FA+
Shop
845
Views
Views
19
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Current Events / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 364 x 526
File Size 39.3 kB
Report this content
More from elkit
Like I said before, this sort of thing SHOULD NOT be the "New Normal." If things continue as they are, it will be a "normal" where these types of attacks become so commonplace that people become numb to it as they carry on with their 'ordinary lives'. Where racial, ethnic, and religious mistrust on both sides becomes so engrained, that there will be no hope of resolution. A normal where a "multi-generational conflict" will drain countries not only of its soldiers, but economies as well, a war that will last forever. A normal were we will be willing to surrender our freedoms for added security, A world where there will be more leaders like Trump, Dutere, Erdogan and worse. Our future will be the Middle East's present.
Hell should not be the New Normal. We should not allow this to be the New Normal.
Hell should not be the New Normal. We should not allow this to be the New Normal.
Category Current Events / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 364 x 526px
File Size 39.3 kB
Very well said. These things are fed by blind distrust and fear. My second reaction to most such atrocities is, "Why? What is hurting you so badly that you're willing to kill at random to make a point? What can we do to help heal that?"
Incidentally, as I'm pretty sore over BRexit, my first reaction to seeing your image was, "oh, did Scotland fast track a referendum and are leaving the union?"
Incidentally, as I'm pretty sore over BRexit, my first reaction to seeing your image was, "oh, did Scotland fast track a referendum and are leaving the union?"
Except what you just said doesn't match most branches of Islam. WBC is Christian and follows Christian faith to a fundamentalist degree, but not all Christians think leviticus should be obeyed.
Wahabilism isn't the branch that most Muslims follow, and is barely existent in the UK. A few radicals, that's it.
Also, Islam is the second biggest faith in the UK. Over 3 million followers. 4% of the total population. That's a lot of people to say "you can't pray that way" to.
Wahabilism isn't the branch that most Muslims follow, and is barely existent in the UK. A few radicals, that's it.
Also, Islam is the second biggest faith in the UK. Over 3 million followers. 4% of the total population. That's a lot of people to say "you can't pray that way" to.
These are not prayers. These are acts of violence
See, you've jumped from banning Islam to saying that "Muslims pray by blowing themselves up and killing people". And that's just not true for the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the UK, and Muslims in general.
You want to ban the entire religion because of a very small minority. Why didn't we ban Christianity when the Christian armies of Africa (the likes of Kony) were kidnapping children? Or banning Christianity when the WBC celebrated the slaughter at Pulse?
If you cannot see how this religion is in need of a reform...
See, that doesn't mean "Get Islam out of Europe" (or to quote you directly: 'cracking down on the pass it has gotten for religious expression'). Breaking the law isn't covered by "religious expression", and if the WBC was in the UK, it's vocal members would have been arrested or legally fined a long time ago. You can't say shit like that in the UK, you don't have that level of free speech or "religious expression". Speaking in support of a group like IS or Al-Queda might get you arrested. Attempting to join or help them will get you arrested (because being a member of a terrorist group is against UK law).
I'm especially concerned as to whether or not the study checked for UK Citizenship.
Most of the terrorists that have attacked London since 7/7 were born in the UK and lived most of their lives there. Same with the spate of terrorists in the US: they were mostly born there.
See, you've jumped from banning Islam to saying that "Muslims pray by blowing themselves up and killing people". And that's just not true for the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the UK, and Muslims in general.
You want to ban the entire religion because of a very small minority. Why didn't we ban Christianity when the Christian armies of Africa (the likes of Kony) were kidnapping children? Or banning Christianity when the WBC celebrated the slaughter at Pulse?
If you cannot see how this religion is in need of a reform...
See, that doesn't mean "Get Islam out of Europe" (or to quote you directly: 'cracking down on the pass it has gotten for religious expression'). Breaking the law isn't covered by "religious expression", and if the WBC was in the UK, it's vocal members would have been arrested or legally fined a long time ago. You can't say shit like that in the UK, you don't have that level of free speech or "religious expression". Speaking in support of a group like IS or Al-Queda might get you arrested. Attempting to join or help them will get you arrested (because being a member of a terrorist group is against UK law).
I'm especially concerned as to whether or not the study checked for UK Citizenship.
Most of the terrorists that have attacked London since 7/7 were born in the UK and lived most of their lives there. Same with the spate of terrorists in the US: they were mostly born there.
My point was to say that the examples of extremism are not prayers like you had previously said. They are attacks, plain and simple. You were the one who seems to think that we want Islam banned
Because I'm responding to a guy who said: Get islam out of Europe!
That's a pretty clear call for a ban. Not "get Wahabi out", or "get extremists out".
Because I'm responding to a guy who said: Get islam out of Europe!
That's a pretty clear call for a ban. Not "get Wahabi out", or "get extremists out".
Well, considering you seem to ba a writer, you should be able to tell what exaggeration is... I can't speak on behalf of the person, but I'd say it's a safe bet they would have no problems with a westernized, practicing Muslim. As long as they're doing no harm.
That being said, you have responded to them Once, you've responded to me several times, and remarkably lazier each time. Unfortunately, I cannot see you going further than to make the same point as to not ban Islam repeatedly because it's the only point you have and seem to lack the ability to even consider why someone would hold the view on banning Islam in the first place.
That being said, you have responded to them Once, you've responded to me several times, and remarkably lazier each time. Unfortunately, I cannot see you going further than to make the same point as to not ban Islam repeatedly because it's the only point you have and seem to lack the ability to even consider why someone would hold the view on banning Islam in the first place.
Yes, I have no reason to suspect he would. But again, you really seem to be lacking either basic comprehension or humility to admit you may be wrong. Even in the case of Trump, it's the discussion of the same "extremists," and doing something about it. But knowing people like you, who are so adamant in your political game of Red Vs. Blue, you won't even consider the thought that you might be wrong.
...And that is why your lot lost the election.
...And that is why your lot lost the election.
Even in the case of Trump, it's the discussion of the same "extremists,"
He wanted to ban ALL Muslims coming into America. He said it. Directly and unambiguously.
...And that is why your lot lost the election.
Honey, which elections do you think I can vote in?
London elected a Muslim mayor. France elected a centralist president. The Conservatives look likely to lose the UK general election.
And Trump got millions of votes fewer than Hillary (and Hillary was a bad choice to begin with!). Truly, it is only in American that he could win.
And I am not in any of those countries. So I could take part in none of those votes.
He wanted to ban ALL Muslims coming into America. He said it. Directly and unambiguously.
...And that is why your lot lost the election.
Honey, which elections do you think I can vote in?
London elected a Muslim mayor. France elected a centralist president. The Conservatives look likely to lose the UK general election.
And Trump got millions of votes fewer than Hillary (and Hillary was a bad choice to begin with!). Truly, it is only in American that he could win.
And I am not in any of those countries. So I could take part in none of those votes.
"Until our nation's representatives figure out what the hell is going on." How many times do your entire lot miss that last part? It came right after, you can not tell me you all happened to stop watching just after that so conveniently.
And notice I said your lot, not you in particular. But there are many people in America who hold your same ideologies with the same logical fallacies and lost because of those same fallacies. People in America were not going to be alienated on the bullshit grounds of "Diversity."
Also, if you think the popular vote means jack shit in America, then you don't know a damn thing about it, and why we have the electoral college. Long story short, California and NYC are heavily populated areas with a longstanding liberal leaning. If we didn't have the Electoral College, Liberals would always win the election, because the vast majority of people in both those areas favor liberal ideas. Essentially we'd have the entire country catering to only one state and one city.
So how about you cool the attempt to be condescending, you're only furthering the point that people are sick of the liberal's shit. It's for this exact reason. The lack of any attempt of debate, the condescending attitude, and valuing foreigners life over others, because you can't be racist.
And notice I said your lot, not you in particular. But there are many people in America who hold your same ideologies with the same logical fallacies and lost because of those same fallacies. People in America were not going to be alienated on the bullshit grounds of "Diversity."
Also, if you think the popular vote means jack shit in America, then you don't know a damn thing about it, and why we have the electoral college. Long story short, California and NYC are heavily populated areas with a longstanding liberal leaning. If we didn't have the Electoral College, Liberals would always win the election, because the vast majority of people in both those areas favor liberal ideas. Essentially we'd have the entire country catering to only one state and one city.
So how about you cool the attempt to be condescending, you're only furthering the point that people are sick of the liberal's shit. It's for this exact reason. The lack of any attempt of debate, the condescending attitude, and valuing foreigners life over others, because you can't be racist.
I know why you have the colleges. So rural areas can have 3 times the voting power of densely populated states. You don't have "1 person, 1 vote", or anything close to that. And that's without going into the fact that "John Ewards" got 1 vote from the collegate a few elections ago. You don't directly vote for your Executive Branch. You vote to say "I want you [collegate] to vote for this guy/gal" - and they're not even legally bound to do that. And in areas where they are technically legally bound, they still can't be forced or over-turned.
I mean, most countries have a system where politicians form their own class. But the US has it so entrenched that you can't even stop that class from acting in their own interests by voting.
and valuing foreigners life over others,
One life is worth one life, mate.
An eye for an eye, making the whole world blind.
I mean, most countries have a system where politicians form their own class. But the US has it so entrenched that you can't even stop that class from acting in their own interests by voting.
and valuing foreigners life over others,
One life is worth one life, mate.
An eye for an eye, making the whole world blind.
I literally just explained the reality of why we have the colleges, and you still try to be snarky. Yes, there are some states where the collegate is not legally required to vote for their state's decision. You're not the only one who watches Adam Ruins Everything. But once again, it's either the colleges or California rules everything. It's not a perfect system, I will admit that. But I will say it yet again, it's to prevent the election coming down to only the most populated areas, because political ideas can vary based on where someone lives and what they do for a living.
Also, try not to contradict yourself by quoting me saying "Valuing foreigner's live OVER others" then proceeding to say One life is worth one life. I'm accusing you of believing that you see a foreigner's life as more valuable than that of your countryman, and it's sad that I apparently have to spell everything out for you.
Also, try not to contradict yourself by quoting me saying "Valuing foreigner's live OVER others" then proceeding to say One life is worth one life. I'm accusing you of believing that you see a foreigner's life as more valuable than that of your countryman, and it's sad that I apparently have to spell everything out for you.
I don't see an easy resolution to this. We either go against our own principals of individual liberty by monitoring people, and freedom of speech by going into mosques and silencing people preaching Wahabi and Salafi islam. Or, we resign ourselves to these kinds of attacks becoming a weekly event and brace for the inevitable civil unrest when the population at large has had enough. Either way we compromise on something we hold dear to ourselves; our freedoms or our peace.
I don't think the current situation can hold out much longer. Talking about resiliance and resolve, about coming together in the wake of attacks like this is very pretty, but they're toothless words. None of our prospective leaders across all of Europe have a plan other than to hold the status quo and sooner or later mobs will start taking the law into their own hands. A lot of people feel like we're under attack. Offering platitudes and burying heads in the sand will not help; it will only make inevitable through inaction exactly the sort of persecution they are hoping to forestall.
The only way to solve this without bloodshed is to acknowledge there are plenty of ass-backwards aspects of Islam and stop making apologies for them. No, not all Muslims- but in the UK this is a problem with Islam and Islam damn near exclusively. Our laws are not mutable in the face of religeon. We do not tollerate violence for any reason. We do not recognise the privilaged status of one religeon over another, and if there is a conflict between your beliefs and someone else's rights, their rights take precidence every time. This is the price of western democracy, and if it is irreconcilable with an individual's beliefs they likely have no place here. If Wahabi and Salafi Islam cannot be reformed from within, perhaps it is time to force reform on it from outside. And, if that intrusion or reshaping of their values is unacceptable to those fundamentalist adherents, offer transit to places where their dogma is not at odds with the law and values of the land they inhabit. Otherwise they will only see our values as oppressive, and we will only see their agitation as a threat.
I don't think the current situation can hold out much longer. Talking about resiliance and resolve, about coming together in the wake of attacks like this is very pretty, but they're toothless words. None of our prospective leaders across all of Europe have a plan other than to hold the status quo and sooner or later mobs will start taking the law into their own hands. A lot of people feel like we're under attack. Offering platitudes and burying heads in the sand will not help; it will only make inevitable through inaction exactly the sort of persecution they are hoping to forestall.
The only way to solve this without bloodshed is to acknowledge there are plenty of ass-backwards aspects of Islam and stop making apologies for them. No, not all Muslims- but in the UK this is a problem with Islam and Islam damn near exclusively. Our laws are not mutable in the face of religeon. We do not tollerate violence for any reason. We do not recognise the privilaged status of one religeon over another, and if there is a conflict between your beliefs and someone else's rights, their rights take precidence every time. This is the price of western democracy, and if it is irreconcilable with an individual's beliefs they likely have no place here. If Wahabi and Salafi Islam cannot be reformed from within, perhaps it is time to force reform on it from outside. And, if that intrusion or reshaping of their values is unacceptable to those fundamentalist adherents, offer transit to places where their dogma is not at odds with the law and values of the land they inhabit. Otherwise they will only see our values as oppressive, and we will only see their agitation as a threat.
Honestly, I think a large issue is a lack of engagement on the ground level. There's insufficient awareness of what is going on in the secular communities, communities which should be integrated into the larger community at large. This shouldn't be an issue of us vs them, because we are supposed to be one people. Granted, it does mean there should also be some sacrifice of freedom, BUT it should never be about kicking a group of people out, but of managing individuals who step out of the line.
This also of course should also mean a greater balancing of resources to these secular communities too; Only when they feel like they are part of a whole, will they not want to destroy the hole they are part of, and set themselves into a self correcting circle where people in said societies themselves will help to keep society intact by reporting others who grievously step out of line.
Admittedly, it also means that we need to reduce, or stop refugee intake, at least for the moment. Not because we do not want them, but because these secular communities need as much help as said refugees. If we can't even treat our residents right, how can we treat our guests?
This also of course should also mean a greater balancing of resources to these secular communities too; Only when they feel like they are part of a whole, will they not want to destroy the hole they are part of, and set themselves into a self correcting circle where people in said societies themselves will help to keep society intact by reporting others who grievously step out of line.
Admittedly, it also means that we need to reduce, or stop refugee intake, at least for the moment. Not because we do not want them, but because these secular communities need as much help as said refugees. If we can't even treat our residents right, how can we treat our guests?
I live in the US, so maybe I'm just too far from this latest attack, but I wish people wouldn't condemn -all- Middle Easterners, Muslims, etc., for the horrible and reprehensible actions of a few.
I mean, don't most of us furries take that stance, anyway? Not to trivialize terrorism or terror attacks, but I hear a lot of pissing and moaning on the part of certain furs, when they worry about the actions/interests of a few of us reflecting on / representing all of us...
I mean, don't most of us furries take that stance, anyway? Not to trivialize terrorism or terror attacks, but I hear a lot of pissing and moaning on the part of certain furs, when they worry about the actions/interests of a few of us reflecting on / representing all of us...
That's fair. I appreciate the measured response - I was kind of afraid that I'd provoke some angry comments or something...
I appreciate the information, too. I'm slowly reading an English translation of the Qu'ran, personally, just so that I can be informed, and yeah, I have come across at least one passage, talking about making war on the nonbelievers.
I wish I could respond with something more intelligent, but work is kicking my butt this week, so...yeah. My brain's not working so good, tonight. I just wish everyone could get along/stop attacking each other, regardless of faith/nationality...
I appreciate the information, too. I'm slowly reading an English translation of the Qu'ran, personally, just so that I can be informed, and yeah, I have come across at least one passage, talking about making war on the nonbelievers.
I wish I could respond with something more intelligent, but work is kicking my butt this week, so...yeah. My brain's not working so good, tonight. I just wish everyone could get along/stop attacking each other, regardless of faith/nationality...
Comments