigot? Fuck off.
Then where are all the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? Hell, where are the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers? While the Bible may contain some pretty unsavoury ideas, it doesn’t contain the specific ideas required to manufacture suicide bombers.
Let’s cut to the chase. Do you honestly believe that if a violent Islamic extremist decided, for whatever reason, to convert to Jainism, his behaviour would remain exactly the same? If the answer is no, would that be because he suddenly just stopped being a violent asshole? Or would it be because he exchanged one set of beliefs for another?
Okay, firstly, there are five major schools of thought, not four. Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, and Shafi’i are Sunni schools; Ja’fari is Shia. I’m surprised A’isha let you off the hook for that one, given that she used my failure to give a fucking page reference for an Al Bukari Hadith as grounds to conclude that I only found out about Islam yesterday, probably on the O’Reilly Factor or something.
As to the idea these schools don’t agree on anything? Well, let’s put that to the test, shall we? Tell me, which of the five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence holds that apostasy isn’t a crime punishable by imprisonment or death? How much room for interpretation is there on that little question?
Which of the same schools holds that blasphemy isn’t a crime punishable by imprisonment or death?
Which of the same schools doesn’t hold that homosexual acts are punishable crimes?
Which of the same schools holds that a woman’s word in all legal matters is worth exactly the same as that of a man?
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m well aware that there is some debate between these schools even on these “contentious” issues. For instance, while the Hanafi school allows punishments for homosexual acts to be determined by a local judge, the Hanbali, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Ja’fari schools all teach that homosexual acts are capital offences. So yeah, there’s a real fucking diverse range of opinions on that little issue.
Hey, maybe that’s why, of the ten countries on Earth in which homosexuality is still a capital “crime” all ten are Islamic?
Right, first of all, define ‘many’.
Second, while I don’t doubt that some Islamic scholars have battled manfully throughout the ages to find peaceful loopholes in scripture, that doesn’t change the fact that there is ample textual substantiation (both scriptural and theological) for the idea of outer jihad as Fard (compulsory duty). For instance, the Koran States:
9:5 - Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the zakat, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
And Ibn Al Qamadah, a highly influential scholar of the Hanbali school wrote that Jihad becomes Fard if “Kuffar enter a sacred land” (Al Mughni 8/354 - happy, A’isha?)
Now, I could go on like this all the live long day. You want quotes from prominent scholars of the other schools, just ask. My contention is simple: if you are born and raised in an area in which these ideas are prevalent, and you subsequently adopt them for yourself, they will affect your behaviour. And you’re more likely to adopt those ideas for yourself if you’re exposed to them at an early age. It’s got nothing to do with assholes being assholes. It’s all about what people believe.
“Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them…”
Oh well, that’s all right then :rolleyes:
Of course, it’s not like Islamic scripture is all sympathy and heartstrings for the Jews, is it? Hey, you heard this one?
"Ibn 'Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even the stones will cry out: O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him. Sahih Muslim 41:6981.
Martyrdom in battle as a duty with special rewards in the hereafter? Yeah. I’m totally for real. That’s unique to Islam.
Why the fuck would you restrict yourself to terror attacks in Europe? You may be provincial enough to only care about what’s happening in your own back yard, but it might behoove you to take a broader view. Worldwide, the majority of terror attacks are Islamic.
No it isn’t. Of the Koran’s 114 surahs, only 20 (12, 49, 65, 81, 87, 91, 93, 97, 99, 101-106, 108-112, and 114) contain no denunciations of, and/or threats towards, the “infidel”. That’s a mere 18% of surahs which don’t go out of their way to make Allah’s opinion of unbelievers crystal clear, and many surahs contain numerous such condemnations. Surah 2, for instance, contains about 40.
So you’re wrong.
Nope. You said it, and while it doesn’t surprise me that a man of your profound arrogance considers his own say-so to be the be-all-and-end-all of everything, it’s not enough for me. Here’s a few more of Allah’s condemnations:
*2:23 And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful.
2:24 And if ye do it not - and ye can never do it - then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones.
2:98 Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.
4:37 Who hoard their wealth and enjoin avarice on others, and hide that which Allah hath bestowed upon them of His bounty. For disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom.*
Unless you’re arguing (and I wouldn’t put it past you) that all the intolerance in these verses is the result of a mistranslation, then I don’t see what the fuck most European Muslims inability to read Arabic has to do with anything.
First of all, you’re not my mate. You’re a haughty, sanctimonious prick. Second of all, the Koran doesn’t say “everything and its opposite”. The Koran doesn’t say, for example, that a Muslim has every right to give up the faith and convert to Judaism if he feels like it. The Koran doesn’t approve of polytheism. The Koran doesn’t say that men and women have the exact same rights. The Koran doesn’t say that being gay is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice. The Koran doesn’t allow for separation of mosque and state.
I could go on, but I trust the point is made. Of course, it would be asking too much to expect the Koran to be compatible with modern secular values. It’s a product of 7th century thinking, and it shows. Similarly, such intolerance also pervades the Bible and the Torah (although, in Christianity at least, Mark 12:17 - “Render unto Caesar etc…” - provides a scriptural basis for separation of Church and State). But in much the same way as those bad ideas (sectarianism, sexism, homophobia, etc…) have provided justification for the bad behaviour of certain Christians and Jews over the centuries, so have they provided justification for similarly bad behaviour from certain Muslims. To this extent, these religions can be fairly said to have a certain level of equivalence.
However, there are certain doctrines which are unique to Islam which, in this age of 737s, weaponised anthrax and suitcase nukes, are particularly problematic, such as the doctrines of martyrdom and Jihad.
On the other side of the coin, the Koran also doesn’t say that one shouldn’t give to charity. The Koran doesn’t say that life begins at conception, unlike the Bible. The Koran doesn’t say usury is ethical.
So yeah. Your fatuous insistence that the Koran is perfectly schizophrenic, and that every intolerant denunciation and exhortation to violence is balanced out by an equally ecumenical and pacifistic verse is, in two simple words even you can understand, horse shit.
I think it’s a little of column A and a little of column B, fuckwad. They might feel alienated, and they might feel unfulfilled spiritually, or whatever. But if the Koran didn’t contain verses like:
9:29 - Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya and feel themselves subdued.
And if the hadith didn’t contain verses like:
”nobody who enters Paradise would return to the world even if he were given everything in it, except a martyr who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times over because of the honour and dignity he received” - Al Bukhari (reference deliberately expunged to annoy A’isha).
Then that alienation and search for identity might manifest itself differently. In fact, it would definitely manifest itself differently because when people actually go and ask aspiring martyrs why they decided to fly halfway round the world to blow shit up for Allah, these are the verses and hadith that they cite. Forgive me for taking their word over yours.
This brings us back to one of the ways in which Islam contains uniquely bad ideas. Of course, the concept of martyrdom per se isn’t unique to Islam. Indeed, Islam offers several ways in which one can become a martyr including drowning, dying in a fire, or dying of plague. But the idea that one can be a martyr for waging war “in defence of Islam” (a phrase which, given the tangled history between Islam and the West, can justify almost any act of aggression) is one which has no equivalent in other religious texts.
Of course, you think that the Koran is just “a 1,300 year old piece of paper” which can never inspire anyone to do anything, which is arguably far more offensive to Muslims than anything I’ve said.
Fucking links didn’t work:
Ah, yes. The foulmouthed “scholar” who’s spent the last few years in his basement apartment (not his Mom’s basement) reading the Koran* in translation*.
Yes, the London subway bombings were dreadful. But we lost more on 9/11. Even since, we’ve been subjected to assholes wrapping themselves in the flag & using “since 9/11” as their excuse for whatever they wanted to do.
Get a life. Or join up & go fight your Crusade–over there…
Foul mouthed? In the pit? Heaven forbid! Of course, it’s not like I’ve been insulted, is it? I’ve not been called a mouth breathing asshat, or a fuckwad, or a nob, or a chucklefuck, or a herpty-derp cunt of the week, have I? Oh. Wait. Yes I have. I eagerly await your snotty chiding of Kobal2 and Monty for their “foulmouthed” posts.
3 storey semi-detatched terraced house, actually. Not that it’s any of your business.
What’s wrong with reading the Koran in translation? Are you suggesting that if I read it in the original Arabic all those countless verses cursing, mocking, scourging, and condemning unbelievers would turn out to be unfortunate mistranslations? Meh, maybe you’re right. Maybe, in the original Arabic, “Guard against the fire made for the disbelievers whose fuel is men and stones” really means “Live and let live, and have an A1 day” :rolleyes:
What on Earth has that got to do with anything I’ve written? The bad ideas in Islamic scripture were bad ideas long before 7/7 or 9/11. 7/7 was just when I started looking into them.