IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Terror comes to Manchester
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Jo |
I suspect that far more non-whites than whites have been killed by Islamists and far more whites have been killed by other whites in Europe than by non-whites, whether Islamists or not. |
|
Don Cake |
"A large section of the world wants to blow us to smithereens."
-Is this actually true? |
|
Randall |
I think pete is thinking along the right lines in his posts above, especially the first.
A large section of the world wants to blow us to smithereens. They are much more numerous than white Europeans. When they succeed, there is wall-to-wall, 24-7 propaganda suppressing any expression of anger or attempts to fight back.
Now there are soldiers on patrol in London. They're not there to protect indigenous Europeans from muslim maniacs. They're there to protect the maniacs from "islamophobia" or "hate speech." They're also there to guard Parliament: the people who brought all these genocidal in-breds here so that we can enjoy the enrichments of multicultural diversity. |
|
pete |
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that there are creeds or individuals who are entirely free of evil and wickedness; as an old Freudian dinosaur, I’m well aware that the potential for good and evil beats in every human heart. It’s the effort to present oneself as entirely virtuous, in fact, which so often leads to the greatest evils, especially if one’s virtue is driven by sense of victimhood (Blaise Pascal put it rather well: “Man is neither angel nor brute, and the unfortunate thing is that he who would act the angel acts the brute”).
While I agree that those who JK refers to as loonies reside in every religion, secular creed and nation, it seems to me that the anti-Muslim violence Jo cited on the part of Hindus and Buddhists was contingent and incidental rather than inherent to their creeds.
Let me immediately say that I abhor anti-Muslim violence: we need, desperately urgently, to build strong bridges with Muslim scholars who are struggling, all too often in conditions of great adversity and danger, to foster the same separation of Church and State that Christianity has achieved (“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…”). Law is public under this arrangement, while morality and religion are private. Freedom depends on distinctions like this.
We need the friendship and support of (and we need to extend friendship, support and hospitality to) dissenting Muslim scholars, Muslim apostates, gay Muslims and feminist Muslims, who know all about the terrible consequences of religiously-prescribed intolerance and violence at the sharp end.
But when the open, welcoming, scholarly phase of Islamic culture – Islam’s Golden Age – was shut down on the basis that the Koran could no longer be re-interpreted because it was the literal world of God as revealed to the prophet Mohammed, it seems to me that Islam as the cradle of civilisation gave way to religion as dogma and terror.
Too many radical Muslims see secular law as a form of blasphemy, yet it’s the condition of individual liberty and privacy. The tradition here is that secular law should rarely, if ever, interfere with the private sphere, even if what arises there is deemed immoral; radical Islam recognises no such distinction, which results in the tragic perversity of, for instance, a closeted gay Muslim enthusiastically pushing an outed gay Muslim off the top of very tall building or crushing him to death beneath a very large slab of stone or concrete.
Under secular law, we are citizens; under religious law we are subjects (Islam means “submission” to the power of God). Secular common law, by contrast, seeks to establish justice between individuals in dispute, a ground-up process of human discussion and agreement. It does not, as in shari’ah, seek to impose a deity’s power.
A religion that has sealed itself off from the modern world will feel at odds with the modern era, and murderous resentment thrives off such alienation. Those who seek to reform it toward openness, those who find they cannot live within it without ever-present danger to life and limb, must be welcomed by us.
Back to the deluded, pot-smoking scumbag who perpetrated this villainous act of evil: yes, he may have been a loony, but the “radical” (hate-and-malice-saturated) wing of the predominantly inward- and backward-looking religion he used to support his resentment and paranoia may well have persuaded him to become positively murderous, targeting “decadent” Westerners, even if they were children, engaging in “sins” that its version of Allah considers wicked. |
|
andrew |
Why were people singing Oasis and is that really the best we got to solve matters? |
|
|
|
|
