The Forum > Article Comments > Islamic terrorism's useful idiots > Comments
Islamic terrorism's useful idiots : Comments
By Chris Ashton, published 19/1/2015It should go without saying that not every Muslim is a terrorist or a murderer, but by the same token it apparently needs spelling out that globally there is only one religion in whose name unabated violence is routinely committed.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Page 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
-
- All
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 1:15:35 PM
| |
Sorry SPQR, that should have been posted to Jay of Melbourne. Hope it works for you anyway.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 1:17:27 PM
| |
Craig, your Muslim, right?
So, you're more or less justifying ISIS and co practices, yes? Posted by Constance, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 1:35:38 PM
| |
Craig, you say, "The laws of the Caliphates were based on Quranic doctrine, but there were lots of non-Moslems who enjoyed protection."
"Enjoying protection" sounds like fun. Here is a scholarly article (only 15 pages), quite dispassionate and understated, that elucidates the "millet system" of the Ottoman empire, and the supposed "justice" enjoyed by its non-believing subjects. http://www.academia.edu/2362427/How_Just_was_the_Ottoman_Millet_System You don't have to be a scholar to read the violence towards non-Muslims between the lines. There are other tomes that speak of the cruelty and savagery of the Empire, but this one sets out the options for non-believers rather than what happened to them if they chose poorly. It also explains why Islam will not kill all the un-believers, only those that won't bow to it. Who would be taxed and do the dirty work if it did kill every infidel? Only Muslims were first class citizens. A caliphate would divide the world into religious groupings, millets, rather than nations as we have today. Which millet would you like to be a part of, as a non-Muslim, Craig? Atheism would not be an option. Maybe you'd convert to improve your lifestyle, and your children would then serve as Allah's warriors. Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 2:08:57 PM
| |
Isn't it fascinating that some people accuse anyone who defends the general Muslim population as justifying the barbarity of ISIS of Boko Haram.
That would be akin to accusing defenders and promoters of Christianity (merely because they're Christians) of justifying the practices of Kony and The Lord's Resistance Army or the Ku Klux Klan. Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 2:13:41 PM
| |
Luciferase
‘What is your pathway to avoiding misery and destruction as things stand?’ Strewth! How am I supposed to know? I guess I’ll just repeat what I’ve said many times already. Stop destabilising, sanctioning and bombing Muslim countries. Not only would Muslims living in the West be less likely to get caught up in exile politics and resentments, but they would be far less likely to flee to the West in the first place Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 2:41:44 PM
|
Your comments thoughtful and appreciated. As far as the “Centre” is concerned I was very careful to speak only of PC vs. Non-PC, it is therefore up to the reader to determine where they sit in this continuum on social, political or religious grounds.
The links in relation to the annihilation of progressivism in Europe are entirely predictable and well deserved, mostly because it is progressivism that has steered policy in a manner that has become “causal” in relation to EU woes.
In the end few care what happens to progressives because the damage is already done, they will be historical ideological failures. There is no recovery for Europe or Scandinavia, it’s too late. It is only the consequences of progressives that will survive and not the progressives themselves.
It’s interesting that the EU was multi-cultural before unification. Every member nation had their own “culture”. Yet, through the auspices of both the UN and the EU, the progressives have imposed mono-culture on a group of nations that were collectively multi-cultural, how cool is that?
Progressivism will fail because it is inherently cowardly. It refuses to stand up for the sovereign rights of any “individual” or nation. All these sovereign nations are wrong to stand for their “own” cultural values and by doing so they are bigots, racists, suffer islamophobia, anti-gay, anti-immigration, anti-human rights, anti-humanitarian and anti-refugee.
Their inaction has created and appeased the aggressive culture of Islam to occupy the space progressives have created.
It takes courage and a backbone to stand for your own values in spite of the vilification and abuse meted out by progressives. The progressives stand for NO action and NO values except their own rhetoric. They curl up in the “fearful” corner, sucking their collective thumbs in the fetal position supporting all forms of non action. They are the planets’ manifestation of “jelly backs”.
Even “Aristotle's Rhetoric” had them nailed over 2,000 years ago;
Ethos (I am important and would I lie?), Pathos (this will really do you good) and Logos (here's a few "facts" to impress you). Is that progressives or what?