balls

[longdogs]

Well doesn't the second picture illustrate why he should be locked up?

I know it's a bad jumper but you can't go locking up everyone for looking like a twonk or else the prisons would be twice as full.

I have to say, that WAS funny

 

[longdogs]

Newboy, I will not quote RNR, as again his reply is long winded and tedious but surely from that you get my point.

 

[RNReindeer]

Newboy, I will not quote RNR, as again his reply is long winded and tedious but surely from that you get my point.

So instead of addressing my points, any of them, you console yourself with "I can't be bothered because it's too much effort."
You'e as bad as nocon who replies with "that's nonsense, but I can't explain how it's nonsense."

Typical intellectual capability of the radical fundamentalist racists.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Perhaps you'd care to take up this discussion with Wikipedia?

You could alter it and point out the correct terminology.

While you're at it perhaps you'd care to converse with Uni of California, Centre for Race and Gender, and many other notable organisations.

The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims

...and as such incorrect.

http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/islamophobia/defining-islamophobia

the above article continues with:

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve "civilizational rehab" of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.

Wrong then, aren't they?

Don't bother replying that I am a racist because I am merely commenting on the usage of the word.



Is someone who discriminates against muslims an Islamist?

 

[longdogs]

Newboy, I will not quote RNR, as again his reply is long winded and tedious but surely from that you get my point.

So instead of addressing my points, any of them, you console yourself with "I can't be bothered because it's too much effort."
You'e as bad as nocon who replies with "that's nonsense, but I can't explain how it's nonsense."

Typical intellectual capability of the radical fundamentalist racists.

At last a reasonably sized post. Now, which points do you want me to address?

 

[Johnmelad]

Newboy, I will not quote RNR, as again his reply is long winded and tedious but surely from that you get my point.

So instead of addressing my points, any of them, you console yourself with "I can't be bothered because it's too much effort."
You'e as bad as nocon who replies with "that's nonsense, but I can't explain how it's nonsense."

Typical intellectual capability of the radical fundamentalist racists.

Which bit of "that is nonsense" do you not understand? Why should anyone explain why something is nonsense, nonsense is, just nonsense.

The picture I get of you is that you believe any nonsense you read (even from wikpedia) from any organisation purely because you are totally incapable of thinking for yourself. You won't accept evidence that is all around you and you think that by writing verse after misguided verse you must somehow be right.

Grow some balls man.

You are a small man in denial, wallowing in delusion, immune to facts and immune to the truth.

 

[RNReindeer]

Perhaps you'd care to take up this discussion with Wikipedia?

You could alter it and point out the correct terminology.

Why? I'm happy to accept their definition. Why would I want them to change their terminology?
Your post makes little sense.

While you're at it perhaps you'd care to converse with Uni of California, Centre for Race and Gender, and many other notable organisations.

The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims

...and as such incorrect.

If you disagree, kindly state why or how oyu disagree, rather than a bland statement, like nocon.

http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/islamophobia/defining-islamophobia

the above article continues with:

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve "civilizational rehab" of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.

Wrong then, aren't they?

How? Why?

Is someone who discriminates against muslims an Islamist?

Typical example of judgemental decisions without any rational explanantion.

 

[RNReindeer]

Newboy, I will not quote RNR, as again his reply is long winded and tedious but surely from that you get my point.

So instead of addressing my points, any of them, you console yourself with "I can't be bothered because it's too much effort."
You'e as bad as nocon who replies with "that's nonsense, but I can't explain how it's nonsense."

Typical intellectual capability of the radical fundamentalist racists.

At last a reasonably sized post. Now, which points do you want me to address?

Any points that you disagree with.
You choose.

 

[Newboy]

I am not sure about you because I have never really had too much discussion with you, but for starters, do YOU accept that just because someone has serious questions about immigration in this country, it doesn't mean that they are a 'racist?' If you can agree on that then there is room for a serious discussion.

How refreshing to actually have a readable post with an actual point to it - ta!

Absolutely agree about immigration - there are some serious questions about how it's managed as a policy. I have no problem with immigrants as people - this country has always had a flow of cultures and people for centuries.

There is nothing vaguely racist about discussing immigration and how it should be managed.

Anybody who immediately throws the racist word into a discussion about immigration is

a) An idiot
b) Playing the politically correct role (whatever the hell that is!)
c) Not living in the real world.

 

[RNReindeer]

Newboy, I will not quote RNR, as again his reply is long winded and tedious but surely from that you get my point.

So instead of addressing my points, any of them, you console yourself with "I can't be bothered because it's too much effort."
You'e as bad as nocon who replies with "that's nonsense, but I can't explain how it's nonsense."

Typical intellectual capability of the radical fundamentalist racists.

Which bit of "that is nonsense" do you not understand? Why should anyone explain why something is nonsense, nonsense is, just nonsense.

The picture I get of you is that you believe any nonsense you read (even from wikpedia) from any organisation purely because you are totally incapable of thinking for yourself. You won't accept evidence that is all around you and you think that by writing verse after misguided verse you must somehow be right.

Grow some balls man.

You are a small man in denial, wallowing in delusion, immune to facts and immune to the truth.

Allow me to enlighten you to the nomal rules of discussion.
Person A makes some arguments for how he/she sees the world.
Person B makes some counter arguements. Just stating "I think it's nonsense" is not considered a counter argeument. It needs supporting arguments to illustrate how or why person B thinks it's nonsense.
Then and only then will Person A respond to explain/illustrate/provide further documentation/evidence or whatever to support their initial argument.

The continual statement of "it's nonsense" is an autological definition. (look it up).

The rest of your post is typical prejudiced drivel.

 

[Johnmelad]

Old but still funny and true...

They're not happy in Gaza ..
They're not happy in Egypt ..
They're not happy in Libya ..
They're not happy in Morocco ..
They're not happy in Iran ..
They're not happy in Iraq ..
They're not happy in Yemen ...
They're not happy in Afghanistan ...
They're not happy in Pakistan ..
They're not happy in Syria ..
They're not happy in Lebanon ..

SO, WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY?

They're happy in Australia ..
They're happy in Canada ..
They're happy in England ..
They're happy in France ..
They're happy in Italy ..
They're happy in Germany ..
They're happy in Sweden ..
They're happy in the USA ..
They're happy in Norway ..
They're happy in Holland ..
They're happy in Denmark ..

Basically, they're happy in every country that is not Muslim
and unhappy in every country that is!

AND WHO DO THEY BLAME?

Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.

THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN !

AND THEN- They want to change those countries to be like,

THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!

Go figure

 

[RNReindeer]

Old but still funny and true...

They're not happy in Gaza ..
They're not happy in Egypt ..
They're not happy in Libya ..
They're not happy in Morocco ..
They're not happy in Iran ..
They're not happy in Iraq ..
They're not happy in Yemen ...
They're not happy in Afghanistan ...
They're not happy in Pakistan ..
They're not happy in Syria ..
They're not happy in Lebanon ..

SO, WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY?

They're happy in Australia ..
They're happy in Canada ..
They're happy in England ..
They're happy in France ..
They're happy in Italy ..
They're happy in Germany ..
They're happy in Sweden ..
They're happy in the USA ..
They're happy in Norway ..
They're happy in Holland ..
They're happy in Denmark ..

Basically, they're happy in every country that is not Muslim
and unhappy in every country that is!

AND WHO DO THEY BLAME?

Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.

THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN !

AND THEN- They want to change those countries to be like,

THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!

Go figure

Show me the results of your polling of these people from those countries instead of making silly suppositions based on your prejudice.

 

[Newboy]

Name one Islamic country which practices good civil rights, maintains egalitarianism, and supports even half decent gay rights.

Whilst criticising Islam it might be worth checking with the Church of England which, after 2000 years, has just managed to appoint it's first female bishop and is heavily split on the issue of homosexuality.

Or the Catholic church - not to sure about their view on woman in the church but pretty sure that they're not joining in on the next gay march.

As a personal point whatever the religious organisation chooses to preach is their call, as is the choose of the individual to follow it.

 

[jockscott]

RNR, you quote Wikipedia,, (which we all know is filled with the truth, (as far as the writers/contributors are concerned))
Wiki states that

The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims.

Have a look at the world today,, I hardly think a lot of people's hostility/uncertainty, towards Muslims is "unfounded" . As others have already said, no other religious group, in the world today shows as much hostility towards any other religious/racial groups (and even sects within they're own religion) as Muslims do.

Do you really believe our fears about these religious zealots are totally unfounded? I don't and I'm certain there's plenty of other people who believe our fears aren't unfounded.

 

[Newboy]

Have a look at the world today,, I hardly think a lot of people's hostility/uncertainty, towards Muslims is "unfounded" . As others have already said, no other religious group, in the world today shows as much hostility towards any other religious/racial groups (and even sects within they're own religion) as Muslims do.

Surely there is a word missing - if you add the word SOME before Muslims then the argument is fair.

Not all Muslims want to take over the world - only the radicals

Do you really believe our fears about these religious zealots are totally unfounded? I don't and I'm certain there's plenty of other people who believe our fears aren't unfounded.

Everybody should fear zealots of any religion - and they should be fought at every opportunity