Multi-culturalism is responsible for terror in our midst

victorisnotamused wrote:and again...why is it that we dont see 100's...1000's of "radicalised "blacks""
considering how they have been treated over the years??

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:read it...and??

all it shows is that some followers of that religion are prone to radicalisation..

it does not show reasons but clearly the religon IS a major factor. It is easy for these people to distort it nd use it for thei own purpose.

why is this?
again it is the nature of the relgion...it has no central authority (pope/arch bishop etc) every man is his own imman if he so wishes to be and is entirely free to iterpret it as he sees it...epecially if that man has a "group"of like minded compatriots.

What a load of bollocks.


Oh for fuck sake, here read something that may finally educate you on a subject you know little about:

http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/features/Francis-2012-causes/

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:
What a load of bollocks.


Oh for fuck sake, here read something that may finally educate you on a subject you know little about:

http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/features/Francis-2012-causes/

and this is "authoritative" is it??

or just another load of "theory " from some "think tank"?

witha quick glance 2 of the "categories" are religious in nature...strateigic and ideological....

2 of the 3 in category "situational" are mere "excuses" as proved by the fact we dont have 1000's of radical "blacks"

then only one that is in any way sensible is the internet being involved...

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:and again...why is it that we dont see 100's...1000's of "radicalised "blacks""
considering how they have been treated over the years??

Fuck me, you never heard of the Black Panthers?

Stop being a wally

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



Fuck me, you never heard of the Black Panthers?

Stop being a wally

now YOU stop being a pillock...........

The Black Panther Party or BPP (originally the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) was a black revolutionary socialist organization active in the United States from 1966 until 1982. The Black Panther Party achieved national and international notoriety through its involvement in the Black Power movement and U.S. politics of the 1960s and 1970s.[2]

Gaining national prominence, the Black Panther Party became an icon of the counterculture of the 1960s. Although the Party emerged from black nationalist movements, ultimately, the Panthers condemned black nationalism as "black racism" and became more ideologically focused on socialist revolution without racial exclusivity.[3] They instituted a variety of community social programs designed to alleviate poverty, improve health among inner city black communities, and soften the Party's public image.[4] The Black Panther Party's most widely known programs were its armed citizens' patrols to evaluate behavior of police officers and its Free Breakfast for Children program. However, the group's political goals were often overshadowed by the criminality of members and their confrontational, militant, and violent tactics against police.[5][6][7]


but hardly "jihadist" and I note "against police"...not non com civilians


Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country",[8] and he supervised an extensive program (COINTELPRO) of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment, and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members, and drain the organization of resources and manpower. Through these tactics, Hoover hoped to diminish the Party's threat to the general power structure of the U.S., or even maintain its influence as a strong undercurrent.[9]

Black Panther Party membership reached a peak of several thousand by early 1969, then suffered a series of contractions due to legal troubles, incarcerations, internal splits, expulsions and defections. Popular support for the Party declined further after reports appeared detailing the group's involvement in illegal activities such as drug dealing and extortion schemes directed against Oakland merchants.[10] By 1972 most Panther activity centered on the national headquarters and a school in Oakland, where the party continued to influence local politics. Party contractions continued throughout the 1970s; by 1980 the Black Panther Party comprised just 27 members.[11]

that doesnt meet the criteria for terrorism and jihad.....

sounds more like some of the "gangstas" we have here...started out with dreams of political change and went criminal...

NOT the same fish didge...not the same fish....

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:


and this is "authoritative" is it??

or just another load of "theory " from some "think tank"?

witha quick glance 2 of the "categories" are religious in nature...strateigic and ideological....

2 of the 3 in category "situational" are mere "excuses" as proved by the fact we dont have 1000's of radical "blacks"

then only one that is in any way sensible is the internet being involved...

Fuck me, that shows you did not read them.

try reading it yourself.....
it clearly states what I have just said....

strategic....long term...the defeat of western modernity/morality (which we know is at odds with Islam)
Ideological non negotiable beliefs about what is good for society......
etc....
So you go off your views and not actually studying the subject, which at last I have read many varying different reports over, one being the fact you are already talking about religious people, thus other factors play a part in radicalizing them.

I think the best way forward is Muslims themselves having to take a further greater part involved in preventive measures, in other words showing and teaching many views of the extremists are wrong.

I wouldnt hold your breath...those Muslims who would do this...now they REALLY ARE "only a few"

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



Fuck me, that shows you did not read them.

try reading it yourself.....
it clearly states what I have just said....

strategic....long term...the defeat of western modernity/morality (which we know is at odds with Islam)
Ideological    non negotiable beliefs about what is good for society......
etc....
So you go off your views and not actually studying the subject, which at last I have read many varying different reports over, one being the fact you are already talking about religious people, thus other factors play a part in radicalizing them.

I think the best way forward is Muslims themselves having to take a further greater part involved in preventive measures, in other words showing and teaching many views of the extremists are wrong.

I wouldnt hold your breath...those Muslims who would do this...now they REALLY ARE "only a few"

Didge wrote:Oh and some more for you:

http://www.hstoday.us/blogs/guest-commentaries/blog/the-new-black-militant-groups-terrorist-organizations-willing-to-kill/6f056ebfc75378acc213384d89caf75d.html

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:Oh and some more for you:

http://www.hstoday.us/blogs/guest-commentaries/blog/the-new-black-militant-groups-terrorist-organizations-willing-to-kill/6f056ebfc75378acc213384d89caf75d.html

Interesting how a Muslim has gained such influence...however stop diverting didge...we are NOT talking about america....which has its own (special internal) problems, we are talking about HERE...britain....

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

Interesting how a Muslim has gained such influence...however stop diverting didge...we are NOT talking about america....which has its own (special internal) problems, we are talking about HERE...britain....

Fucking hilarious, you diverted the topic by going on about blacks you dummy and then have the cheek to accuse me.

PMSL

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

That shows you have not read it so lets post it to show you have not:








Situational factors, enabling pre-conditions:
Modernity is a prominent and much discussed cause of radicalisation (see the output of The Fundamentalism Project for discussions on how many fundamentalist groups are inherently opposed to modernity).  Whilst ‘modernity’ in these discussions covers a broader range of developments, in this case I am referring more specifically to developments like mass transit, urbanisation and electronic technology.  In these last areas we can see how such developments can make it easier for radicalisation to occur.  For example, the internet provides a powerful and accessible means for radical ideas to be shared and reinforced amongst large audiences.  Clearly the presence of such enabling conditions do not entail that everyone using the internet, for example, will become radicalised (a caveat repeatable for all of the following sections) but the presence of the internet, of mass transit and urbanisation all bring people closer together, allowing for swift movements of people and ideas.
Situational factors, motivational pre-conditions
Living in large cities may bring people closer together and make it easier to share radical ideas, but people are less likely to be radicalised without any motivation to do so. Factors like poverty, for example, are also often cited as causes of potential radicalisation. Farhad Khosrokhavar, for example, is one of a number of scholars who points to poverty and the sense of being excluded from the benefits of modernity as being a cause of radicalisation amongst poor sections of societies. However, poverty need not be a factor, he also argues that the experiences of discrimination and social segregation encountered by middle-class, educated persons can also be a significant cause of radicalisation.
These motivational factors make it more likely that someone may want to utilise the favourable conditions presented by modern technology to subscribe to radicalised ideas. Of course, with large percentages of the world’s population in poverty and indeed many sections of wealthier societies experiencing varying levels of discrimination on grounds such as ethnicity or religion, these motivational factors alone are not enough to explain how an individual could be radicalised.
Situational precipitant factors
If motivational pre-conditions could be thought of as catalysts towards radicalisation then the precipitant factors can be understood as the triggers. These are flash points which some people will see as directly necessitating some form of a response. Common examples of such triggers include UK Government policy, such as the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which were cited by Mohammed Sidique Khan as a reason for his role in the 7^th July bombings in London. Shane Brighton and Mark Sedgwick both critique the role anger at foreign policy is seen to play in debates about radicalisation, providing nuanced arguments about the differences between legitimate disagreement and whether it is a reliable indicator of potential violent extremism.
These specific discussions aside, the idea of particular triggers to action are perhaps the most discussed (and easiest to comprehend) of the potential causes of radicalisation. Examples are easier to think of than the other situational factors, such as laws like the 1773 Tea Act (that led to the Boston Tea Party) or the self-immolation of the Tunisian trader Mohamed Bouazizi (that led to the 2011 Tunisian Revolution). However, it is also too easy to give these triggers too much prominence in the actions that follow. Whilst the above examples were important causes of radicalisation in their own contexts, it is likely that the American and Tunisian revolutions would have occurred without them.
Strategic aims – long term and short term
Whilst individuals may believe that there is a requirement upon them to act in response to a particular event, it is of course far from the case that this normally leads to violent action. For example, in 2003 over a million people are reported to have marched against UK involvement in the Iraq war, an entirely peaceful response to a situational precipitant factor. That this action was peaceful represented the strategic aims of the anti-war movement, which sought in the short-term to make a clear statement of dissatisfaction against UK policy, whilst in the longer term to halt any UK involvement in a war against Iraq.
In contrast, the short term and long term aims of al Qaeda were decidedly violent. In the short term, actions such as 9/11 sought to motivate sympathisers whilst also striking terror into their ‘enemy’. In the longer term, they sought the removal of US military forces from Saudi Arabia, amongst other aims (these aims can be found in statements translated in works by, for example, Raymond Ibrahim and Gilles Kepel and Jean-Pierre Milelli (2008)).
Ideological factors
It is perhaps the ideologies of groups which are the key area where a difference can be seen between radicalisation and violent radicalisation. For example, while the role of radical groups provokes much debate, with some commentators seeing groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, for example, as part of a ‘conveyor belt’ to radicalisation, there is a clear difference between the ideological response of Hizb to the preceding factors to that of al Qaeda’s.
Radical, but arguably non-violent groups such as Hizb are seen as providing a gateway for disaffected people (in this case, young Muslims) to develop and express increasingly radical views. Ed Husain, co-founder of a UK think tank set-up to educate about and counter such groups writes about his experiences in what he sees as feeder groups for violent extremism operating in the UK. In this case it is worth highlighting that the role of Hizb as a key staging point for radicalisation is by no means unanimously accepted, for example Emmanuel Karagiannis and Clark McCauley and Vitaly Naumkin have both argued that Hizb ut-Tahrir (though note that they argue based on research into a particular regional section of Hizb, in Uzbekistan) is not a feeder group for violent radicals. Where former members have acted violently, they argue, it has only been after disagreement and expulsion from the group that they have done so, and it is the exception, not the rule. Hizb ideology proscribes violence, at least at the present time, and this ideology is a key factor in how it responds to some of the same situational factors and even long-term aims that can be seen to influence al Qaeda members.
These considerations are equally applicable to secular as they are to religious ideologies. Assumptions that there is something unique about religion (and particular religions) that causes violence are misleading and my own research (Francis and Knott, 2011) has demonstrated how linkages can be found between secular and religious ideological responses to conflict and difference.
Individual factors
Crenshaw gives greater attention to individual factors than I have here. I mentioned above that in the cases of former Hizb members turning to violence it tended to be the exception, not the rule. This has been a common caveat expressed throughout this consideration of the factors causing radicalisation and it continues to be the case in our consideration of individual factors. Assuming that all of the above may have led to an individual being involved in a group with violent strategic aims it is still not the case that that individual will act violently. Whilst Crenshaw mentions psychological factors in her original article, it is important to note that in most cases there are no obvious indicators of abnormal psychological factors. For example, whilst the actions of the UK July 7 bombers were seen as proof of individuals who were not properly absorbed into UK society, their lives up to that point suggested otherwise and this is often, though not always, the case. Economic background, relative assimilation into ‘host’ cultures, apparent ideological background and other seemingly important factors all fail to account for why some people act violently and others do not. The background factors are as individual as those who choose this step and this in a large part explains the difficulty of theories of radicalisation to accurately predict violent behaviour.
We should also consider the role of serendipity. Just as it seems fortunate at times that some well-advanced plots have failed at the moment of execution, so it could also be the case that chance decisions or events led to those individuals being in that place at that time. However, this should not distract from attention given to the causes of radicalisation discussed above. For example, while the current and previous UK government warns universities that lonely Muslim students are potentially at risk of radicalisation, there is much less chance of any young person becoming radicalised if they have not viewed their life through a prism of discrimination or deprivation, have not seen particular events, such as the Iraq war, as requiring a direct and personal response and have not joined groups with violent ideologies and aims.
The above discussion summarises potential causes of radicalisation into several categories. As highlighted above, there are different kinds of models which predict how people may display characteristics of radicalisation within these categories as well as strong debate over the validity both of the definition and of theories of radicalisation. This essay has not sought to critique these debates, but has instead provided a basic understanding of some of the most discussed possible causes, whilst also drawing attention to the complex interrelationship between them.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


Fucking hilarious, you diverted the topic by going on about blacks you dummy and then have the cheek to accuse me.

PMSL

YOU brought in American problems, "blacks" here is  relevant to the point....since they are "marginalised" (even more so in the past) and yet we dont see them on jihad...HERE

sod america or anywhere else...THEY are not relevant to HERE....

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



That shows you have not read it so lets post it to show you have not:








Situational factors, enabling pre-conditions:
Modernity is a prominent and much discussed cause of radicalisation (see the output of The Fundamentalism Project for discussions on how many fundamentalist groups are inherently opposed to modernity).  Whilst ‘modernity’ in these discussions covers a broader range of developments, in this case I am referring more specifically to developments like mass transit, urbanisation and electronic technology.  In these last areas we can see how such developments can make it easier for radicalisation to occur.  For example, the internet provides a powerful and accessible means for radical ideas to be shared and reinforced amongst large audiences.  Clearly the presence of such enabling conditions do not entail that everyone using the internet, for example, will become radicalised (a caveat repeatable for all of the following sections) but the presence of the internet, of mass transit and urbanisation all bring people closer together, allowing for swift movements of people and ideas.
Situational factors, motivational pre-conditions
Living in large cities may bring people closer together and make it easier to share radical ideas, but people are less likely to be radicalised without any motivation to do so. Factors like poverty, for example, are also often cited as causes of potential radicalisation. Farhad Khosrokhavar, for example, is one of a number of scholars who points to poverty and the sense of being excluded from the benefits of modernity as being a cause of radicalisation amongst poor sections of societies. However, poverty need not be a factor, he also argues that the experiences of discrimination and social segregation encountered by middle-class, educated persons can also be a significant cause of radicalisation.
These motivational factors make it more likely that someone may want to utilise the favourable conditions presented by modern technology to subscribe to radicalised ideas. Of course, with large percentages of the world’s population in poverty and indeed many sections of wealthier societies experiencing varying levels of discrimination on grounds such as ethnicity or religion, these motivational factors alone are not enough to explain how an individual could be radicalised.
Situational precipitant factors
If motivational pre-conditions could be thought of as catalysts towards radicalisation then the precipitant factors can be understood as the triggers. These are flash points which some people will see as directly necessitating some form of a response. Common examples of such triggers include UK Government policy, such as the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which were cited by Mohammed Sidique Khan as a reason for his role in the 7^th July bombings in London. Shane Brighton and Mark Sedgwick both critique the role anger at foreign policy is seen to play in debates about radicalisation, providing nuanced arguments about the differences between legitimate disagreement and whether it is a reliable indicator of potential violent extremism.
These specific discussions aside, the idea of particular triggers to action are perhaps the most discussed (and easiest to comprehend) of the potential causes of radicalisation. Examples are easier to think of than the other situational factors, such as laws like the 1773 Tea Act (that led to the Boston Tea Party) or the self-immolation of the Tunisian trader Mohamed Bouazizi (that led to the 2011 Tunisian Revolution). However, it is also too easy to give these triggers too much prominence in the actions that follow. Whilst the above examples were important causes of radicalisation in their own contexts, it is likely that the American and Tunisian revolutions would have occurred without them.
Strategic aims – long term and short term
Whilst individuals may believe that there is a requirement upon them to act in response to a particular event, it is of course far from the case that this normally leads to violent action. For example, in 2003 over a million people are reported to have marched against UK involvement in the Iraq war, an entirely peaceful response to a situational precipitant factor. That this action was peaceful represented the strategic aims of the anti-war movement, which sought in the short-term to make a clear statement of dissatisfaction against UK policy, whilst in the longer term to halt any UK involvement in a war against Iraq.
In contrast, the short term and long term aims of al Qaeda were decidedly violent. In the short term, actions such as 9/11 sought to motivate sympathisers whilst also striking terror into their ‘enemy’. In the longer term, they sought the removal of US military forces from Saudi Arabia, amongst other aims (these aims can be found in statements translated in works by, for example, Raymond Ibrahim and Gilles Kepel and Jean-Pierre Milelli (2008)).
Ideological factors
It is perhaps the ideologies of groups which are the key area where a difference can be seen between radicalisation and violent radicalisation. For example, while the role of radical groups provokes much debate, with some commentators seeing groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, for example, as part of a ‘conveyor belt’ to radicalisation, there is a clear difference between the ideological response of Hizb to the preceding factors to that of al Qaeda’s.
Radical, but arguably non-violent groups such as Hizb are seen as providing a gateway for disaffected people (in this case, young Muslims) to develop and express increasingly radical views. Ed Husain, co-founder of a UK think tank set-up to educate about and counter such groups writes about his experiences in what he sees as feeder groups for violent extremism operating in the UK. In this case it is worth highlighting that the role of Hizb as a key staging point for radicalisation is by no means unanimously accepted, for example Emmanuel Karagiannis and Clark McCauley and Vitaly Naumkin have both argued that Hizb ut-Tahrir (though note that they argue based on research into a particular regional section of Hizb, in Uzbekistan) is not a feeder group for violent radicals. Where former members have acted violently, they argue, it has only been after disagreement and expulsion from the group that they have done so, and it is the exception, not the rule. Hizb ideology proscribes violence, at least at the present time, and this ideology is a key factor in how it responds to some of the same situational factors and even long-term aims that can be seen to influence al Qaeda members.
These considerations are equally applicable to secular as they are to religious ideologies. Assumptions that there is something unique about religion (and particular religions) that causes violence are misleading and my own research (Francis and Knott, 2011) has demonstrated how linkages can be found between secular and religious ideological responses to conflict and difference.
Individual factors
Crenshaw gives greater attention to individual factors than I have here. I mentioned above that in the cases of former Hizb members turning to violence it tended to be the exception, not the rule. This has been a common caveat expressed throughout this consideration of the factors causing radicalisation and it continues to be the case in our consideration of individual factors. Assuming that all of the above may have led to an individual being involved in a group with violent strategic aims it is still not the case that that individual will act violently. Whilst Crenshaw mentions psychological factors in her original article, it is important to note that in most cases there are no obvious indicators of abnormal psychological factors. For example, whilst the actions of the UK July 7 bombers were seen as proof of individuals who were not properly absorbed into UK society, their lives up to that point suggested otherwise and this is often, though not always, the case. Economic background, relative assimilation into ‘host’ cultures, apparent ideological background and other seemingly important factors all fail to account for why some people act violently and others do not. The background factors are as individual as those who choose this step and this in a large part explains the difficulty of theories of radicalisation to accurately predict violent behaviour.
We should also consider the role of serendipity. Just as it seems fortunate at times that some well-advanced plots have failed at the moment of execution, so it could also be the case that chance decisions or events led to those individuals being in that place at that time. However, this should not distract from attention given to the causes of radicalisation discussed above. For example, while the current and previous UK government warns universities that lonely Muslim students are potentially at risk of radicalisation, there is much less chance of any young person becoming radicalised if they have not viewed their life through a prism of discrimination or deprivation, have not seen particular events, such as the Iraq war, as requiring a direct and personal response and have not joined groups with violent ideologies and aims.
The above discussion summarises potential causes of radicalisation into several categories. As highlighted above, there are different kinds of models which predict how people may display characteristics of radicalisation within these categories as well as strong debate over the validity both of the definition and of theories of radicalisation. This essay has not sought to critique these debates, but has instead provided a basic understanding of some of the most discussed possible causes, whilst also drawing attention to the complex interrelationship between them.

I see nothing in this longer exposition to change my point of what was in the table that preceeded it...which i note you have failed to post...

this is merely a justification of their actions based on "our" supposed failure to bend over and be shafted...

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

YOU brought in American problems, "blacks" here is  relevant to the point....since they are "marginalised" (even more so in the past) and yet we dont see them on jihad...HERE

sod america or anywhere else...THEY are not relevant to HERE....

Yes and I am showing black extremists which you brought up, where they were far more oppressed than over here, or do you not understand the difference?


My point entirely.....specifically an american problem....or are you comparing the situatiuon of Muslims here (and now) to balcks over there (and then?)

Yes it is relevant, because it shows also how people are radicalized due to hate, you cannot define a problem by just one nation, that is not only absurd, it is daft

The Puzzler wrote:Do you ever give up Didge? It really is funny how a self proclaimed atheist spends so much time defending the 7th century and ultra repressive religion that is Islam.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes and I am showing black extremists which you brought up, where they were far more oppressed than over here, or do you not understand the difference?


My point entirely.....specifically an american problem....or are you comparing the situatiuon of Muslims here (and now) to balcks over there (and then?)

Yes it is relevant, because it shows also how people are radicalized due to hate, you cannot define a problem by just one nation, that is not only absurd, it is daft

victorisnotamused wrote:and who's fault is that??

chicken and egg situation here didge....

victorisnotamused wrote:and who's fault is that??

chicken and egg situation here didge....

veya_victaous wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:and who's fault is that??

chicken and egg situation here didge....

the people ostracising them.... you can't blame an individual for being stereotyped       

lets use an example    say Victor, he's a nice man does everything right and by the law but some other hunters are complete jack offs and go around killing peoples pets for fun. Now if Victor is out minding in own business hunting in a completely legal and allowed manner is it HIS fault is some Anti Hunting groups start harassing him accusing him of planning to kill their pets because some other Hunters did kill peoples pets in the past?  

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

no idea what you're talking about, do you know what you're talking about??  

Thought you might say that:

Your claim from that idiot site:

Mein Kampf:676 "Spiritual terror...men must threaten and dominate men by compulsion. Compulsion is only broken by compulsion and terror by terror."


On the road to power, compulsion follows seduction. And the lever that coerces compulsion is terror. Hitlersimply followed Muhammad's path.




What it really says




The idea that Christianity introduced 'spiritual terror'
into a previously immune world is a favorite Rosenberg
notion. (Cf. Mythus des 2on Jahrhunderts.) But it has had
a still more fervent protagonist in Count Reventlow, whose
Reichswart contained many articles denouncing the 'Chris-
tian dualism 9 which sunders God from the world, and soul
from body, has turned human beings into 'creatures without
wills/ who propagate themselves 'with a guilty conscience,
under the last of sermons against sin/


The individual may state with pain today that with the
appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror has been
brought into the much freer old world, but he will not be
able to deny the fact that since then the world has been
threatened and dominated by this compulsion, and that
compulsion is broken only by compulsion, and terror by
terror. Only then can a new condition be created by con-
struction.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Thought you might say that:

Your claim from that idiot site:

Mein Kampf:676 "Spiritual terror...men must threaten and dominate men by compulsion. Compulsion is only broken by compulsion and terror by terror."


On the road to power, compulsion follows seduction. And the lever that coerces compulsion is terror. Hitlersimply followed Muhammad's path.




What it really says




The idea that Christianity introduced 'spiritual terror'
into a previously immune world is a favorite Rosenberg
notion. (Cf. Mythus des 2on Jahrhunderts.) But it has had
a still more fervent protagonist in Count Reventlow, whose
Reichswart contained many articles denouncing the 'Chris-
tian dualism 9 which sunders God from the world, and soul
from body, has turned human beings into 'creatures without
wills/ who propagate themselves 'with a guilty conscience,
under the last of sermons against sin/


The individual may state with pain today that with the
appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror has been
brought into the much freer old world, but he will not be
able to deny the fact that since then the world has been
threatened and dominated by this compulsion, and that
compulsion is broken only by compulsion, and terror by
terror. Only then can a new condition be created by con-
struction.

 ::smthg:: 

you don't even know what is being said in the above you fucking mongtard

it doesn't even echo the quote being used   

smelly_bandit wrote:firstly didge as always you show that you never read what other posters post, but instead create your own little straw man to attack because you are intellectually incapable of dealing with an opposing view, i have never once said that Hitler was talking about Islam in mein kampf    

i would ask you to show where ive done so but the iraq war III thread proves that you never back up your wild fantasies

secondly the ideas in the above post are entirely separate

in one instance it talks about the belief that Christianity has created spiritual terror and compulsion of the soul  

in the other it talks about physical terror and compulsion over men Hitler used in his regime  

men must threaten and dominate men

you really do get excited when you think you've got something don't you??

smelly_bandit wrote:
Due to these twin ideologies we are now confronted by the deadly menace of militant Islam within the heart of our society.............................

...................But we would not be in this mess if our rulers had decided to protect our society instead of feebly colluding with our enemies.

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/484235/Leo-McKinstry-on-multi-cultralism

veya_victaous wrote:....................

Since Multiculturalism Is NOT new and already been going successfully for decades in other nations IF there is an Issue it is with the British themselves. UK is NOT doing anything Other nations have not already done it is not an experiment or any of that deluded crap some of you spout....................

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:firstly didge as always you show that you never read what other posters post, but instead create your own little straw man to attack because you are intellectually incapable of dealing with an opposing view, i have never once said that Hitler was talking about Islam in mein kampf    

i would ask you to show where ive done so but the iraq war III thread proves that you never back up your wild fantasies

secondly the ideas in the above post are entirely separate

in one instance it talks about the belief that Christianity has created spiritual terror and compulsion of the soul  

in the other it talks about physical terror and compulsion over men Hitler used in his regime  

men must threaten and dominate men

you really do get excited when you think you've got something don't you??

You got battered on the Iraq thread and as per usual just throw now in a load of waffle, as seen he does not mention Islam but Christianity, showing the idiots who made this claim edited out the important part because they know it would make them look stupid.

You do make me laugh at the crap you promote daily, 10 out 10 for effort, but for being rational?

Zero

Lone Wolf wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:....................

Since Multiculturalism Is NOT new and already been going successfully for decades in other nations IF there is an Issue it is with the British themselves. UK is NOT doing anything Other nations have not already done it is not an experiment or any of that deluded crap some of you spout....................

 ::D:: 

MULTICULTURALISM was introduced into Australia in 1788.

IN THE Americas it was a couple of centuries earlier still ~ back when the Spaniards first sallied forth, ahead of the British, French and Portuguese..

Tommy Monk wrote:We do have radicalised blacks here, look at the killers of Lee Rigby, again Islam is the common cause.

Tommy Monk wrote:We do have radicalised blacks here, look at the killers of Lee Rigby, again Islam is the common cause.

A'shadieeyah wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:We do have radicalised blacks here, look at the killers of Lee Rigby, again Islam is the common cause.

You are right this is why i doubt islam and all it stands for

Ben_Reilly wrote:

A'shadieeyah wrote:

You are right this is why i doubt islam and all it stands for

I thought you were a Muslim!

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I thought you were a Muslim!

its precisely because you DIDN'T think that you thought he/she was a Muslim

you saw a name and immediately thought "Muslim"

you're such a generalizing racist aren't you Ben??

veya_victaous wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:and who's fault is that??

chicken and egg situation here didge....

the people ostracising them.... you can't blame an individual for being stereotyped       

lets use an example    say Victor, he's a nice man does everything right and by the law but some other hunters are complete jack offs and go around killing peoples pets for fun. Now if Victor is out minding in own business hunting in a completely legal and allowed manner is it HIS fault is some Anti Hunting groups start harassing him accusing him of planning to kill their pets because some other Hunters did kill peoples pets in the past?  

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

its precisely because you DIDN'T think that you thought he/she was a Muslim

you saw a name and immediately thought "Muslim"

you're such a generalizing racist aren't you Ben??

Hee hee, brainless smelly again, to be honest I think Ben saw immediately Christian and not Muslim.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:



Hee hee, brainless smelly again, to be honest I think Ben saw immediately Christian and not Muslim.

is that why he said  "i thought you were a Muslim"

so you're saying ben is a mong who thinks one thing and says another??

Didge wrote:It may help smelly if you follow previous posts made and shows Ben is clearly much smarter than you:



Im not a practicing Muslim i don't pray i suppose i am Muslim by birth only . My parents don't pray either i suppose i should defend Islam , but I have to admit 
I'm ashamed of the atrocities carried out in the name of Islam




http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5288-well-fly-black-flag-of-jihad-over-london#114361

Didge wrote:It may help smelly if you follow previous posts made and shows Ben is clearly much smarter than you:



Im not a practicing Muslim i don't pray i suppose i am Muslim by birth only . My parents don't pray either i suppose i should defend Islam , but I have to admit 
I'm ashamed of the atrocities carried out in the name of Islam




http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5288-well-fly-black-flag-of-jihad-over-london#114361

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:It may help smelly if you follow previous posts made and shows Ben is clearly much smarter than you:



Im not a practicing Muslim i don't pray i suppose i am Muslim by birth only . My parents don't pray either i suppose i should defend Islam , but I have to admit 
I'm ashamed of the atrocities carried out in the name of Islam




http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5288-well-fly-black-flag-of-jihad-over-london#114361

just picked up on something

in light of the above

why did you say ben thought "christian" instead of "Muslim"??

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:It may help smelly if you follow previous posts made and shows Ben is clearly much smarter than you:



Im not a practicing Muslim i don't pray i suppose i am Muslim by birth only . My parents don't pray either i suppose i should defend Islam , but I have to admit 
I'm ashamed of the atrocities carried out in the name of Islam




http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5288-well-fly-black-flag-of-jihad-over-london#114361

tut tiut didge

ben is just a bigot

he saw a name and made a judgment

i know he is your BFF but now you're defending plain racism

The Puzzler wrote:No reason why she as a non practicing Muslim should feel the need to defend Islam, any more than I as a non practicing Christian would want to defend Christianity. Ben made a generalisation and you know it Didge, stop arguing for the sake of it come on.