>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:

Your stated criticism of Condell equates the two cultures he's discussing. My argument discusses Sharia Law because the part of Muslim culture that Condell is discussing is extremist Muslim culture, from which the title of the video is derived ("Freedom go to hell.") As well, the problems we associate with Sharia law can also be a problem with people who represent moderate Islam.
Here is your argument in which you equate the two cultures that Condell is discussing:

I assume this "civilisation" you speak of is Brittan, or the west? Most of the foundations of the studies you mentioned were laid down many years before the rise of the west, much of that coming from the ancestors of this so called imported religion.
Let me also remind you that most western countries still hold some form of christianity as the states official religion. A religion who's book is just as rubbish.

Given my initial comment in this thread, it doesn't seem reasonable for anyone to infer that my stance is anti-Islam.


Yeah, there's definitely some crossed wires here.

To be clear, once again. The text of mine you've quoted was directly in response to Pprt. As evidenced by me quoting him. It's not directed at Condell, but at the particular quote of Pprt. Capiche?

As for "equating" the two cultures. Clearly I'm not saying they are equal. That is obviously abused. I am responding to Pprt's superior attitude by reminding him or her that all the foundations of the studies he or she mentioned have much to do with the east, more than he or she may know.

The second paragraph of the text you've quoted was again, in direct response to Pprt's statement "refuse to admit that a book written 1,400 years ago may not be 100% relevant in this era." I'm reminding him or her that the bible is just as irrelevant, and there are plenty of western countries who hold that book with much importance.

You're not talking to some religious, fox news nutter, mate.

The UK government has already sanctioned the recognition of Sharia courts, this was not a submission to Sharia law as claimed by people by Pat Condell and other sensationalists, but rather "applied to situations where both sides in a legal dispute freely choose a Sharia court as a binding arbitrator rather than taking a matter before the official courts."

"The decision does not break new ground. The decisions of similar Jewish Beth Din court arbitations have been recognized in England for over 100 years. Neither party can be forced into arbitration by a Sharia or a Jewish court."

The imposition of Sharia Law is mistaken in most corners of discussion, Sharia law is simply a religious law system that should be followed by Muslims, that deals with politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, social issues and other everyday issues.

Most do not specifically call for the imposition of these laws directly unto other denominations or people, but rather the creation of separate Islamic courts when dealing with issues relating to Muslims. Which is what the UK has done, in the modern Islamic world dual court systems are maintained specifically to deal with issues depending on the demands of the parties, and further depended on the school of Islamic law being followed.

The issue becomes confused when Western observers extrapolate the practices of states like Saudi Arabia and Taliban Afghanistan and individual incidents as being representative of Sharia Law, when in fact they are usually backward cultural practices. The Pashtun practices seeped into Taliban controlled Afghanistan and has seen the imposition of many inhumane and truly vile practices.

>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:


Your stated criticism of Condell equates the two cultures he's discussing. My argument discusses Sharia Law because the part of Muslim culture that Condell is discussing is extremist Muslim culture, from which the title of the video is derived ("Freedom go to hell.") As well, the problems we associate with Sharia law can also be a problem with people who represent moderate Islam.

Here is your argument in which you equate the two cultures that Condell is discussing:

I assume this "civilisation" you speak of is Brittan, or the west? Most of the foundations of the studies you mentioned were laid down many years before the rise of the west, much of that coming from the ancestors of this so called imported religion.

Let me also remind you that most western countries still hold some form of christianity as the states official religion. A religion who's book is just as rubbish.

Given my initial comment in this thread, it doesn't seem reasonable for anyone to infer that my stance is anti-Islam.

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:

"Hey I know, let's claim that our culture is better than theirs, that's always helpful." Yeah right.

Your claim here appears to be that a scientifically and economically modern culture and a culture of Sharia law are equal. That's a fringe position, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.
The people who emigrated to Britain apparently disagree with you, or they wouldn't have emigrated in the first place.
You might say 'science is just another religion' or something like that, but the difference is that science is a method of knowing that's based on evidence instead of on unreliable personal claims, etc. etc.

As for telling the difference between the two cultures, I have no idea how you've gleaned that from my previous post.

You just wrote a sentence before that that it's impossible to state that one culture is preferable to the other. A Fox News-style denial doesn't work when you're communicating via the written word.


No, chilaxe, that is not my claim at all. I am clearly suggesting that claiming my culture is better than your culture is not helpful.

Let's make something clear. You refer to the so called muslim culture as "culture that simply desires Sharia Law". I have no interest in discussing that with you, as it's a whole other topic. That particular blanketing statement of yours, I'm sure you'll agree, would require much burden of proof.

I still have not stated that I see no difference between the two cultures, or that I don't understand the differences. If you think I have, post the relevant sentence and we'll go from there.

What I am typing and what you are reading seem to be two different things.

just because a bunch of idiots are out there asking for Sharia law you somehow extrapolate it to mean that all people of that faith are the same, they are just as stupid as evangelical Christians. You take the stances of extremists of the religion, broadcast them as being representative of them all and then bitch about how no moderate voices make themselves heard

No, "we" do NOT do that. this is something you just pull out of your ass to use against us. Nobody claims "muslims are all the same" nobody claims "islam always lead to violence" nobody says "keep all muslims out of Europe" (well, some probably do, but not me, and not Condell) These are things you seem to hear even though nobody actually says them. We are fully aware that the religious nutters who wants to end democracy or start a new Holocaust are in the minority, I am perhaps more wooried about the size of that minority, but I still agree that it is a minority, and it certainly does NOT apply to all muslims.

This video and discussion is about bending over backwards to this minority of muslims who really are fascist bullies. It is not a call to label all muslims "the same" or "extremist", its about letting the British and Dutch authorities know that they should get on with their business and hard-fought secular tradition of treating us ALL as EQUALS. By not giving in to threats and terror and insane people. By allowing ALL views, ideologies and religions to be both expressed freely and critizised freely. And that IF EVER there should be an exception to this principle, it should be reserved for those who shamelessly call upon their followers to kill and massacre the people who's views they dislike, and not for those who might intentionally or unintentionally "offend" certain people with their views.

>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:

"Hey I know, let's claim that our culture is better than theirs, that's always helpful." Yeah right.

Your claim here appears to be that a scientifically and economically modern culture and a culture of Sharia law are equal. That's a fringe position, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.

The people who emigrated to Britain apparently disagree with you, or they wouldn't have emigrated in the first place.

You might say 'science is just another religion' or something like that, but the difference is that science is a method of knowing that's based on evidence instead of on unreliable personal claims, etc. etc.


As for telling the difference between the two cultures, I have no idea how you've gleaned that from my previous post.

You just wrote a sentence before that said it's impossible to state that one culture is preferable to the other. A Fox News-style denial doesn't work when you're communicating via the written word.

Oh god would you get over yourselves, just because a bunch of idiots are out there asking for Sharia law you somehow extrapolate it to mean that all people of that faith are the same, they are just as stupid as evangelical Christians. You take the stances of extremists of the religion, broadcast them as being representative of them all and then bitch about how no moderate voices make themselves heard even though they are there everyone from Tariq Ramadan, Imam Qazwini, Hamza Yusuf and Zarqa Nawaz .

Do you people even know what Geert Wilders stands for? He doesn't really have any beef towards Islam, he simply uses it as a political platform to attack the real elephant in the room no one mentions which is IMMIGRATION.

In the US its about Mexicans stealing jobs and weighing down the tax system because they also mostly happen to be Christians, in the Europe the debate is that they are all Muslims and are trying to steal our freedoms. Wilder's own claim is that Europeans will be 'diluted' culturally, wording that is not far from early imposition of segregation in World War 2. Only then Jews stole your money and polluted your minds.

Which is frankly stupid give that European birth rates are so low then need labor injections in the form of immigration to allow for continued Economic growth in the long run.

Netherlands is full of Moroccans, Algerians and Turks, who Wilders wants to be expelled, since alot of them are Muslim it fits in with his political stance.

Fitna was not created to create dialog or public debate, it is simply made to instigate violent confrontations between both parties, that is not public debate, that is simply creation of tension between parties. This is the same argument behind why books like Mein Kampf and the Elder Protocols of Zion are banned around Europe. Wilders himself has stated countless times that the Qu'ran needs to be ripped up, how would Christians feel about those kinds of allegations brought on by any Arab or Asian nation?

If what Fitna presents is factual, the clear logical conclusion is that all believers of Islam are thus extremist, but this flies in the face of large non violent Islamic denominations in the US, greater Europe, countries in the GCC and South East Asia.

As for the claims of Europe being a "Western society which has laid the foundation for the most equitable and enlightened era in human history." I think you need to read about colonialism, World War 2, Falkland Islands, Bosnian War and the involvement in Iraq.

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:

Maze seems too busy trolling while calling others trolls to be able to tell the difference between a science-loving, mostly atheistic Christian society in Europe and a culture that simply desires Sharia Law.


"Hey I know, let's claim that our culture is better than theirs, that's always helpful." Yeah right.

I don't consider it trolling, mate.

As for telling the difference between the two cultures, I have no idea how you've gleaned that from my previous post.

>> ^Maze:


Maze seems too busy trolling while calling others trolls to be able to tell the difference between a science-loving, mostly atheistic Christian society in Europe and a culture that simply desires Sharia Law.

>> ^bcglorf:

Actually, no. If the British and Americans weren't there, Saddam(not Iraqi's) would be killing Kurds and Shia quicker than you can say genocide. Yeah, he might off some Al-Qaeda chaps at the same time too, but I consider the current situation the lesser evil myself. Go read about Saddam's Al-Anfal campaign before pining for the days that Saddam 'kept the peace'.


OK, let's go back even further.

If BP and Winston Churchill didn't go there, there would be noone to overthrow, and Kurdistan would still exist, probably as a very very wealthy country. Sadaam would never have been in power, because there would have been no Iraq for him to stage his coup.

But if we're talking about today, then why not ask what the Iraqis want? Especially the women who now live under strict sharia law, or the children who have no clean water and no schools, or.... we can just go on and on and on about this.

>> ^mefa:
Oh, your god. I get a more fucked up view of the US every time I see something like this. This would NEVER be an issue in Europe, not in any part I know of that is. Noone would even bother putting up one of those billboards, because we don't need them. Most people here are rational and can think for themselves anyway and would not ever believe in a "higher power".
And I think the message is wrong, it should say: "Don't believe in A god." not just 'god'.


Sharia law in the UK, Honor killings in Germany, Turkey in the EU?
Think again mefa. Religious bullshit is all over Europe. Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones.

Save your breath for Sharia law and 18 year old girls that get convicted of Grand Theft for stealing a plastic Christmas lawn ornament that happened to have a $5000 GPS transmitter in it.

This will backfire, considering the vast amounts of freedom the user has to create just about whatever he/she wants. Expect to see vast amounts of visual backlash & abuse hurled towards that king of hypocrites and pedophile of a warlord they call "Prophet".

Afterall, Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. See what I did there?

Me: +1
Sharia Law: 0

We can disagree about Al Jazeera. They've improved in the last year or two, but they lost my trust a while ago and will have to do a lot to regain it.

I certainly agree that big Corporations (international and domestic) need to be hacked up a bit. They have far to much power and influence. I do NOT however buy that they control whether the US goes to war or not. I do NOT believe Iraq was about oil. We haven't seen a drop of it and it has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, a tremendous amount of lives, and more popularity and international influence. Anti-war activists and leftists love to say oil oil oil as much as they can to make those that supported the war look like evil corporate sell-outs. It's a very common political partisan warfare technique VERY often utilized by the left. (The right has its own devious techniques, but the left has mastered this particular one.) Anyway, arguing Iraq is a dead stalemate every time, so it's pointless to go on about it. Bottom line, corps have too much power, but not all the power, AND not all corporations are run by demons bent on greed at all costs. You need a certain breed of board members for that sort of heartlessness.

"Ordinary People" don't want war. That is true. But they do want certain things to be and others not to be and they don't want to be the ones responsible for what it takes to make those things be or not be. For example. The west (primarily America at this point) sees the sudden rise and dominance of staunch Islamic culture in western Europe and does not like what it sees. America is all for religious freedom--heck, we were founded on the concept--but America also values secular governing as well as some level of assimilation of immigrants. In other words, come to America, but if you don't want to be an American, if you want to be a somewhere-else-ian living in America trying to impose somewhere-else-ia's laws, please stay in somewhere-else-ia. Makes sense. America has a set of values, laws, and traditions it holds dear. Seeing sections of western European nations suddenly under a pseudo-official Sharia Law makes most Americans cringe and worry about their rights and their culture. Americans say, "we don't want that in our nation" but they don't want to be responsible for preventing it (or other things). People love to protest things while reaping their benefits. Sad state of affairs. (I'm not saying that example was a war-related one, but it fits otherwise.) One of the major functions of governments and leaders is to make unpopular decisions that are necessary. They lose popularity and even become demonized by some, but the job is done and the public can benefit and still feel innocent about it.

As for the US and S Ossentia? 1%. That is the amount of western oil that comes through that pipeline. We don't need it. We wouldn't START a fight over it, but we would defend it against an aggressor as it is in fact of western interest. We didn't need to fight over it as it was in no danger and we were in no way in danger of losing it. America has no vested interest in S Ossentia. A 1% loss in supply is barely a hick-up, especially as oil demand is now decreasing here at a record pace.

As for America moving ships closer to Iran? GOOD!! Iran has repeated threatened to shut down a HUGE tanker route. Since Israel is scared to death (and rightly so) that they might get nuked in the next couple years, which fits with Ahmadinejad's 12th Imam religious views, they might wind up attacking Iran's uranium enrichment plants. It will CERTAINLY happen if Iran tests a nuclear weapon as N.Korea recently did. If that happens, we still need that route open. If Iran shuts it down, that's a major problem for us here, even if we don't drop a single bomb in that country. This is an almost inevitable confrontation. The USA MUST not fire any first shots though. Not this time. Not ever again. However, did we start this devastating war in Georgia to move our ships? No. That idea REQUIRES that you believe that all those with power in the US are truly evil mass-murders, plain and simple, purely literally. It is fine to think that we may have taken advantage of the situation to make a tactical move, but starting it for that end is a little off the charts. Having forces in an allied nation is not surprising. That does NOT by any means mean we started it or encouraged it in any way shape or form. That leap is loaded with fallacies.

I am far too long winded.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Al Jazeera is an excellent source of news, many BBC journalists work with them and two British journos I know speak very highly to their integrity.

I do indeed distrust the US government as much as I distrust the British government, and I have lived through a 30 year conflict with the British that has opened my eyes to the propaganda regarding international affairs in British news, including the BBC.

It's not a case of me buying into any particular news story. The US has a military presence there to protect oil interests - that's a plain fact. That's what rings the alarm bells for me when suddenly there's a conflict.

It's not about assigning blame, I'm not interested in trying to show where blame lies. That's a childish game and a distraction. Bush is not the emperor at all, I do not believe for a second that Bush is in control of anything whatsoever, the idea that the man is a statesman running a country is plainly ridiculous. He is as much a puppet of corporate America as the Shah in Iran was before the people rose up and put him out of power.

It's all about perception - *why* do you think it is that the same people who think that America blew up the towers to start a war are the people who believe America is behind this conflict? What is at the heart of that perception? It's because the official version of events doesn't ring true to people who have lived through propaganda in their own country.

What is happening in Russia is part of the wider global conflict involving the superpowers, and it's all over resources and investments on a scale that ordinary people can barely comprehend. Russia, China and America/UK are slowly hardening their military and strategic positions around the world.

I don't know the reason why, it could be the beginning of the merging of the 4 big monetary unions into a global economy and central bank/government, it could be that each of them wants greater regional control of the planet, it could be that they are all working together toward a single goal, it could be that they are preparing to go up against each other.

Ordinary people do not want war, the only people who benefit are the super rich and the powerful. Russia rolled mini battlefield nukes into S Ossetia last night, and while the masses of the planet including you and me debate about what is really going on and who is at fault, people are getting slaughtered.

Maybe it's time we put our time and efforts into really trying to get people to talk about peace. Enough really is enough.

Thanks for your message




In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Taking the last part first, I disagree. That aside, I get news from quite a few sources. I am painfully aware of the bias on both sides of these sources. However, based on study, I trust some more than others. For example, Al Jazeera... black listed, "opinion journalists"... suspect, Al Franken and Sean Hanity... grudge match? That's entertainment. My statement that a need for loathing was required to buy this new story 3 days after the war suddenly and almost inexplicably begain was not meant to offend but merely to exaggerate the point that people who tend to distrust the US tend to blame everything in the world on them, even when the coals aren't even ready for burgers. These are the same people who think we detonated our own buildings to start a war over oil, when neither of those clauses is true.

News on this current struggle is so mired in propaganda and selective publication right now, it is hard to make heads or tails of who is at fault, but blaming the US and namely the Bush Admin. is so predictable a cop-out it's cliche anymore. Bush is not the Emperor Palpatine and America is not the Galactic Empire. heh.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It seems they are outing America anyway, Osettians are claiming that the 'west' is behind the Georgian attacks - being reported now on BBC and international news. Of course there is no way for you or I to know one way or the other.

Why do I have to assume a hatred and loathing of America? I'm not claiming anything, and I'm not narrow minded or naive enough to only post news clips which I happen to believe or which happen to fit my own personal ideaology. No need to be defensive. It's not people like us who are making these things happen, we are mere bystanders.

I'm trying to get all the news I can as it rolls in, watching it unfold on the news in different countries gives you a much wider picture rather than sticking to one single news source. The *way* it's being reported in different countries is *as* interesting, if not *more* interesting than the content of the reports.

You aren't convinced by this because you have a preconceived notion that it is 'ludicrous'. That's your culture talking, not you.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I'm not convinced. It still appears to me to be conspiracy theory hogwash. In my eyes, it would require a SERIOUS loathing of America to assume such a thing is true on a whim. America did not "orchestrate" any Georgian action. That's just ludicrous. They would out us since they're being obliterated at the moment, since we're not helping. You have to assume that America is EVIL in order to assume these things. If a naval move is made at the same time, than it is because America is taking the opportunity that has been laid before them. Prime time for easy action.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It sounds like it, but it isn't...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=warships%20gulf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
>> ^Memorare:
read an article today suggesting the aggressive move by Georgia was orchestrated by the US as a strategic diversion to keep Russia busy during a naval blockade of Iran. shrug


Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me. Propaganda.

You did not address the FACT (not fear-mongering) that almost half of Muslims in the UK want to live under Sharia law.

As for as for evangelicals... yeah I haven't really heard them advocating military action to conquer a continent. Well, there was actually a guy called Henry the 3rd and... oh wait that was 800 years ago. Nevermind!

The real tragedy here is that nations and people (Europeans) are culturally and demographically in decline. Perhaps you're a "one-worlder" and celebrate this trend, however I am of the distinct opinion that Europe has contributed immensely to humanity and I judge that its demise would leave a global vacuum.

The biting irony is that there are people like you who have no consideration and seem to revel and encourage the shrinkage of European peoples, however tout horns to protect any other ethnocultural group.