How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

[Guest Iain C]

No. It's not "our job" to do anything of the sort, you imperialist shitheel.

[syd syside]

No. It's not "our job" to do anything of the sort, you imperialist shitheel.

 

So human oppression is cool with you? We live in a vacuum and because all the Muslims you know are cool, its all cool. So let's just call people racists and laugh at concerns.

 

Cool. lol

[Guest Iain C]

Something I've come to realise about you, Compson, is that you don't really have any thought-out opinions of your own. That's why almost every post you make is just copied and pasted from somewhere else. There's nothing tying it together. That's why you can change your position as the wind blows - one minute Islam itself is fundamentally incompatible with secularism and peace, the next minute it's Islam being used to justify "evil" cultural practices, one minute it's by far the worst religion, the next you criticise all religions. One minute you don't know what the solution to the worlds problems are, the next you're proposing immediate military intervention in north Korea and god knows where else.

 

You're a fucking void. There's nothing there except pure reaction. It's pretty funny given you no doubt consider yourself a champion of rationalism.

[Guest Iain C]

 

So human oppression is cool with you?

What do you think happens when western nations intervene in Muslim countries on supposedly humanitarian grounds? Think carefully about your answer and respond, showing your working, and with relevant examples from the last ten years of history. Prick.

[syd syside]

I'll respond in reverse order.

 

Who said I could intervene/invade Muslim nations? I'm simply criticizing. That's why I also mentioned to not really know what the solution is. But I understand that diplomatic pressure as well as international protests etc do help convey our ideals better than the alternative of letting politicians/government/media represent us. I can be against Islamic extremists and brutal foreign wars at the same time. Conveniently our two party system wants us divided on this...

 

In regards to not having any ideas of my own. It's kind of hard on a subject like Religion. It's been around for so long that of course the opinions for and against date back through the centuries. I can only read other ideas, polls, and history to formulate where I stand. And I proudly stand against Christianity/Catholicism and Islam.

 

I may do a poor job of articulating my ideas sometimes, even though none of the examples you used were "wish washy" or incompatible. The proof that Islam is the biggest threat is that there are still Islamic states. They aren't secular, so they breed the intolerance that is within the religion. Therefore there are more extremist religious fanatics in non-secular states than secular states. Therefore Islam justifies the greatest amount of intolerance and violence today.

 

GoDel explained it much better a few pages back.

[syd syside]

 

 

You don't know any Muslims though, do you?

 

I don't know anyone who practices Islam...

 

then nothing you say in this sphere can be taken seriously, can it? you have no first-hand experience of any of what you're talking about. I mean, there are a shitload of social & political scientists out there who are super-educated and experienced in these matters and even they can't solve the problem, so what makes you think you've got any answers from your sheltered neck of the woods? your discussion ain't even discussion, I've never seen you take away a single point of understanding from anybody else.

 

I don't have first hand experience with racism towards me but I still condemn racists.

 

 

moving along...

[syd syside]

lol @ that equivalence

 

How about, I don't have female parts but I still think women should have the right to choose?

 

Just because I don't know anyone who lives in Tokyo doesn't mean I didn't care about their recent earthquake. Religious fascist states are not a place I would have wanted to be born into. And I hope through more conscious awareness people being oppressed in those regions realize they have support from other people around the world. That they are not simply forgotten and ignored because its not politically correct to speak up against religious fanatics.

[zkom]

The islamic states are the ones that have the most intolerance and violence.

 

OK, the state religions in Islamic countries may make them more religiously intolerant but are they necessarily the most violent?

 

I'm looking at the homicide rates by country and the top 10 looks like this:

1. Honduras

2. El Salvador

3. Côte d'Ivoire

4. Jamaica

5. Venezuela

6. Belize

7. US Virgin Islands

8. Guatemala

9. St. Kitts and Nevis

10. Zambia

 

Out of which Côte d'Ivoire is the only one with major muslim population..

 

I would feel much safer travelling in the mostly Islamic countries of Turkey, Egypt or Morocco than most of the Christian South America.. Even though I'm an agnostic white nordic guy.

[goDel]

I'll respond in reverse order.

 

 

GoDel explained it much better a few pages back.

 

You mean my porn post? Or that other post which had no influence on this discussion whatsoever?

 

I still think you are all wrong and I'm right though.

 

 

 

So human oppression is cool with you?

What do you think happens when western nations intervene in Muslim countries on supposedly humanitarian grounds? Think carefully about your answer and respond, showing your working, and with relevant examples from the last ten years of history. Prick.

What do you think would be a good way to solve the Syria situation? No intervention whatsoever? Only humanitarian intervention? Military intervention? Ehm, prick?

[syd syside]

 

The islamic states are the ones that have the most intolerance and violence.

 

OK, the state religions in Islamic countries may make them more religiously intolerant but are they necessarily the most violent?

 

I'm looking at the homicide rates by country and the top 10 looks like this:

1. Honduras

2. El Salvador

3. Côte d'Ivoire

4. Jamaica

5. Venezuela

6. Belize

7. US Virgin Islands

8. Guatemala

9. St. Kitts and Nevis

10. Zambia

 

Out of which Côte d'Ivoire is the only one with major muslim population..

 

I would feel much safer travelling in the mostly Islamic countries of Turkey, Egypt or Morocco than most of the Christian South America.. Even though I'm an agnostic white nordic guy.

 

I meant in that region. From the link:

 

[chenGOD]

The proof that Islam is the biggest threat is that there are still Islamic states.

I was sitting in a Tim Horton's, the day logic died on WATMM.

[goDel]

*checks whether or not I currently live in a judeo-christian state *

[chenGOD]

Also, as far as I understand things, northern africa is far more Islamic than eastern africa. yet they have a lower murder rate.

[Friendly Foil]

I personally believe that Jesus and Muhammad were good pals. Maybe even married. As friends, of course.

 

If they coulf live in peace, so can we. No more fighting.

[psn]

i just don't care. I guess the right label for someone like me would be agnostic.

 

You're an apatheist.

[Guest Iain C]

Edit: this is in reply to godel above, I'm typing this on a tablet and it takes for ever.

 

 

I don't know. Nor have i claimed to. Im nowhere near qualified or well informed enough to make that assertion.

 

National liberation struggles are a tricky one. As a socialist I'm against any form of nationalism, but they can give voice to many legitimate struggles against oppression.

 

Speaking generally, God knows I'd be very sceptical of any military intervention. I hope the rebels can topple Assad - its always good to see a fascist swing - but based on what's happened over the past couple of years in Egypt, I'm doubtful that any subsequent regime would be any better. It's only a matter of time before capital and its agents reassert themselves. While there are no doubt principled and good fighters in the resistance, there are immensely powerful global interests working against them and for the continuation of the status quo.

 

Because capitalism is at the root of global inequality and violence. it's a good state of affairs for those on top.

 

That's my last word on this thread for now, im going on three hours sleep and I have a plane to catch

[goDel]

Also, as far as I understand things, northern africa is far more Islamic than eastern africa. yet they have a lower murder rate.

 

Supposedly the murder rates in Northern Korea are pretty low as well. This implies a perfectly fine functioning civilisation, I guess.

 

I don't know. Nor have i claimed to. Im nowhere near qualified or well informed enough to make that assertion.

 

National liberation struggles are a tricky one. As a socialist I'm against any form of nationalism, but they can give voice to many legitimate struggles against oppression.

 

Speaking generally, God knows I'd be very sceptical of any military intervention. I hope the rebels can topple Assad - its always good to see a fascist swing - but based on what's happened over the past couple of years in Egypt, I'm doubtful that any subsequent regime would be any better. It's only a matter of time before capital and its agents reassert themselves. While there are no doubt principled and good fighters in the resistance, there are immensely powerful global interests working against them and for the continuation of the status quo.

 

Because capitalism is at the root of global inequality and violence. it's a good state of affairs for those on top.

Sorry, but that's pretty ignorant. Apparently people in Syria are being killed in the name of capitalism. Where to start....

 

O_o

[Guest Iain C]

No, capitalist powers in the west have a history of supporting strongman dictatorships across the world, like assad and mubarak and for a time Hussein, because its in their interests to do so. Thats not ignorant, it's fact.

[MisterE]

you guys who are suggesting that anyone who doesn't 'know a muslim' can't talk about islam or about the middle-east and the wide-spread cruelty/abuse/injustice aimed at women, or the generally childish behavior of the 'men' in those regions, are complete and utter 100% idiots.

 

that's like saying nobody can talk about space unless you've been there.

 

lain c, i see that you actually are an intelligent thinking person and i acknowledge that you actually do seem to think about your own stances on things. but i also remember how in the hemp thread you admitted that yes, there is a large thread in the 'pro-hemp' movement of people who are really just wanting to get pot legalized, but then you said you were totally ok with that dishonesty if it helps accomplish the end goal (presumably of getting weed legalized). here's what you said:

"Their propaganda would always rail about the world-saving prospects of industrial hemp - how it could be our only source of paper, fuel, food, textiles and all the rest of it.

Even then, it seemed like the wishful thinking of a bunch of activists who really, honestly, just wanted to smoke pot and get high. I've no objection to that, even with the aggressively dumb culture that surrounds it"

 

so you seem to be an example of the kind of person who thinks that lying is ok as long as it accomplishes a political goal. i'm sure it's just a funny coincidence, but you also see people making the accusation that muslims think it's ok to lie to infidels, and here you are converting to islam. at any rate, my question to you is, why should anyone take anything you say seriously, if you actually openly feel that it's ok to lie to accomplish political goals? it's ok to condemn companies for not using hemp by suggesting they are involved in some conspiracy to suppress something that will save the planet, when really all you want is to get high? you have no problem with that? how about if you don't like a coworker, would it be ok to lie about that person to get them fired? would it be ok to spread slanderous lies about a politician if you don't agree with their ideology? to me you really seem like the kind of person who feels that dishonesty is justified if it gets you what you want.

 

i don't know if compson thinks his stances on issues out as much as you, but i perceive him to have a hell of a lot more integrity than you.

[Guest Iain C]

Mate, I never said that was okay. I think it's fucking stupid. I was agreeing with you in that thread

 

What I said i have no objection to is people wanting to get high! Youve simply misread me.

[chenGOD]

 

Also, as far as I understand things, northern africa is far more Islamic than eastern africa. yet they have a lower murder rate.

 

Supposedly the murder rates in Northern Korea are pretty low as well. This implies a perfectly fine functioning civilisation, I guess.

 

compson specifically stated that the Islamic states in Africa had the highest murder rates. I was merely pointing out that the statement was factually incorrect. No need to bring irrelevant strawmen into the discussion.

[zkom]

 

Also, as far as I understand things, northern africa is far more Islamic than eastern africa. yet they have a lower murder rate.

 

Supposedly the murder rates in Northern Korea are pretty low as well. This implies a perfectly fine functioning civilisation, I guess.

 

Totalitarian state DOES have it's own good points.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Makes a joke about trains running on time.)

 

[LimpyLoo]

MisterE, you had me there for a couple paragraphs but then you lost me.

 

 

Lying is not necessarily immoral. For instance, if you are gay and you live in a gay-hostile environment (perhaps in a country where homosexuality is punishable by death) then lying about your sexual orientation is obviously the way to go.

 

 

The fact that hemp is illegal is stupid. The fact that marijuana is illegal is stupid. If a stoner supported legalizing hemp as part of a grand-scheme attempt to legalize marijuana......who cares?!?

 

 

That just seems like such a weird petty detail to amplify and build a case on...

[MisterE]

Mate, I never said that was okay. I think it's fucking stupid. I was agreeing with you in that thread

 

What I said i have no objection to is people wanting to get high! Youve simply misread me.

ok maybe so but it seems hard to misread it, it's right there in the quote and the surrounding context doesn't seem to alter it any. i saw that you were agreeing with me about it being there, but it seemed that you were ok with it. but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Guest isaki]