Champion Rabbit wrote:

sparky wrote:If you do want to get in a debate this, it might be an idea to start another thread and stop my corruption of Mr Rabbit's.

Ha!

Talk about bolting the gate after the horse has...er...through the eye of a camel.

Go ahead, corrupt my day, punk!

That's a sore tempting invitation.

It's a shoddy habit of mine, to get my apology in as I'm committing the crime

sparky wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:

sparky wrote:If you do want to get in a debate this, it might be an idea to start another thread and stop my corruption of Mr Rabbit's.

Ha!

Talk about bolting the gate after the horse has...er...through the eye of a camel.

Go ahead, corrupt my day, punk!

That's a sore tempting invitation.

It's a shoddy habit of mine, to get my apology in as I'm committing the crime

Non, non, non!

Your corruption was a welcome diversion from the preceding corruption, it even had commas and capitals!

Salut!

Gramsci wrote:And I didn't march against it because I refuse to be aligned with the Islamic totalitarians of the Free Palestine movement.

Just out of curiosity, and given that there are quite a few organisations campaigning for Palestinian freedom, which one are you talking about?

I went to two anti-war marches in London, and felt kind of disillusioned with a lot of the empty sloganeering taking place - but that's another story. I did see young kids dressed in the uniform synonymous with Hamas and Islamic Jihad (complete with costume explosives) and felt incredibly angry. No one seemed to care about this though. People were quite accepting of it, really. I can understand if you're referring to nutters like this, but if you're talking about the general movement - which is characterised by sensible, decent activism - I'm afraid I'd have to disagree...

Rimbaud III wrote:

Gramsci wrote:And I didn't march against it because I refuse to be aligned with the Islamic totalitarians of the Free Palestine movement.

Just out of curiosity, and given that there are quite a few organisations campaigning for Palestinian freedom, which one are you talking about?

I went to two anti-war marches in London, and felt kind of disillusioned with a lot of the empty sloganeering taking place - but that's another story. I did see young kids dressed in the uniform synonymous with Hamas and Islamic Jihad (complete with costume explosives) and felt incredibly angry. No one seemed to care about this though. People were quite accepting of it, really. I can understand if you're referring to nutters like this, but if you're talking about the general movement - which is characterised by sensible, decent activism - I'm afraid I'd have to disagree...

In a nutshell, I think Israel should pull back to the '67 partition and if they want to put a bloody great wall around themselves - only on Israeli land more power to 'em. Then you can watch Hamas take over Palestine and start doing what they do already, oppress women, kill homosexuals, act violently to the non-Islamic population and basically do what all Islamist want to do, which is drive society into a theocracy.

I find most of the Pro-Palestinian movements are extremely anti-semetic and why the Left are aligning themselves with women oppressing baby murders quite strange.

Having said this, it is not an endorsment of Israeli behaviour either, which is equally disgusting at times. I refuse to take sides on this because both sides have serious flaws.

It anyone is interested in why Islam and suicide bombing go hand-in-hand I suggest they read The End of Faith, by Sam Harris

www.samharris.org

Gramsci wrote:Then you can watch Hamas take over Palestine and start doing what they do already, oppress women, kill homosexuals, act violently to the non-Islamic population and basically do what all Islamist want to do, which is drive society into a theocracy.

I find most of the Pro-Palestinian movements are extremely anti-semetic and why the Left are aligning themselves with women oppressing baby murders quite strange....

It anyone is interested in why Islam and suicide bombing go hand-in-hand I suggest they read The End of Faith, by Sam Harris

www.samharris.org

With all due respect, I find your comments very offensive. It's a bit difficult to know where to start.

What do you mean by Islamists? All Muslims? In which case, your generalisations regarding what "all Islamists want to do" are both incorrect and racist.

How many Muslims do you know? Have you ever lived in a predominantly Muslim country? Are you going to come out with the "My best friend's black" argument?

Whilst I share your antipathy towards theocracy and organised religion in general, your vitriol towards one specific brand of superstition stinks.

Suicide murder has been used by all ilks; it is only in the past decade where it has become predominantly associated with Muslim terrorists. I am sure the book you reference has some neat links between the Koran and Islamic clergy and suicide bombing. I am equally sure that you could go through most religious works and find what you want to prove just about anything. That's the problem with religion - it provides an easy, mutable framework for bad people to justify their transgressions. But your pinning of baby murder and the oppression of women and minorities on Islam suggests some dubious thought processes in there.

It has been a great tragedy for moderate (ie most Muslims) that extremist forms (Wahabi in particular) have begun to dominate the news through atrocity and ill words. But it's always the offensive loudmouths you hear, rarely the quiet majority. Your painting a whole group of people as cruel and backward just because their particular flavour of superstition is unkind. I have plenty of friends and family of Muslim extraction, and none of them advocate the crimes that you are yelling about.

sparky wrote:
What do you mean by Islamists? All Muslims?

Nope, I mean Islamists. Sorry to cut off your rather long reply.

You shouldn't put words in my mouth and then try and have a thread-fight. It's boring.

Gramsci wrote:

sparky wrote:
What do you mean by Islamists? All Muslims?

Nope, I mean Islamists. Sorry to cut off your rather long reply.

You shouldn't put words in my mouth and then try and have a thread-fight. It's boring.

Provide a definition. I'm sorry Gramsci, but you can be an arrogant, rude git sometimes.

Easy tigers!

Gramsci is correct in his use of 'Islamist' to describe the more conservative and militant aspects of the Muslim faith.

sparky wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

sparky wrote:
What do you mean by Islamists? All Muslims?

Nope, I mean Islamists. Sorry to cut off your rather long reply.

You shouldn't put words in my mouth and then try and have a thread-fight. It's boring.

Provide a definition. I'm sorry Gramsci, but you can be an arrogant, rude git sometimes.

Spare me the indignation. I am an active secularist and personally find all religious faith deeply offensive to my humanity and intelligence.

There is no rational foundation in any religious faith and I find the respect afforded to "people of Faith" nothing short of a form of mass insanity. In fact I think that most people that are not secular humanists are either, not particularly interested in religion/philosophy -not a problem, or theists, who are suffering from a form of mental illness.

This is a statement and starting a debate on this is not something I'm interested in. You say the points I made are offensive and I'm sure you regard the ones in this post offensive as well-, but I find religion in general highly offensive. Is it ok to offend a secularist but not a theist? I guess we'll just have to act like adults and get over it.

Mr Gramsci.

If you aren't interested in discussion then I would urge to to refrain from posting your opinions on a 'General Discussion' forum lest you find yourself disappointed.

This is a great, great forum full of intelligent and interesting people and opinions; rudeness and aggression seem happily incongruous here.

Adam