Christchurch Shootings

First topic message reminder :

(CNN)Police in the New Zealand city of Christchurch said that there are "multiple fatalities" after active shooters opened fire in two mosques in the city center.

Police Commissioner Mike Bush said that one person is in custody but police are unsure if there are any other suspects.
"As far as we know (the shootings occurred) at two locations, a mosque at Deans Avenue, and another mosque at Linwood Avenue," Bush said. "We are unsure if there are any other locations outside of that area that are under threat."
Bush said they were "dealing with a very serious and tragic series of events in the Christchurch Canterbury area" and warned people to stay off the streets. He asked "anyone who was thinking of going to a mosque anywhere in New Zealand today not to go. To close your doors until you hear from us again," he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/asia/christchurch-mosque-shooting-intl/index.html

Kind seemed like this little corner of the world was free from this nonsense.

Guess not. Guess it can happen anywhere.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/16/white-supremacy-white-isis-new-zealand-reaction-sot-wajahat-ali-nr-vpx.cnn

"Panelist calls white supremacy 'white ISIS'"

I agree...

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

And me? I think you're a nice chap Les, but perhaps you shouldn't be encouraging Wolfman and pandering to his outbursts and false accusations.

I understand his anger at a lot of the more extreme RW view points on this forum (beyond just this thread).

Let me be clear, I do not support sexist comments against any of the female posters, nor do I agree with him that anyone supports what this killer did. But I understand his disgust at a lot of things said here.

It can be irritating from a liberal pov how often extreme or more conservative social views are expressed and accepted as commonplace or perfectly fine. For me, I will always challenge these from whoever.

Of course I wish wolf would challenge these without the insults.

What things? The only person I can see on here who's said anything disgusting is Wolfie and Smelly.

Lurker wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/16/white-supremacy-white-isis-new-zealand-reaction-sot-wajahat-ali-nr-vpx.cnn

"Panelist calls white supremacy 'white ISIS'"

I agree...

Nah. White supremacists aren't Islamic, that's just lazy. They're also not forming into whole communities and taking over huge areas.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lurker wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/16/white-supremacy-white-isis-new-zealand-reaction-sot-wajahat-ali-nr-vpx.cnn

"Panelist calls white supremacy 'white ISIS'"

I agree...

Nah. White supremacists aren't Islamic, that's just lazy. They're also not forming into whole communities and taking over huge areas.

They're the lunatic fringe. Most normal people know that and don't give them either air time or real time.

I'm not going to go back and read all of this, but it's seems crazy to me that this guys first interaction with the police was 30 minutes after his first shot. If NZ is going to further reduce its citizens rights to self defense, it's going to have to do a far better job of defending it's citizens. In an urban area like that, police need to be engaging a shooter in 5 minutes or less.

The heroic police officers who brought an end to the New Zealand mosque killer's rampage have revealed how they tracked down the shooter - after coming straight from a training session on how to deal with armed criminals.

Yesterday, an image emerged showing two officers surrounding 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant after he allegedly opened fire on hundreds of worshipers at two mosques in Christchurch on Friday.

The brutal killing spree, which the shooter sickeningly live-streamed on Facebook, left 50 dead including children, a renowned heart surgeon and a talented sportsman who were murdered as they prayed.

Today, the officers who brought the horrific incident to an end have revealed the snap decisions they had to make when trying to bring the gunman's car to a stop, as he weaved in and out of lanes with his hazard lights on.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6819419/Hero-police-reveal-brought-New-Zealand-mosque-massacre-end.html

Maddog wrote:I'm not going to go back and read all of this, but it's seems crazy to me that this guys first interaction with the police was 30 minutes after his first shot.  If NZ is going to further reduce its citizens rights to self defense, it's going to have to do a far better job of defending it's citizens.  In an urban area like that, police need to be engaging a shooter in 5 minutes or less.  

I imagine that if Christchurch was the type of place where people get shot all the time, the police would have responded far faster.

You can't fault leaders for providing the level of police service that an area seems to require. No need for a low-crime area to be patrolled like a war zone.

Let's also remember that a few weeks ago over a hundred Christians were shot dead by Muslims and their Church was burned , and the Media pretty well ignored it ! [In Nigeria].Not excusing the scum in New Zealand by the way !

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lurker wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/16/white-supremacy-white-isis-new-zealand-reaction-sot-wajahat-ali-nr-vpx.cnn

"Panelist calls white supremacy 'white ISIS'"

I agree...

Nah. White supremacists aren't Islamic, that's just lazy. They're also not forming into whole communities and taking over huge areas.

It's not about their race or religion, it's about their belief-based violence. Muslims forming communities and "taking over huge areas" are nonetheless not shooting 50 people because of their warped views.

White ISIS is an apt description for white supremacists, but not the vast majority of white people, just as "terrorist" is an apt description for an ISIS member, but not for the vast majority of Muslims.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:I'm not going to go back and read all of this, but it's seems crazy to me that this guys first interaction with the police was 30 minutes after his first shot.  If NZ is going to further reduce its citizens rights to self defense, it's going to have to do a far better job of defending it's citizens.  In an urban area like that, police need to be engaging a shooter in 5 minutes or less.  

I imagine that if Christchurch was the type of place where people get shot all the time, the police would have responded far faster.

You can't fault leaders for providing the level of police service that an area seems to require. No need for a low-crime area to be patrolled like a war zone.

How many shootings do you think Southlake has?

Do you think it would take those cops 30 minutes to engage?

I get the differences, but 30 minutes? That's a while fucking sitcom you can watch before they show up.

eddie wrote:

I saw him on the video.

He was defenseless and threw himself at the shooter.  

Heroic and tragic at the same time.

And there is the guy at the end that ran the shooter out by throwing things at him.  

These shooters are almost always giant vaginas that will run away or surrender when faces with some real opposition.

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

I imagine that if Christchurch was the type of place where people get shot all the time, the police would have responded far faster.

You can't fault leaders for providing the level of police service that an area seems to require. No need for a low-crime area to be patrolled like a war zone.

How many shootings do you think Southlake has?  

Do you think it would take those cops 30 minutes to engage?

I get the differences, but 30 minutes? That's a while fucking sitcom you can watch before they show up.  

There is a big reason why. As New Zealand cops do not carry firearms and have to call on special armed force units into action

The Police in that country has used lethal 40 times in 100 years

When the Police arrived at the first Mosque he had moved on. He had moved on again from the second, so they were having to chase and locate the suspect

Its really a tad unfair to have a go at the Police there, when they have low crime rates.

I am sure a review will happen due to this

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:I'm not going to go back and read all of this, but it's seems crazy to me that this guys first interaction with the police was 30 minutes after his first shot.  If NZ is going to further reduce its citizens rights to self defense, it's going to have to do a far better job of defending it's citizens.  In an urban area like that, police need to be engaging a shooter in 5 minutes or less.  

I imagine that if Christchurch was the type of place where people get shot all the time, the police would have responded far faster.

You can't fault leaders for providing the level of police service that an area seems to require. No need for a low-crime area to be patrolled like a war zone.

How many shootings do you think Southlake has?  

Do you think it would take those cops 30 minutes to engage?

I get the differences, but 30 minutes? That's a while fucking sitcom you can watch before they show up.  

In Southlake people are legally allowed to own guns, and I think that any country that has banned guns probably finds it far less necessary to be able to dispatch police instantaneously.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How many shootings do you think Southlake has?  

Do you think it would take those cops 30 minutes to engage?

I get the differences, but 30 minutes? That's a while fucking sitcom you can watch before they show up.  

In Southlake people are legally allowed to own guns, and I think that any country that has banned guns probably finds it far less necessary to be able to dispatch police instantaneously.

Well, NZ allows for semi auto rifles. They have gun laws more like the Nordic countries. They have about 1 gun for every 3 citizens.

Also, I think if a woman calls and says a man is coming through her window with a knife, she should expect to see a cop in far less than 30 minutes.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nah. White supremacists aren't Islamic, that's just lazy. They're also not forming into whole communities and taking over huge areas.

It's not about their race or religion, it's about their belief-based violence. Muslims forming communities and "taking over huge areas" are nonetheless not shooting 50 people because of their warped views.

White ISIS is an apt description for white supremacists, but not the vast majority of white people, just as "terrorist" is an apt description for an ISIS member, but not for the vast majority of Muslims.

No, that's just lazy thinking IMO. I didn't say that Muslims were forming whole communities and taking over huge areas, I said ISIS were (or they did) - ie, in Syria and Iraq. White supremacists aren't doing that.

Lurker wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/16/white-supremacy-white-isis-new-zealand-reaction-sot-wajahat-ali-nr-vpx.cnn

"Panelist calls white supremacy 'white ISIS'"

I agree...

That would be fake news CNN then???

Are you aware that Ben has a no fake news policy on here, and you've just violated it???

Andy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:We need to be careful about what here.

Are we sure this person is white?? They could be racially non binary or even identify as black

And of course simply looking at a person is no way to determine their gender, even having a penis is no garauntee that you're a man

So rushing to conclude this is a white male who carried out this attack is hugely insensitive to the LGBTQ+ community.

Second

We must be sensitive to these individuals who are clearly suffering from mental illness and possibly drug addiction, so to condemn he she they outright is very insensitive.

Third.

We must be careful not to tar the white supremacist community with the actions of these individuals, this is clearly an isolated incident. It is well known that the white supremacist ideology is one of peace and tolerance doesn't preach violence ever and these individuals have clearly misinterpreted and corrupted the message of peace from the white supremacist community.

We must stand vigilant and fight  against all forms of white supremacistphobia and ensure that the white supremacist community does not feel isolated or attacked during this trying time for them.

#notallwhitesupremascists

Sound familiar??

And not a word of condemnation from the moderator about this sick post.

I will.
anyone really want to say this is not offensive ?
he is comparing white supremacy to Islam, not just ISIS,
white supremacy it is totally like ISIS... it called the NAZIs raggs!!! that is exactly what they did and exactly what a white supremacists by definition are promoting
this is totally unacceptable and can totally be taken as Support for the Shooter.

And lets face despite Smelly's prancing words we all know he does support the shooter, he has and is openly saying so, this is not a court of law where avoiding specifically saying it makes a fucking difference when it is so heavily implied.

Thank you Veya.
Interesting that Smelly's post was ignored by Vic.
He gets orgasmic enough to ban me for a witty limerick that Thor had little problem with, yet doesn't condemn posts such we have seen from the racist white supremacist.

Erm, excuse me??????
Once again I have to justify my moderating ? Even to other members of the moderating team?
Lets see 
Since i started moderating I am the ONLY moderator that has had the balls to actually ban an individual for his views (Major) I have NEVER banned any LW er for his her views on a SUBJECT.
The LW that I have banned have been banned for personal attacks (flaming) of other posters,Which is unnacceptable.

Les talks about the left being "triggered" well I,m sorry but thats just a snowflake excuse, and means you have already lost the argument before its got off the ground. It means that you have neither the wit or the arguments to reply in a logical and structured way. It means you have made the argument "personal" it "offends you". FFS.get a grip.

If you read smellys post in an unbiased way it is ALSO a black and serious indictment of how the wesrtern media in particular report these things, or not as the case may be and a valid critique of how these attacks are percieved depending on who is the agressor. 
 I would perhaps agree that he is wrong comparing white supremacists to Islam in general rather than specifically to ISIS,since clearly ISLAM in general isnt at war with us. 
IF his intent was to throw down bait to "trigger"people clearly he knows his audience well and must be laughing his socks off at you, cos you walked right into it....Its like fishing in a barrel, and i have to ask just who the bigger fool is?

Perhaps you should stop dismissing him as "another uneducated RW moron" and realise he aint quite so daft as he appears.   Try instead dismantling his posts in the way they need

veya_victaous wrote:

Andy wrote:

And not a word of condemnation from the moderator about this sick post.

I will.
anyone really want to say this is not offensive ?
he is comparing white supremacy to Islam, not just ISIS,
white supremacy it is totally like ISIS... it called the NAZIs raggs!!! that is exactly what they did and exactly what a white supremacists by definition are promoting
this is totally unacceptable and can totally be taken as Support for the Shooter.

And lets face despite Smelly's prancing words we all know he does support the shooter, he has and is openly saying so, this is not a court of law where avoiding specifically saying it makes a fucking difference when it is so heavily implied.

listen up sunshine

im not like you, or your leftwing cabal, im not a coward.

if i wanted to support the shooter i would make my support for the shooter known.

i dont say things like "im not racist, but.........."

"i dont want israel to be wiped off the map but................"

"i dont support anti semitism but............."

you use the "but.........." trick , i dont.

if you want to jump at shadows and lie about what ive said or fill in the blanks to tell yourself the story you want to hear then go for it, the question is this : why are you SO trigger by what ive said?? does it cut a little too close to the bone for you??

Andy wrote:Thank you Veya.
Interesting that Smelly's post was ignored by Vic.
He gets orgasmic enough to ban me for a witty limerick that Thor had little problem with, yet doesn't condemn posts such we have seen from the racist white supremacist.

It was ignored by all the mods, as there was nothing against the rules in what he posted

It certainly was insensitive, but he was being ironic about how the media portrays every single Islamic terrorist attack in the west.

Claim not to jump to conclusions, invoke mental health. Not to blame Islam and Muslims etc

It follows a pattern. Where the only thing missing in this case, was a white person being a hero.

Normally stories arise of Muslims being hero's after Islamic terrorism.

I agree with Victor, that he is making a false equivalency. Comparing Islam to white supremacy

It would have been more comparable to Wahhabist Islamofascism

The reality is though the media do spell out a story differently all the time

I mean again for example over 120 Christians have been murdered in Nigeria this year through terrorism.

Are their lives of less a value, than the Muslim victims in New Zealand?

Thank you didge.

Victorismyhero wrote:Erm, excuse me??????
Once again I have to justify my moderating ? Even to other members of the moderating team?
Lets see 
Since i started moderating I am the ONLY moderator that has had the balls to actually ban an individual for his views (Major) I have NEVER banned any LW er for his her views on a SUBJECT.
The LW that I have banned have been banned for personal attacks (flaming) of other posters,Which is unnacceptable.

Les talks about the left being "triggered" well I,m sorry but thats just a snowflake excuse, and means you have already lost the argument before its got off the ground. It means that you have neither the wit or the arguments to reply in a logical and structured way. It means you have made the argument "personal" it "offends you". FFS.get a grip.

If you read smellys post in an unbiased way it is ALSO a black and serious indictment of how the wesrtern media in particular report these things, or not as the case may be and a valid critique of how these attacks are percieved depending on who is the agressor. 
 I would perhaps agree that he is wrong comparing white supremacists to Islam in general rather than specifically to ISIS,since clearly ISLAM in general isnt at war with us. 
IF his intent was to throw down bait to "trigger"people clearly he knows his audience well and must be laughing his socks off at you, cos you walked right into it....Its like fishing in a barrel, and i have to ask just who the bigger fool is?

Perhaps you should stop dismissing him as "another uneducated RW moron" and realise he aint quite so daft as he appears.   Try instead dismantling his posts in the way they need

well done vic, welcome to the adults clubs.

entry requirements : being able to think instead of just feel.

its too bad that the rest of this rabble place feelings on a higher priority than facts, or as i call it - the toddlers club.

the post was in poor taste and i make no apology for that, i did say im an asshole and i mean it, a cold callous unfeeling asshole.

the reailty is that i dont supporter the shooter because i dont feel anything for the victims.

the world we live in is so messed up that im honestly at the point now where anyone and everyone outside of my immediate family and closest circle of friends are fucking cannon fodder as far as im concerned.

youre right it was an indictment of how the MSM/celebs/liberals react towards things like this depending on who the victims are and who the attackers are, its called morally fluid, and its applied in a hundred different ways across a thousand different topics.

it was also me showing the left how stupid and dangerous they are with their political correctness and their virtue signalling.

when a Muslim does this, and the Muslim could be screaming "allahu akbar" at the top of his lungs,using a rifle with qur'an scripture scrawled on it, ranting about how he is doing it in the name of islam and allah and the usual assholes turn out in their thousands to offer excuse after excuse about how this had nothing to do with islam abnout how its an isolated incident even though its about the tenth islamic attack in a row, about how its drug abuse or mental or this or that or anything other than what the killer himself is saying

we are immediately bombarded with imam after imam waffling about how islam is a religion of peace and tolerance blah blah blah, we are shown how the poor Muslim community is suffering from an increase in islamophobic incidents and how its suddenly the Muslims are the real victims.

now the shoe is on the other foot, all ive done is do to the liberals exactly what they do to everyone else, i hold the mirror up, im not resposnible for them not liking what they see.

A disabled man whose wife was shot dead as she led women and children out of the mosque during the Christchurch massacre has forgiven the gunman.

Farid Ahmed, a quadriplegic who wheeled himself out the Al Noor mosque after Brenton Tarrant, 28, allegedly stormed the building on Friday and began shooting at anyone who came in his path, said he could simply not hate him.

'I was asked ''how do you feel about the person who killed your wife?'' and I said 'I love that person because he is a human, a brother of mine''',' he told the New Zealand Herald.

While admitting he did not support what he did, he tried to rationlise the shooter's mental state.

'Maybe he was hurt, maybe something happened to him in his life … but the bottom line is, he is a brother of mine.'

'I have forgiven him and I am sure if my wife was alive she would have done the same thing.'

His wife, Husna Ahmed, 44, had screamed at worshippers to follow her outside a side-door as Tarrant allegedly sprayed the lobby with bullets.

After successfully saving everyone she could, she returned for her husband.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6821159/Disabled-mans-extraordinary-admission-wife-shot-dead-Christchurch-gunman.html

Victorismyhero wrote:


 I would perhaps agree that he is wrong comparing white supremacists to Islam in general rather than specifically to ISIS,since clearly ISLAM in general isnt at war with us. 

but it is vic, very much so and always has been.  whichever particular sect or name you want to give them doesn't matter.  salafist islamofacism is the fundamental rulings of islam itself, as commanded by it's leader who killed, robbed and raped his way to victory and thus his followers, seeing land, riches and women awaiting their actions did the same.

the koran and the hadiths will show specifically that in mohammeds early days without the following that he gained he was indeed peaceful  ''each to their own'', ''there should be no compunction in religion'' etc but once he gained power he went insane and did terrible things to people

but he is considered the perfect example and the final messenger from god so there's no arguing the case.

far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us - but islam is and always has been.

i fear it is naive to believe that islam is not at war with us.


furthermore, i think the establishment screaming about islamophobia is now going to be their card for shutting down any and all debate. we've not had much truthful debate about it up till now anyway and after this i think there will be even less

Raggamuffin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

They are saying there were like 40 bodies and the same number in casualties.

They said that the imam greeted him with "hello brother," didn't see that

Maybe there is another video but in that one I can't see him dropping 40 bodies, he drops about 10 initially and then just fires into the corners of the prayer area, which then when he goes back in has loads of dead bodies laying there.

I'm. Probably wrong but I don't trust the MSM and I can't see the usual mad panic that would accompany an active shooter, did the Muslims just give up on life and decide to hide in the corner of the room knowing they would die??

They would be climbing the walls and jumping through windows to try get away or even trying to attack the shooter.

I just didn't see a man going into a mosque and giving the good news to 80 people

You can see how many of those people instinctively tried to get as far away as possible from the shooter, but unfortunately they went to the corners of the room where they were sitting ducks. It's of no use to run from a gun - a bullet can outrun you, and all Tarrant had to do was stand there and keep shooting at the whole group of them.

It's time that people trained themselves as to how to react in this kind of situation because it's happening all over the place. Obviously, there can be very little warning, but isn't the best thing to hide behind a door and then try to ambush the gunman as he comes in?

I work in a public building and I wonder how I'd react if someone came in with a gun or a knife. We should all think about that and have some kind of plan.  

ths issue im having with this video is that its A- bad quiality and B- doesnt support the narrative.

i have already said there might be more to it and that i could be completely wrong,i probably am wrong but i cant see him dropping 40 bodies in that video and wounding another 40.

am i not supposed to ask a question about it because its too sensitive and i might offend someone?? thats basically giving the MSM license to report anything they want about anything they want.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can see how many of those people instinctively tried to get as far away as possible from the shooter, but unfortunately they went to the corners of the room where they were sitting ducks. It's of no use to run from a gun - a bullet can outrun you, and all Tarrant had to do was stand there and keep shooting at the whole group of them.

It's time that people trained themselves as to how to react in this kind of situation because it's happening all over the place. Obviously, there can be very little warning, but isn't the best thing to hide behind a door and then try to ambush the gunman as he comes in?

I work in a public building and I wonder how I'd react if someone came in with a gun or a knife. We should all think about that and have some kind of plan.  

am i not supposed to ask a question about it because its too sensitive and i might offend someone?? thats basically giving the MSM license to report anything they want about anything they want.

said as though they don't already do that

gelico wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:


 I would perhaps agree that he is wrong comparing white supremacists to Islam in general rather than specifically to ISIS,since clearly ISLAM in general isnt at war with us. 

but it is vic, very much so and always has been.  whichever particular sect or name you want to give them doesn't matter.  salafist islamofacism is the fundamental rulings of islam itself, as commanded by it's leader who killed, robbed and raped his way to victory and thus his followers, seeing land, riches and women awaiting their actions did the same.

the koran and the hadiths will show specifically that in mohammeds early days without the following that he gained he was indeed peaceful  ''each to their own'', ''there should be no compunction in religion'' etc but once he gained power he went insane and did terrible things to people

but he is considered the perfect example and the final messenger from god so there's no arguing the case.

far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us - but islam is and always has been.

i fear it is naive to believe that islam is not at war with us.


furthermore, i think the establishment screaming about islamophobia is now going to be their card for shutting down any and all debate.  we've not had much truthful debate about it up till now anyway and after this i think there will be even less

So why have we not see all 1.5 billion Muslims rise up calling for war and engaging in war with non-Believers?

You are doing what most people do wrong and smelly being one of the worst

You are trying to claim what islam means itself to Muslims

Even though neither of you believe in Islam and this is the problem with rleigious works. People do interpret them differently

To me, its as bad as Judiasm and Christianity. Which if you missed for near 2000 years the later had been engaging in violence.

The colonisation of countries was formulated in Christianity

So the bible, Quran etc have many poor scriptures, that call upon violence

The hadiths are a problem in Islam and again are unreliable, being as they were written at a time centuries after Muhammad

Again this is down to how people interpret somethin.

Your view is that ISIS is closet to what you perceive to be Islam.

Well if that is the case, then why has not every single Muslim become an ISIS terrorist?

gelico wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:



am i not supposed to ask a question about it because its too sensitive and i might offend someone?? thats basically giving the MSM license to report anything they want about anything they want.

said as though they don't already do that

well yeah of course they do that, but not questioning them would be even worse

phildidge wrote:

gelico wrote:


but it is vic, very much so and always has been.  whichever particular sect or name you want to give them doesn't matter.  salafist islamofacism is the fundamental rulings of islam itself, as commanded by it's leader who killed, robbed and raped his way to victory and thus his followers, seeing land, riches and women awaiting their actions did the same.

the koran and the hadiths will show specifically that in mohammeds early days without the following that he gained he was indeed peaceful  ''each to their own'', ''there should be no compunction in religion'' etc but once he gained power he went insane and did terrible things to people

but he is considered the perfect example and the final messenger from god so there's no arguing the case.

far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us - but islam is and always has been.

i fear it is naive to believe that islam is not at war with us.


furthermore, i think the establishment screaming about islamophobia is now going to be their card for shutting down any and all debate.  we've not had much truthful debate about it up till now anyway and after this i think there will be even less

So why have we not see all 1.5 billion Muslims rise up calling for war and engaging in war with non-Believers?


Well if that is the case, then why has not every single Muslim become an ISIS terrorist?

because, as I already explained above


far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us -

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So why have we not see all 1.5 billion Muslims rise up calling for war and engaging in war with non-Believers?


Well if that is the case, then why has not every single Muslim become an ISIS terrorist?

because, as I already explained above


far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us -

So how can a belief be at war with us?

In other words, your claim does not make any sense

Your view is about as bad as identity politics get

So based on your view, the vast majority of white people are not at war with Muslims, black people, asians etc. As to you a belief in white supremacy is at war with them?

Nobody understands Islam, and that is the problem with the religion, as its worksd are open to interpretation like any religion

It has later works incoorportaed into the religion, that are unreliable and there is many different groups within Islam

Yet you think this belief is at war with the west, how?

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So why have we not see all 1.5 billion Muslims rise up calling for war and engaging in war with non-Believers?


Well if that is the case, then why has not every single Muslim become an ISIS terrorist?

because, as I already explained above


far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us -

oh my god not this bullshit again

i cant believe he is still banging on about this "1.5 billion Muslims not rising up" stupidity

the reason that all the Muslim arent rising up is because they are individuals, didge treats Muslims like they are a collective hive mind incapable independent thought all equally devout and pious

in his mind if islam preached war, then Muslims, being mindless robots receiving instruction from islam HQ would immediatley obey without question the call for war and march on us.

the logical conclusion to his views is that the only reason 1.5 billion Muslims are not marching to war is because islam doesnt call for war

he completely dehumanizes every single Muslim in the world and fails to recognize their humanity or their individuality, not every single Muslim wants to go to war, not every single Muslim is a killer, but his view is that they are just midnless robots and cant make their own choices in life.

gelico wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:


 I would perhaps agree that he is wrong comparing white supremacists to Islam in general rather than specifically to ISIS,since clearly ISLAM in general isnt at war with us. 

but it is vic, very much so and always has been.  whichever particular sect or name you want to give them doesn't matter.  salafist islamofacism is the fundamental rulings of islam itself, as commanded by it's leader who killed, robbed and raped his way to victory and thus his followers, seeing land, riches and women awaiting their actions did the same.

the koran and the hadiths will show specifically that in mohammeds early days without the following that he gained he was indeed peaceful  ''each to their own'', ''there should be no compunction in religion'' etc but once he gained power he went insane and did terrible things to people

but he is considered the perfect example and the final messenger from god so there's no arguing the case.

far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us - but islam is and always has been.

i fear it is naive to believe that islam is not at war with us.


furthermore, i think the establishment screaming about islamophobia is now going to be their card for shutting down any and all debate.  we've not had much truthful debate about it up till now anyway and after this i think there will be even less

Hi Gelico,

For a minute I thought I was reading Smelly’s post!

No the Holy Quran and Mohammed PBUH NEVER said to kill all NON Muslims
EVER.

You clearly haven’t read the book so there’s no point in debating further with you

However I will end my post by saying the VERY LAST CHAPTER/SURA of the Hoky Quran

Specially talks about other religions and how to leave them practicing their own religion or faith

It’s called sura Kafroon please read it

Thats is the sura we finish the Quran with and every single Muslim has to receite it in EVERY SINGLE PRAYER WHICH WE PRAY 5 TIMES A DAY

5 TIMES A DAY

smelly-bandit wrote:

gelico wrote:


because, as I already explained above


far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us -

oh my god not this bullshit again

i cant believe he is still banging on about this "1.5 billion Muslims not rising up" stupidity

the reason that all the Muslim arent rising up is because they are individuals, didge treats Muslims like they are a collective hive mind incapable independent thought all equally devout and pious

in his mind if islam preached war, then Muslims, being mindless robots receiving instruction from islam HQ would immediatley obey without question the call for war and march on us.

the logical conclusion to his views is that the only reason 1.5 billion Muslims are not marching to war is because islam doesnt call for war

he completely dehumanizes every single Muslim in the world and fails to recognize their humanity or their individuality, not every single Muslim wants to go to war, not every single Muslim is a killer, but his view is that they are just midnless robots and cant make their own choices in life.

Shut the fuck up Smelly

You’ve been sprouting this shit for over 9 fucking years.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

gelico wrote:


but it is vic, very much so and always has been.  whichever particular sect or name you want to give them doesn't matter.  salafist islamofacism is the fundamental rulings of islam itself, as commanded by it's leader who killed, robbed and raped his way to victory and thus his followers, seeing land, riches and women awaiting their actions did the same.

the koran and the hadiths will show specifically that in mohammeds early days without the following that he gained he was indeed peaceful  ''each to their own'', ''there should be no compunction in religion'' etc but once he gained power he went insane and did terrible things to people

but he is considered the perfect example and the final messenger from god so there's no arguing the case.

far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us - but islam is and always has been.

i fear it is naive to believe that islam is not at war with us.


furthermore, i think the establishment screaming about islamophobia is now going to be their card for shutting down any and all debate.  we've not had much truthful debate about it up till now anyway and after this i think there will be even less

Hi Gelico,

For a minute I thought I was reading Smelly’s post!

No the Holy Quran and Mohammed PBUH NEVER said to kill all NON Muslims
EVER.

You clearly haven’t read the book so there’s no point in debating further with you

However I will end my post by saying the VERY LADY CHAPTER/SURA of the Hoky Quran

Specially talks about other religions and how to leave them practicing their own religion or faith

It’s called sura Kafroon please read it

Thats is the sura we finish the Quran with and every single Muslim has to receite it in EVERY SINGLE PRAYER WHICH WE PRAY 5 TIMES A DAY

5 TIMES A DAY

apart from when muhamamd was calling for killing everyone who wouldnt submit to his views

SEXY MAMA wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

oh my god not this bullshit again

i cant believe he is still banging on about this "1.5 billion Muslims not rising up" stupidity

the reason that all the Muslim arent rising up is because they are individuals, didge treats Muslims like they are a collective hive mind incapable independent thought all equally devout and pious

in his mind if islam preached war, then Muslims, being mindless robots receiving instruction from islam HQ would immediatley obey without question the call for war and march on us.

the logical conclusion to his views is that the only reason 1.5 billion Muslims are not marching to war is because islam doesnt call for war

he completely dehumanizes every single Muslim in the world and fails to recognize their humanity or their individuality, not every single Muslim wants to go to war, not every single Muslim is a killer, but his view is that they are just midnless robots and cant make their own choices in life.

Shut the fuck up Smelly

You’ve been sprouting this shit for over 9 fucking years.

you dont think that Muslims are individuals capable of thinking for themselves??

smelly-bandit wrote:

gelico wrote:


because, as I already explained above


far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us -

oh my god not this bullshit again

i cant believe he is still banging on about this "1.5 billion Muslims not rising up" stupidity

the reason that all the Muslim arent rising up is because they are individuals, didge treats Muslims like they are a collective hive mind incapable independent thought all equally devout and pious

in his mind if islam preached war, then Muslims, being mindless robots receiving instruction from islam HQ would immediatley obey without question the call for war and march on us.

the logical conclusion to his views is that the only reason 1.5 billion Muslims are not marching to war is because islam doesnt call for war

he completely dehumanizes every single Muslim in the world and fails to recognize their humanity or their individuality, not every single Muslim wants to go to war, not every single Muslim is a killer, but his view is that they are just midnless robots and cant make their own choices in life.

No I am actually understanding Islam better than yourself, where Muslims are meant emulate Muhammad and follow Islam

Thus based on your premise and what Islam is. Then the vast majority of Muslims would be poor and sinful Muslims to you, that do not engage in violence. As claimed as you do tha it is at war with the west

Hence why are not 1.5 biollion Muslims engaged in war with the west, if as claimed by yourself and gelic. That Islam is at war with the west?

So I am not dehumanizing Muslims, by saying they are not engaged in conflict, because they do not adhere to your belief on what islam is.

In other words, I am calling after a rather dumb point you and Gelico are making

As how again can a belief be at war with the west?

I mean many Muslim coluntries are based on Islamic law.

Where is all these countries declaring war on the west?

What it shows, is that your view is what is warped, because again. If the belief is that Islam is at war with the west. Which is what terrorists believe. Then all Muslims would be engaged in this war. It shows they have a very different view on Islam, to the terrorists

Muslims already obey without question many beliefs and live their lives according to islam

So how again is it, that they do not live their lives, according to your beliefs on this?

Really when?

When in the Quran it mentions time and time again

THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGON

phildidge wrote:

gelico wrote:


because, as I already explained above


far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us -

Yet you think this belief is at war with the west, how?

because mohammed himself as stated did terrible things like rape and murder, however the 'belief' is that mohammed was the chosen one and whatever he said, commanded, did was and still is perfect and should be copied

mohammed declared war against anyone who wasnt a Muslim

islam's purpose is to totally dominate, by any means necessary, until it reigns supreme (as commanded by mohammed)


this has been stated time and time again, from ex Muslims who have lived all their lives within islam and know what it is. you only have to go online to find imam after imam with hundreds of thousands of followers banging on and on.

unless we can have this in the open for honest debate and until the fundamental ideology of islam is reviewed and discussed have an agreement about what is and is not acceptable then we will always have trouble

i hold out very little hope for that.. if maajid nawaz can't achieve it in all the years he's been working at it then i'm not sure it will ever be done

the fact that most Muslims do not follow these teachings and are pretty much Muslim in name only is our good fortune. they are human beings and make their own choices

i'm puzzled didge, you know all this, you are far from stupid so i'm not sure what it is you are arguing if i'm honest

smelly-bandit wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Hi Gelico,

For a minute I thought I was reading Smelly’s post!

No the Holy Quran and Mohammed PBUH NEVER said to kill all NON Muslims
EVER.

You clearly haven’t read the book so there’s no point in debating further with you

However I will end my post by saying the VERY LADY CHAPTER/SURA of the Hoky Quran

Specially talks about other religions and how to leave them practicing their own religion or faith

It’s called sura Kafroon please read it

Thats is the sura we finish the Quran with and every single Muslim has to receite it in EVERY SINGLE PRAYER WHICH WE PRAY 5 TIMES A DAY

5 TIMES A DAY

apart from when muhamamd was calling for killing everyone who wouldnt submit to his views

Really when?????

When the Quran mentions time and time again

THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION

Gelico

Please provide proof where he raped anyone?

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Yet you think this belief is at war with the west, how?

because mohammed himself as stated did terrible things like rape and murder, however the 'belief' is that mohammed was the chosen one and whatever he said, commanded, did was and still is perfect and should be copied

mohammed declared war against anyone who wasnt a Muslim

islam's purpose is to totally dominate, by any means necessary, until it reigns supreme (as commanded by mohammed)


this has been stated time and time again, from ex Muslims who have lived all their lives within islam and know what it is.  you only have to go online to find imam after imam with hundreds of thousands of followers banging on and on.

unless we can have this in the open for honest debate and until the fundamental ideology of islam is reviewed and discussed have an agreement about what is and is not acceptable then we will always have trouble

i hold out very little hope for that..  if maajid nawaz can't achieve it in all the years he's been working at it then i'm not sure it will ever be done

the fact that most Muslims do not follow these teachings and are pretty much Muslim in name only is our good fortune.  they are human beings and make their own choices

i'm puzzled didge, you know all this, you are far from stupid so i'm not sure what it is you are arguing if i'm honest

But that is a view point held by people and you find the same crap in the Bible, that has been used to justify violence, rape, slavery etc.

Have you not read any history Gelico?

In fact in the Old Testament is something called Herem, which is genocide, but hey, this is how you want to view things

You want to view Islam, as ISIS does

I think there is countless abhorant teachings in both the Quran and bible, but I dont then claim, the belief is at war.

That just makes zero sense, as again, its people that act on beliefs and how they interpret them

You see there you go, you claim they are not really Muslim, the majority of people. as you think they should be engaged in violence. By saying there are Muslim in name only

The reality is you and smelly hold similar views towards Islam, as the terrorist does, one based in fear

There is certainly a war of ideas, but does not require violence. It requires being critical and reasoning why something is poor to believe in.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

apart from when muhamamd was calling for killing everyone who wouldnt submit to his views

Really when?????

When the Quran mentions time and time again

THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION

if there is no compulsion in religion then why is muhhamd calling on his followers to fight people who dont believe in allah until they submit and do do believe in him??

9:29

"Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued"

what part of that speaks about no compulsion in religion?? every word in there is about fighting people people who dont believe in allah BECAUSE they dont believe in allah and kicking their asses until they do believe in allah

not feeling the religous freedom

bring on the excuses, lets hear about how its taken out of context, or how its been misinterpreted or about any of the hundred different reason why this particular verse doesnt carry any weight but every other verse does

lets see you post up the "no compulsion" sura but then completely ignore the islamic principle of abrogation which overwrites the no compulsion sura.

you forget we have been doing this for 9 years and ive heard every bullshit excuse you can come up with

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

The verse 9:29 is a command to fight the Byzantine Romans and other hostile powers who were planning an invasion against the Muslims in Arabia. In context, it is a distinct response to aggression, in particular the assassination of one of the Prophet’s ambassadors.

Allah said:

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not acknowledge the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they give the tribute willingly while they are humbled.

Surah At-Tawba 9:29

On the surface, this appears to be an open-ended command to fight non-Muslims until they are conquered. However, a fundamental principle of Quranic exegesis (tafseer) is that the verses must be understood in the context in which they were revealed (asbab an-nuzul) and in conjunction with other verses delineating the rules of warfare.

At-Tabari and other commentators record that this verse was revealed concerning the expedition of Tabuk.

At-Tabari records:

عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلا بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ… حِينَ أُمِرَ مُحَمَّدٌ وَأَصْحَابُهُ بِغَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ

Mujahid reported concerning the verse, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day…” that it was revealed when Muhammad and his companions were commanded with the expedition of Tabuk.

Source: Tafseer At-Tabari 9:29

The expedition of Tabuk was preceded by the battle of Mu’tah which began when the emissary of the Prophet was assassinated while delivering a letter to a Roman ally.

Ibn Al-Qayyim writes:

وَكَانَ سَبَبُهَا أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَعَثَ الحارث بن عمير الأزدي أَحَدَ بَنِي لِهْبٍ بِكِتَابِهِ إِلَى الشَّامِ إِلَى مَلِكِ الرُّومِ أَوْ بُصْرَى فَعَرَضَ لَهُ شرحبيل بن عمرو الغساني فَأَوْثَقَهُ رِبَاطًا ثُمَّ قَدَّمَهُ فَضَرَبَ عُنُقَهُ وَلَمْ يُقْتَلْ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَسُولٌ غَيْرُهُ فَاشْتَدَّ ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ حِينَ بَلَغَهُ الْخَبَرُ فَبَعَثَ الْبُعُوثَ

The cause of the battle was that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, sent Harith ibn Umair Al-Azdi of the tribe of Lihb with his letter to Syria for the Roman king or Busra. He presented it to Sharhabeel ibn Amr Al-Ghassani and he bound him and struck his neck. Never had an ambassador of the Messenger of Allah been killed besides him. The Prophet was upset by that when news reached him and he dispatched an expedition.

Source: Zaad Al-Ma’ad 336

Safiur Rahman writes:

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, had sent Al-Harith ibn Umair Al-Azdi on an errand to carry a letter to the ruler of Busra. On his way, he was intercepted by Sharhabeel ibn Amr Al-Ghassani, the governor of Al-Balqa and a close ally to Caesar, the Byzantine Emperor. Al-Harith was tied and beheaded by Al-Ghassani.

Source: The Sealed Nectar p. 245

This was the first act of Roman aggression that further led to the expedition of Tabuk concerning which the verse 9:29 was revealed. The verse describes the aggressors as those “who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day,” because they committed this act of treachery. Executing emissaries from other countries is a war crime that could never be committed by those who sincerely believe in God.

Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

لَا إِيمَانَ لِمَنْ لَا أَمَانَةَ لَهُ وَلَا دِينَ لِمَنْ لَا عَهْدَ لَهُ

There is no faith for one who cannot be trusted. There is no religion for one who cannot uphold a covenant.

Source: Musnad Ahmad 11975, Grade: Hasan

Safiur Rahman further describes the reason the conflict took place:

The Byzantine power, which was considered the greatest military force on earth at that time, showed an unjustifiable opposition towards Muslims. As we have already mentioned, their opposition started at killing the ambassador of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, Al-Harith ibn Umair Al-Azdi, by Sharhabeel ibn Amr Al-Ghassani. The ambassador was then carrying a message from the Prophet to the ruler of Busra. We have also stated that the Prophet consequently dispatched a brigade under the command of Zaid bin Haritha, who had a fierce fight against the Byzantines at Mu’tah. Although Muslim forces could not have revenge on those haughty overproud tyrants, the confrontation itself had a great impression on the Arabs all over Arabia.

Caesar, who could neither ignore the great benefit that the battle of Mu’tah had brought to Muslims, nor could he disregard the Arab tribes’ expectations of independence and their hopes of getting free from his influence and reign, nor he could ignore their alliance to the Muslims. Realizing all that, Caesar was aware of the progressive danger threatening his borders, especially the fronts of Syria which were neighboring Arab lands. So he concluded that demolition of the Muslims’ power had grown an urgent necessity. This decision of his should, in his opinion, be achieved before the Muslims become too powerful to conquer and raise troubles and unrest in the adjacent Arab territories.

To meet these exigencies, Caesar mustered a huge army of the Byzantines and pro-Roman Ghassanite tribes to launch a decisive bloody battle against the Muslims.

Source: The Sealed Nectar p. 272

Therefore, this context must be understood when reading verse 9:29 so that we clearly know who should be fought, specifically the aggressors among the Jews and Christians and not all of them. Rather, many other verses of the Quran make clear that it is unlawful to initiate hostilities against other nations.

Allah said:

وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not love transgressors.


READ THIS SMELLY

IVE been over this time and time again

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING

I’m off
Will be back later

Look as far as I am concerned religion has always been a problem in history. As when you have beliefs, that are claimed to have come from a God. People end up preaching hate from this, which history is littered with. The same with hateful political beliefs.

I dont see anyone here, saying we are at war with Far right ideologies or the Far left, just Islam. Islam has many poor beliefs and people have preached to call for violence off this.

Just as people have called for violence of far right and left extreme views. Just as within Politics, religions have their extreme branches.

The one thing that has been able to counter all of them is secularism and the age of enlightentment.

Yes we have to engage in a war of ideas, which means challenging poor beliefs, but its also a very poor belief, to claim a belief is at war with the west. When as seen many hold differening views to that belief. You are also by doing so, claiming that such a belief is at war. Helping the extremes on both sides, push people into sides. Which is what they want and a war of annihilation.

I mean, can you not see how dangereous a view that is to hold Gelico, to think a belief is at war? When most of the adherants of that belief, do not believe their faith is at war?

So I am all for being critical of beliefs, but the view to believe we are at war with a belief, is as seen dangereous and plays into the wild conspiracies of the Far right. Who themselves are looking to start and engage in a war themselves

Its Wahhabism, that the majority of the terrorist groups follow. Hence its that branch of Islam, that is problematic and its doctrines need to be countered and challenged

I think the best way to challenge Islam, is based on secularism, well being and most of all challenging the reliability of its works. Which clearly the hadiths were written at a time to control people, centuries later. Many of which conflict with the Quran itself

smelly-bandit wrote:

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So why have we not see all 1.5 billion Muslims rise up calling for war and engaging in war with non-Believers?


Well if that is the case, then why has not every single Muslim become an ISIS terrorist?

because, as I already explained above


far more correct to say that the majority of Muslims are not at war with us -

oh my god not this bullshit again

i cant believe he is still banging on about this "1.5 billion Muslims not rising up" stupidity

the reason that all the Muslim arent rising up is because they are individuals, didge treats Muslims like they are a collective hive mind incapable independent thought all equally devout and pious

in his mind if islam preached war, then Muslims, being mindless robots receiving instruction from islam HQ would immediatley obey without question the call for war and march on us.

the logical conclusion to his views is that the only reason 1.5 billion Muslims are not marching to war is because islam doesnt call for war

he completely dehumanizes every single Muslim in the world and fails to recognize their humanity or their individuality, not every single Muslim wants to go to war, not every single Muslim is a killer, but his view is that they are vjust midnless robots and cant make their own choices in life.

And there we have it, if I understand you correctly Smelly, you DO recognise these things? ....Stranffge behaviour for a "vile racist" isnt it?

phildidge wrote:

gelico wrote:

because mohammed himself as stated did terrible things like rape and murder, however the 'belief' is that mohammed was the chosen one and whatever he said, commanded, did was and still is perfect and should be copied

mohammed declared war against anyone who wasnt a Muslim

islam's purpose is to totally dominate, by any means necessary, until it reigns supreme (as commanded by mohammed)


this has been stated time and time again, from ex Muslims who have lived all their lives within islam and know what it is.  you only have to go online to find imam after imam with hundreds of thousands of followers banging on and on.

unless we can have this in the open for honest debate and until the fundamental ideology of islam is reviewed and discussed have an agreement about what is and is not acceptable then we will always have trouble

i hold out very little hope for that..  if maajid nawaz can't achieve it in all the years he's been working at it then i'm not sure it will ever be done

the fact that most Muslims do not follow these teachings and are pretty much Muslim in name only is our good fortune.  they are human beings and make their own choices

i'm puzzled didge, you know all this, you are far from stupid so i'm not sure what it is you are arguing if i'm honest

But that is a view point held by people and you find the same crap in the Bible, that has been used to justify violence, rape, slavery etc.

Have you not read any history Gelico?

In fact in the Old Testament is something called Herem, which is genocide, but hey, this is how you want to view things

you've answered your own question there didge

the old testament is indeed full of violence but is no one person in charge making all the rules. there is not a religion called genesism, or exodusism, or anything else whereby only one person is allowed to make the rules

it is exactly what you said it is,,,,,history. a series of book documenting the history of that time.

Victorismyhero wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

oh my god not this bullshit again

i cant believe he is still banging on about this "1.5 billion Muslims not rising up" stupidity

the reason that all the Muslim arent rising up is because they are individuals, didge treats Muslims like they are a collective hive mind incapable independent thought all equally devout and pious

in his mind if islam preached war, then Muslims, being mindless robots receiving instruction from islam HQ would immediatley obey without question the call for war and march on us.

the logical conclusion to his views is that the only reason 1.5 billion Muslims are not marching to war is because islam doesnt call for war

he completely dehumanizes every single Muslim in the world and fails to recognize their humanity or their individuality, not every single Muslim wants to go to war, not every single Muslim is a killer, but his view is that they are vjust midnless robots and cant make their own choices in life.

And there we have it, if I understand you correctly Smelly, you DO recognise these things? ....Stranffge behaviour for a "vile racist" isnt it?

oh im the worst racist you will ever meet







































































ive never been very good at it.