A Muslim Brit nails it again on the New Zealand attack

[LordBrownTrout]

No muslims worship a false god.

This is where your utter stupidity bites you in your fat arse. With gusto.

Wrong. Mohammed preached the sword, Jesus taught peace. Allah is a fictional creation. Those are facts.

Wrong. Batman preached the grappling hook, Silver Surfer taught nobility. Jar Jar is a fictional creation. Those are biglier facts.

Those are fantasies/comics.

So is religion.

Religion is stupid.

 

[Coyote]

This is who the Regressives are. They try to put me on the defensive, cloud the issue, make this about me, avoid any hopeful conversation.

Look how they're behaving about a guy who's trying to bring some peace and sanity to this mess. What are they afraid of, do you suppose?

Fact is, they want him to fail - that's how protective they are of their chosen pet constituent oppressed religion - Fundamentalist Islamism.
.

When you look into his funding it brings up questions about his integrity and his motives. You seem to discount that completely Everybody can agree that some Muslim societies need to be dragged into the modern era but this guy lacks the credibility to do so. And I remember the Tommy Robinson farce.

My muslim friends dont need to reform, certainly not at the behest of someone who is bought and paid for.

I know you have a pet constituent oppressed religion to protect.

No doubt you're just as forgiving and tolerant and open-minded with Christians.

Yuk yuk.
.

Well I am a Welsh Methodist so I am not sure where you are coming from with that. But I see you do not want to discuss the concerns that many have with Mr Nawaz. Stand by your man Mac.

That's what the whole thread is about.

I've also said that the Regressive Left doesn't want Islam to reform. You're happy the way it is.

So you're attacking the messenger. You're not talking about what he is saying or what he is doing. You're trying to discredit him so that he fails.

It's all right here on these pages. You're changing the subject by going after him.
.

Well you would classify me as "regressive" I suppose. But I have always believed that Islam needed to shift. Although I do believe that is mostly driven by culture than faith. My Muslim friends are modern Europeans who dont stone gays or chop hands off.They would tell Mr Nawaz to fuck off and sort out his own shit.

All of which tends to undermine your theory. You seem to be happier attacking sceptics than making your case. Is that because you havent got a clue what you are talking about ?

That pretty much describes the muslims I know as well which is why I dont understand the relentless broadbrushing.

 

[Tehon]

The monkey trainers are stealth jihadists.

The monkeys are fodder for them because they are cases of arrested development .They hate their own culture because they hate themselves.

It's all just acting out like a teenager .

Clearly there's some self-loathing involved. This has to be strong - they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal characteristics and behaviors. And then, of course, you'll see the same people saying vicious things about Christians.

There's a serious disconnect here.
.

Maybe you are so caught up in your self delusions you aren't really comprehending the message your man is laying down.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control
Already, ISIS spokesman Abu Hassan al-Muhajir has broken six months' silence after the group’s recent humiliating series of defeats in Syria to encourage Muslims to take revenge for New Zealand. But this obviously does not mean critics of right-wing extremism or the war in Syria are in league with ISIS.

Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton.

Well, at least you tried to make a point, as vague as it may be.

Perhaps you could address something I have actually said, or something that Nawaz has actually said.

And perhaps you could do that with some clarity.
.

It's simple.

Understand that Nawaz is not above critique and stop denigrating those who do it. Let's have an open dialogue.

I've been expressing my opinion from post 1.

Perhaps you might consider asking others here to stop denigrating, as well.

And maybe stop denigrating Nawaz and address his point.

Looking forward to it.
.

I'm not denigrating Nawaz, I said he was right on this message.

And yet, I feel as though you've lumped me in with terrorist extremists for expressing a viewpoint that is not in lockstep with Nawaz's viewpoint. You think that because I have a differing opinion I am aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.

That's extreme. It is not meant to foster dialogue and in fact does the opposite. You use the term regressive left as a weapon. If you recognize how using the term islamaphobia silences debate, why can't you recognize this as its equal?

You haven't recognized that Nawaz has softened his position?

 

[Mac1958]

Clearly there's some self-loathing involved. This has to be strong - they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal characteristics and behaviors. And then, of course, you'll see the same people saying vicious things about Christians.

There's a serious disconnect here.
.

Maybe you are so caught up in your self delusions you aren't really comprehending the message your man is laying down.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control
Already, ISIS spokesman Abu Hassan al-Muhajir has broken six months' silence after the group’s recent humiliating series of defeats in Syria to encourage Muslims to take revenge for New Zealand. But this obviously does not mean critics of right-wing extremism or the war in Syria are in league with ISIS.

Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton.

Well, at least you tried to make a point, as vague as it may be.

Perhaps you could address something I have actually said, or something that Nawaz has actually said.

And perhaps you could do that with some clarity.
.

It's simple.

Understand that Nawaz is not above critique and stop denigrating those who do it. Let's have an open dialogue.

I've been expressing my opinion from post 1.

Perhaps you might consider asking others here to stop denigrating, as well.

And maybe stop denigrating Nawaz and address his point.

Looking forward to it.
.

I'm not denigrating Nawaz, I said he was right on this message.

And yet, I feel as though you've lumped me in with terrorist extremists for expressing a viewpoint that is not in lockstep with Nawaz's viewpoint. You think that because I have a differing opinion I am aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.

That's extreme. And is not meant to foster dialogue and in fact does the opposite. You use the term regressive left as a weapon. If you recognize how using the term islamaphobia silences debate, why can't you recognize this as its equal?

You may "feel" that I've lumped you in with terrorist extremists, but I am not. As I said in Post 512, "they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors."

Aligning yourself with them is different from working with them. It's clear you have shared enemies. That's what that means.

I don't use the term "Regressive Left" as a weapon. That is a direct quote from Mr. Nawaz, the man who coined the term. It's a term that has been adopted and advanced by other liberals, such as Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

So I'll say it again: They're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. Anti-Liberal and Anti-Western. Are you really trying to deny this? Are you not reading this thread, for example?

I don't need you to agree with me. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. I know better. I'm just belching out my little opinion, and people are reacting. That's life.
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

When you look into his funding it brings up questions about his integrity and his motives. You seem to discount that completely Everybody can agree that some Muslim societies need to be dragged into the modern era but this guy lacks the credibility to do so. And I remember the Tommy Robinson farce.

My muslim friends dont need to reform, certainly not at the behest of someone who is bought and paid for.

I know you have a pet constituent oppressed religion to protect.

No doubt you're just as forgiving and tolerant and open-minded with Christians.

Yuk yuk.
.

Well I am a Welsh Methodist so I am not sure where you are coming from with that. But I see you do not want to discuss the concerns that many have with Mr Nawaz. Stand by your man Mac.

That's what the whole thread is about.

I've also said that the Regressive Left doesn't want Islam to reform. You're happy the way it is.

So you're attacking the messenger. You're not talking about what he is saying or what he is doing. You're trying to discredit him so that he fails.

It's all right here on these pages. You're changing the subject by going after him.
.

Well you would classify me as "regressive" I suppose. But I have always believed that Islam needed to shift. Although I do believe that is mostly driven by culture than faith. My Muslim friends are modern Europeans who dont stone gays or chop hands off.They would tell Mr Nawaz to fuck off and sort out his own shit.

All of which tends to undermine your theory. You seem to be happier attacking sceptics than making your case. Is that because you havent got a clue what you are talking about ?

That pretty much describes the muslims I know as well which is why I dont understand the relentless broadbrushing.

Because it helps to confirm their ignorant world view ?

 

[grainbely]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

Being able to see both sides doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
I don't like seeing anyone attacking innocent Muslims....but I also cannot handle the whining Muslims who feel they were personally attacked when they live 8000 miles away from the attack, and try to use this typically Islamic martyrdom complex to claim the right to attack others.

Some christians feel they are personally attacked, that they are a persecuted minority, from abuses on the other side of the planet. They then try to manufacture precursors to persecution here as evidence and justification for special protection and government affirmation - the end to separation of church and state.

 

[grainbely]

Conflict is what the shooter wanted.
Some are giving it to him. We need to stop.

We need to delegitimize the awful white supremacists. Trump and his far alt right need to stop encouraging them. His campaign was a white supremacists dream and brought them out into false social acceptance.

 

[Cosmos]

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

Ok. Stop right there. The shooter very clearly stated in his manifesto that he was a lone operator and that he was motivated to vigilantism by terrorist attacks he's seen in Europe, particularly the murder of a deaf child.

This was by no means a sign of "far-right extremism on the march once more".

 

[TNHarley]

Conflict is what the shooter wanted.
Some are giving it to him. We need to stop.

We need to delegitimize the awful white supremacists. Trump and his far alt right need to stop encouraging them. His campaign was a white supremacists dream and brought them out into false social acceptance.

 

[Olde Europe]

That pretty much describes the muslims I know as well which is why I dont understand the relentless broadbrushing.

Stereotyping works best for those unencumbered by any living, breathing counter-examples.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[Aponi]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

The biggest killer of muslims is their fellow muslum.

 

[Mac1958]

The biggest killer of muslims is their fellow muslum.

More so than any other major religion at this time (although the Catholics sure are up there), it's a religion in need of serious reform.

Even if some refuse to admit it for their own ideological, hypocritical reasons.
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

"For Israel we are a useful tool at a very reasonable price"

 

[Mac1958]

"For Israel we are a useful tool at a very reasonable price"

I know where you folks are coming from. You're made your point.

Now my interest is in learning why.
.

 

[Tehon]

Maybe you are so caught up in your self delusions you aren't really comprehending the message your man is laying down.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control
Already, ISIS spokesman Abu Hassan al-Muhajir has broken six months' silence after the group’s recent humiliating series of defeats in Syria to encourage Muslims to take revenge for New Zealand. But this obviously does not mean critics of right-wing extremism or the war in Syria are in league with ISIS.

Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton.

Well, at least you tried to make a point, as vague as it may be.

Perhaps you could address something I have actually said, or something that Nawaz has actually said.

And perhaps you could do that with some clarity.
.

It's simple.

Understand that Nawaz is not above critique and stop denigrating those who do it. Let's have an open dialogue.

I've been expressing my opinion from post 1.

Perhaps you might consider asking others here to stop denigrating, as well.

And maybe stop denigrating Nawaz and address his point.

Looking forward to it.
.

I'm not denigrating Nawaz, I said he was right on this message.

And yet, I feel as though you've lumped me in with terrorist extremists for expressing a viewpoint that is not in lockstep with Nawaz's viewpoint. You think that because I have a differing opinion I am aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.

That's extreme. And is not meant to foster dialogue and in fact does the opposite. You use the term regressive left as a weapon. If you recognize how using the term islamaphobia silences debate, why can't you recognize this as its equal?

You may "feel" that I've lumped you in with terrorist extremists, but I am not. As I said in Post 512, "they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors."

Aligning yourself with them is different from working with them. It's clear you have shared enemies. That's what that means.

I don't use the term "Regressive Left" as a weapon. That is a direct quote from Mr. Nawaz, the man who coined the term. It's a term that has been adopted and advanced by other liberals, such as Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

So I'll say it again: They're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. Anti-Liberal and Anti-Western. Are you really trying to deny this? Are you not reading this thread, for example?

I don't need you to agree with me. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. I know better. I'm just belching out my little opinion, and people are reacting. That's life.
.

So you are not at all interested in having a dialogue. Only in casting aspersions that you feel no need to defend.

You feel that you are the sole arbiter of defining Western liberal values. You feel comfortable with it because you have heard others speak of them.

Yet, I am supposedly the trained monkey.

I am willing to have this debate. You and Dogmaphobe are the ones trying to silence the debate.

I will leave you with this quote from Nawaz, one more time. Maybe it will begin to sink in.

"Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton."

 

[Mac1958]

Well, at least you tried to make a point, as vague as it may be.

Perhaps you could address something I have actually said, or something that Nawaz has actually said.

And perhaps you could do that with some clarity.
.

It's simple.

Understand that Nawaz is not above critique and stop denigrating those who do it. Let's have an open dialogue.

I've been expressing my opinion from post 1.

Perhaps you might consider asking others here to stop denigrating, as well.

And maybe stop denigrating Nawaz and address his point.

Looking forward to it.
.

I'm not denigrating Nawaz, I said he was right on this message.

And yet, I feel as though you've lumped me in with terrorist extremists for expressing a viewpoint that is not in lockstep with Nawaz's viewpoint. You think that because I have a differing opinion I am aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.

That's extreme. And is not meant to foster dialogue and in fact does the opposite. You use the term regressive left as a weapon. If you recognize how using the term islamaphobia silences debate, why can't you recognize this as its equal?

You may "feel" that I've lumped you in with terrorist extremists, but I am not. As I said in Post 512, "they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors."

Aligning yourself with them is different from working with them. It's clear you have shared enemies. That's what that means.

I don't use the term "Regressive Left" as a weapon. That is a direct quote from Mr. Nawaz, the man who coined the term. It's a term that has been adopted and advanced by other liberals, such as Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

So I'll say it again: They're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. Anti-Liberal and Anti-Western. Are you really trying to deny this? Are you not reading this thread, for example?

I don't need you to agree with me. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. I know better. I'm just belching out my little opinion, and people are reacting. That's life.
.

So you are not at all interested in having a dialogue. Only in casting aspersions that you feel no need to defend.

You feel that you are the sole arbiter of defining Western liberal values. You feel comfortable with it because you have heard others speak of them.

Yet, I am supposedly the trained monkey.

I am willing to have this debate. You and Dogmaphobe are the ones trying to silence the debate.

I will leave you with this quote from Nawaz, one more time. Maybe it will begin to sink in.

"Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton."

Well, there are some nice straw men. You sure do complain about me a lot. As for me, I'm happy to defend your right to say anything you want.

My interest is in behaviors and motivations. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything on this topic.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.
.

 

[Olde Europe]

Every time you trot this out I ask you for a link and every time you fail and move on to deflection.
So here we go again......do you have a link to these accusations ?

It's almost - almost - as if there were no evidence whatsoever for that slander, and as if that mendacious slanderer had no integrity whatsoever.

 

[Mac1958]

Hey Dogmaphobe, are you trying to "silence the debate", as Tehon is claiming?

Or maybe he's trying to put us on the defensive.

Well, it's one of the two.
.

 

[Tehon]

It's simple.

Understand that Nawaz is not above critique and stop denigrating those who do it. Let's have an open dialogue.

I've been expressing my opinion from post 1.

Perhaps you might consider asking others here to stop denigrating, as well.

And maybe stop denigrating Nawaz and address his point.

Looking forward to it.
.

I'm not denigrating Nawaz, I said he was right on this message.

And yet, I feel as though you've lumped me in with terrorist extremists for expressing a viewpoint that is not in lockstep with Nawaz's viewpoint. You think that because I have a differing opinion I am aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.

That's extreme. And is not meant to foster dialogue and in fact does the opposite. You use the term regressive left as a weapon. If you recognize how using the term islamaphobia silences debate, why can't you recognize this as its equal?

You may "feel" that I've lumped you in with terrorist extremists, but I am not. As I said in Post 512, "they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors."

Aligning yourself with them is different from working with them. It's clear you have shared enemies. That's what that means.

I don't use the term "Regressive Left" as a weapon. That is a direct quote from Mr. Nawaz, the man who coined the term. It's a term that has been adopted and advanced by other liberals, such as Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

So I'll say it again: They're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. Anti-Liberal and Anti-Western. Are you really trying to deny this? Are you not reading this thread, for example?

I don't need you to agree with me. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. I know better. I'm just belching out my little opinion, and people are reacting. That's life.
.

So you are not at all interested in having a dialogue. Only in casting aspersions that you feel no need to defend.

You feel that you are the sole arbiter of defining Western liberal values. You feel comfortable with it because you have heard others speak of them.

Yet, I am supposedly the trained monkey.

I am willing to have this debate. You and Dogmaphobe are the ones trying to silence the debate.

I will leave you with this quote from Nawaz, one more time. Maybe it will begin to sink in.

"Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton."

Well, there are some nice straw men. You sure do complain about me a lot. As for me, I'm happy to defend your right to say anything you want.

My interest is in behaviors and motivations. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything on this topic.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.
.

To align means to be in agreement with. You have previously defined this agreement in terms of foreign policy. Is that what you mean?

Or do you mean it in terms of religious doctrine? Something else?