Escapism in the UK ...

[Drummond]

... courtesy of the British Left --

David Cameron made a commendable speech very recently, one designed to ramp up the awareness of 'Islamic extremism' as a great threat.

'Of course', he still buys into the stance that such extremism can be separated out from 'mainstream' Islam, and expects acceptance of this. Nonetheless, even so, Cameron's stance deserves credit.

But of course, the Left disagrees. Here's an example of their disagreement, courtesy of the Leftie Guardian, designed to diminish our awareness of the threat level Islamic militancy poses (.. oh, and they managed to chuck in a sideswipe against Winston Churchill, in the process) ...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/21/islamic-extremism-cameron-struggle-generation



Sir Winston Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square should be removed to a museum. All busts and portraits of the great man in parliament and the prime minister’s residence should be taken down and placed in storage. Why? To discourage his successors from slipping their tiny feet into his shoes.

Churchill was right when he claimed, in June 1940: “Upon this battle depends the survival of ... our own British life.” Those who have borrowed the sentiment are in most cases wrong. The Taliban, al-Qaida, Saddam Hussein, Isis, Islamic extremism: none of these were, or are, existential threats to the life of this country. But all are inflated until they appear to be so, invested with almost supernatural power by prime ministers hoping to be cast in bronze. This inflation, as we discovered in Iraq, has consequences.

On Monday, David Cameron maintained that confronting Islamic extremism is “the struggle of our generation”. We must pursue this struggle in the spirit with which we “faced down Hitler”. Yes, Islamic extremism is real. Yes, it creates genuine problems and presents genuine threats. But to claim it as the struggle of our generation suggests a total collapse of perspective.

In terms of mortal risks to people in this nation, it might rank among the top 50, but that’s probably stretching it. Diet, smoking, alcohol, loneliness, the slow collapse of the NHS, child poverty, air pollution, traffic accidents, lack of exercise, even the wrong kind of bedroom slippers are likely to kill far more people in this country than Islamist terrorists will manage.

All (except the last) should demand more resources and political effort than are deployed to confront Islamic extremism. In the longer term, climate change, antibiotic resistance, soil loss and nuclear proliferation by states (including our own) are orders of magnitude more dangerous. But a Churchillian struggle against an identifiable enemy is grander and more glamorous than the battle against faceless but much greater threats. It is also politically less costly, as it offends the interests of neither corporations nor billionaires.

This is not the only sense in which Cameron’s claim is presumptuous. What, in his mouth, does “our” generation mean? “It cannot be right,” he said in the same speech, “that people can grow up and go to school and hardly ever come into meaningful contact with people from other backgrounds and faiths.” That’s true – and it applies as much to Eton as it does to faith schools in Birmingham. On social media, Cameron’s Bullingdon Club photograph is circulating, attached to another quote from his speech: “There are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here.”

There’s serious intent behind the joke. The former Republican analyst Mike Lofgren, disgusted with what his party had become, said this about the economic elite in the US: “The rich disconnect themselves from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its wellbeing except as a place to extract loot. Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it.” We suffer the same curse: a ruling class whose wealth lies offshore, and which identifies more readily with a transnational elite than with the other people of this nation. On behalf of this elite, the government now gives away £93bn a year in corporate welfare: a sum bigger than the deficit. It champions the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a graver threat to the interests of this nation than Islamic extremism presents.


Men such as Cameron, Tony Abbott in Australia and Stephen Harper in Canada won’t engage in generational struggles with real existential threats – climate breakdown first among them – for fear of alienating their sponsors. They have learned all the wrong lessons from Churchill’s legacy, seeking to invest themselves with belligerent glory while forgetting his ability at crucial moments to place the interests of the nation above the interests of his class.

So, as Hitler is reborn with a thousand faces, a new “struggle of our generation” emerges every six months, and all around us existential crises are ignored.

So ... the Left, in classic Leftie style, are fighting against Cameron's 'wake-up' call, trying to make us Brits disregard it and to adopt thinking that guarantees more of the same. After all -- what else is the Left good for ??

Here's hoping they don't get their way, and that people start to care about what Cameron had to say. Because if not, not only will we sell our own future down the river, but also any prospect of ever being a worthwhile ally in the future, too.

[Gunny]

The problem is, no one will just come out and call evil evil and do something about it. We're repeating 1930s European history all over again because one side is too afraid of offending someone and the other side is too stupid to get it.

I don't believe Islam is any more inherently evil than Judeo-Christianity. Nor even the idiots' religion of disbelief. It's the people cherry-picking words and using them as excuses. My favorite is that Muhammed was a pedophile. No one bothers to point out that in THIS country in the 17-1800s, if a girl wasn't married by 14 she was an old maid by 18.

I DO take issue with the fact these dumbass Islamists refuse to grow up. And I definitely take issue with ANYONE that uses religion as an excuse to murder others. But I don't see these d*ckhead extremist Muslims any differently than Fred Phelps.

The issue at hand is, the people that live in a bubble are trying to wish the bad guys away just as Chamberlain did in the 30s. Not going to happen and the longer we let it go the more we have to deal with in the end. WWII could have been stopped before it ever started.

[Drummond]

The problem is, no one will just come out and call evil evil and do something about it. We're repeating 1930s European history all over again because one side is too afraid of offending someone and the other side is too stupid to get it.

I don't believe Islam is any more inherently evil than Judeo-Christianity. Nor even the idiots' religion of disbelief. It's the people cherry-picking words and using them as excuses. My favorite is that Muhammed was a pedophile. No one bothers to point out that in THIS country in the 17-1800s, if a girl wasn't married by 14 she was an old maid by 18.

I DO take issue with the fact these dumbass Islamists refuse to grow up. And I definitely take issue with ANYONE that uses religion as an excuse to murder others. But I don't see these d*ckhead extremist Muslims any differently than Fred Phelps.

The issue at hand is, the people that live in a bubble are trying to wish the bad guys away just as Chamberlain did in the 30s. Not going to happen and the longer we let it go the more we have to deal with in the end. WWII could have been stopped before it ever started.

Well ... I am not aware of any acceptance of 'Jihad' in Christianity, as a bona fide mechanism for advancing Christianity. In Islam, however, it's hardwired into its very soul. That in itself should say something !! I don't see Christians inspired into flying aeroplanes into skyscrapers.

What we see, is the truth of the matter. Christian terrorist cells don't exist in country after country. Islamist ones, DO.

How come, unless, there's an evil in Islam not at all present in Christianity ?

[Gunny]

Well ... I am not aware of any acceptance of 'Jihad' in Christianity, as a bona fide mechanism for advancing Christianity. In Islam, however, it's hardwired into its very soul. That in itself should say something !! I don't see Christians inspired into flying aeroplanes into skyscrapers.

What we see, is the truth of the matter. Christian terrorist cells don't exist in country after country. Islamist ones, DO.

How come, unless, there's an evil in Islam not at all present in Christianity ?

Call it another name and add historical fact to the Old Testament. Moses commanded his army to kill EVERYTHING while taking Canaan Because God said so. They slaughtered the men, women, children and the animals. Hence my statement regarding Muslims needing to grow up.

Don't think for a minute there's no evil in Christianity. Come to the Southwest and visit one of the communes that like to hide out in the desert because no one's watching them. They're so radical the Mormons kicked them out. And I'm not blaming Christianity for anything more than what it has done, or been done in its name. That isn't my point.

My point is, people do all kinds of weird crap in the name of something. Abortion is done in the name of "choice" for example.

I'm not defending Islamic extremists. I get paranoid anytime I'm around an Arab. I've met a few of those extremists that didn't like me much.:laugh: They thought they were going to hang out in Kuwait for awhile but we changed their minds. :)

[Noir]

I don't believe Islam is any more inherently evil than Judeo-Christianity.

In which case you're not paying attention.

Jim will be happy.

[Gunny]

In which case you're not paying attention.

Jim will be happy.

Young 'un, Jim has his opinion, I have mine. He gets mad at me all the time. Big deal. I usually manage to piss someone off a couple of times a day.

As far as paying attention goes, I had nice long paragraph response and decided on this: take your ass to the ME then get back to telling ME what's going on. I got more deployed time than you got chin whiskers.

[Noir]

Young 'un, Jim has his opinion, I have mine. He gets mad at me all the time. Big deal. I usually manage to piss someone off a couple of times a day.

As far as paying attention goes, I had nice long paragraph response and decided on this: take your ass to the ME then get back to telling ME what's going on. I got more deployed time than you got chin whiskers.

My reference to Jim was not of you, but rather myself.

In any case, without truging to the middle east - you assert that "I don't believe Islam is any more inherently evil than Judeo-Christianity." To what extent do you grant this?

For example would you agree with the statement 'Islam is no more inherently evil than Jainism'?

[Gunny]

My reference to Jim was not of you, but rather myself.

In any case, without truging to the middle east - you assert that "I don't believe Islam is any more inherently evil than Judeo-Christianity." To what extent do you grant this?

For example would you agree with the statement 'Islam is no more inherently evil than Jainism'?

Who the Hell is Jain and I'm not the father.

Scroll up. I explained myself. Read Exodus and the Book of Kings.

I also made the distinction that Judeo-Christianity has evolved and Islam has not.

My comment is based on one book being no more inherently evil than the other. Cherry picking words out of context is BS. David had Saul murdered and took his throne, then sent Bathsheba's husband to a certain death over a piece of ass. Solomon screwed any and everything that didn't get out of his way quick enough. Joshua destroyed most of what was then Palestine.

Point is, PEOPLE cherrypicking make things evil.

[Noir]

Who the Hell is Jain and I'm not the father.

Scroll up. I explained myself. Read Exodus and the Book of Kings.

I also made the distinction that Judeo-Christianity has evolved and Islam has not.

My comment is based on one book being no more inherently evil than the other. Cherry picking words out of context is BS. David had Saul murdered and took his throne, then sent Bathsheba's husband to a certain death over a piece of ass. Solomon screwed any and everything that didn't get out of his way quick enough. Joshua destroyed most of what was then Palestine.

Point is, PEOPLE cherrypicking make things evil.

Ofcourse cherry-picking and such can be applied to almost any religious text, however, I think you would be hard pressed not to concede that the figure of jesus, is seen (not withstanding the odd quirk) as a pacifist...when such a claim would be difficult to make for warlord muhammed, would you be inclined to agree?

From this pillar you can start to draw lines that lead to rational, and IMO, the line of violence draws straighter to islam.

[Gunny]

Ofcourse cherry-picking and such can be applied to almost any religious text, however, I think you would be hard pressed not to concede that the figure of jesus, is seen (not withstanding the odd quirk) as a pacifist...when such a claim would be difficult to make for warlord muhammed, would you be inclined to agree?

From this pillar you can start to draw lines that lead to rational, and IMO, the line of violence draws straighter to islam.

I don't disagree with either. Note that I posted JUDEO-Christinaity. A lot of people like to flip from the Old to the New Testament as it suits their arguments. Muhammed was no more a warlord than Moses, Saul, David, Joshua, Sampson ...

Then, we can move along to why THIS country exists. Religious persecution in England.

What you're doing is trying to put me in the position of defending Islam. I'm a Southern Baptist so good luck. People have used whatever excuse and especially religion for whatever they have done through out time. These idiots are no different and the extremists need to be stopped.

However, those on a mission have to be stopped by force. You can go back to Persia, Greece, Rome and even the US when the strong actually ran this place. Even YOUR country. When you got the balls to go take stuff and a bunch of decadent wimps trying to defend it, the wimps lose.

[Noir]

What you're doing is trying to put me in the position of defending Islam. I'm a Southern Baptist so good luck.

Not at all, I'm trying to put you in a position to attack islam, but you are not forth coming with that.

People can only use their religion to justify what you can get out of their religious texts. I am of the opinion that it is easiest to arrive at a violent answer from islam than the rest. You can certainly get there from Christianity, but that takes a bit more work, and i'm sure that someone could do the same with jainism with more work still.

[Gunny]

Not at all, I'm trying to put you in a position to attack islam, but you are not forth coming with that.

People can only use their religion to justify what you can get out of their religious texts. I am of the opinion that it is easiest to arrive at a violent answer from islam than the rest. You can certainly get there from Christianity, but that takes a bit more work, and i'm sure that someone could do the same with jainism with more work still.

I won't attack Islam itself. It's just another religion.

If you want me to tell you about what happens to extremist Islamics around me, you might want to discuss that with my GF. I'm not allowed to even watch war movies. Or you could discuss it with Jim, DMP, Kathianne, Abs, or a few others what happens when I get my ass wound up. Like I'm kind of doing now.

Let's just say it's never a good day to be a bad guy around me, and you damned sure better not be shooting at any of MY fucking Marines.

Think about this: I can smell an Arab or an Indian within 20 feet of me, and I NEVER let them get behind me. My peripheral vision is better than my frontal vision. I can't stand being around them simply because I don't know who to trust and I'm always on edge. If my GF's daughters walk through the room, I got one eye open. Look at my time stamps. I'm on here in the middle of the night because some creepwad wakes me up.

Then think about living like that for the last 20 years. But I'm smart enough to identify my enemies and not lump everyone into the same basket over a religion.

[Noir]

I won't attack Islam itself. It's just another religion.

I'm smart enough to identify my enemies and not lump everyone into the same basket over a religion.

I fail to see how anyone could consider all religions as 'just another religion', and as such no worse than each other, there is a reason why muslims tend towards suicide bombing and why janists do not, do you consider the reason to be one other than their respective religious texts? And if not, then what?

[Drummond]

I fail to see how anyone could consider all religions as 'just another religion', and as such no worse than each other, there is a reason why muslims tend towards suicide bombing and why janists do not, do you consider the reason to be one other than their respective religious texts? And if not, then what?

I'd have thought that atheists would think of all religions as 'just another religion' ? You might want to get some guidance from Leftie Central on that one.

Anyway, congrats on making a reasonable point ! All religions are not the same. Christians are not hell-bent on creating terrorist cells, or persecuting any woman who calls a teddy bear 'Jesus', as of course one did, with the name Mohammed, earning bloodthirsty enmity from the local Muslims.

[Drummond]

I won't attack Islam itself. It's just another religion.

If you want me to tell you about what happens to extremist Islamics around me, you might want to discuss that with my GF. I'm not allowed to even watch war movies. Or you could discuss it with Jim, DMP, Kathianne, Abs, or a few others what happens when I get my ass wound up. Like I'm kind of doing now.

Let's just say it's never a good day to be a bad guy around me, and you damned sure better not be shooting at any of MY fucking Marines.

Think about this: I can smell an Arab or an Indian within 20 feet of me, and I NEVER let them get behind me. My peripheral vision is better than my frontal vision. I can't stand being around them simply because I don't know who to trust and I'm always on edge. If my GF's daughters walk through the room, I got one eye open. Look at my time stamps. I'm on here in the middle of the night because some creepwad wakes me up.

Then think about living like that for the last 20 years. But I'm smart enough to identify my enemies and not lump everyone into the same basket over a religion.

The thing is ... if Islam is 'just another religion', then your reaction would presumably be the same towards Christians ? And yet, it wouldn't be. What accounts for the difference, if not religion, or at least, what those religions produce ?

[Gunny]

I fail to see how anyone could consider all religions as 'just another religion', and as such no worse than each other, there is a reason why muslims tend towards suicide bombing and why janists do not, do you consider the reason to be one other than their respective religious texts? And if not, then what?

I don't know what Islam has to do with radicals using Islam as an excuse. Feel free to find me the verse in the Koran that says suicide bomb.

I STILL don't know who "Jane" is, and I'm STILL not the father.

You're arguing about nothing. Just being closed minded. The last Islamic extremist that saw me didn't have a happy day. I would have felt the same way about that ignorant f*ck in South Carolina shooting up a church under the guise of a Southern flag. I'd have kicked Fred Phelps' ass and he claimed to be of my religion. Jim Jones in Guyana? Charles Manson?

Instead of trying to attack, why don't YOU explain the difference between one idiot using a symbol/religion to commit a crime, and the other idiots doing the same thing?

[Noir]

I'd have thought that atheists would think of all religions as 'just another religion' ? You might want to get some guidance from Leftie Central on that one.

Anyway, congrats on making a reasonable point ! All religions are not the same. Christians are not hell-bent on creating terrorist cells, or persecuting any woman who calls a teddy bear 'Jesus', as of course one did, with the name Mohammed, earning bloodthirsty enmity from the local Muslims.

In which case you "thought" without reading the works of the likes of Hitchens and Harris etc, which I would advise you should do.

[Drummond]

Who the Hell is Jain and I'm not the father.

Scroll up. I explained myself. Read Exodus and the Book of Kings.

I also made the distinction that Judeo-Christianity has evolved and Islam has not.

My comment is based on one book being no more inherently evil than the other. Cherry picking words out of context is BS. David had Saul murdered and took his throne, then sent Bathsheba's husband to a certain death over a piece of ass. Solomon screwed any and everything that didn't get out of his way quick enough. Joshua destroyed most of what was then Palestine.

Point is, PEOPLE cherrypicking make things evil.

Interesting points. I didn't read this before posting my last piece.

Judeo-Christianity has evolved, but Islam hasn't. Basically true, though there's also the mechanism of abrogation within Islam to consider, as it's applied to the Koran. It's where one set of verses, or commandments, are overridden by others. Usually the overriding ones attempt to 'sanitise' the older ones being overridden.

This is part of how Jafar used to get away with so much.

An example: alcohol consumption. Muslims would, these days, be firmly against it. But it took two abrogations to arrange that ... one an 'intermediate' stepping-stone to a later abrogation which created the modern-day status quo. Originally, the Koran was NOT against alcohol consumption.

[Drummond]

In which case you "thought" without reading the works of the likes of Hitchens and Harris etc, which I would advise you should do.

Peter, or Christopher ?

Besides, having a degree of fame or social respect does not guarantee correctness (Obama's one good example).

[Noir]

I STILL don't know who "Jane" is, and I'm STILL not the father.

Answering this part first as it portends to the rest of my post - A brief glance HERE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) gives a simplified overlook of Jainsim if you are unaware of it. An ancient Indian (but still practiced) religion with a fundamental core philosophy of non-violence, non-absolutism, and non-possessiveness.


I don't know what Islam has to do with radicals using Islam as an excuse. Feel free to find me the verse in the Koran that says suicide bomb.

You're arguing about nothing. Just being closed minded. The last Islamic extremist that saw me didn't have a happy day. I would have felt the same way about that ignorant f*ck in South Carolina shooting up a church under the guise of a Southern flag. I'd have kicked Fred Phelps' ass and he claimed to be of my religion. Jim Jones in Guyana? Charles Manson?

Instead of trying to attack, why don't YOU explain the difference between one idiot using a symbol/religion to commit a crime, and the other idiots doing the same thing?

Islam helps bread a culture from which suicide bombing is a reasonable extension.

The foundations are laid as such
-There is life after death
-Killing non-believers is a good act
-Good acts will be rewarded after death.

This trifecta enables acts such as suicide bombing, because once you believe the scripture, then the links can be made. Now not everyone will make such links, and indeed many argue the links are made only by cherry picking the bad bit etc. but none the less the links are there to be made in the first place.

When you take a religion like Jainism, there can be no suicide bombers, because there are no such links than can be made even with the worst interpretations of the texts

Indulge me this analogy - Jainism is a butter knife, and Islam is a steak knife. Both can be used to butter a slice of bread, of that we have no quarrel. However, the steak knife can as easily be used as a murder weapon when the butter knife can not.
You may believe that all knives are just knives, and as such should be viewed the same, in my opinion this is a critical mistake.

And just to clarify, I am not presenting Jainism as some sort of perfect or wonderful example of a religion etc, nor do i wish to be seen to be promoting it, I am merely using it as an example as it provides a sharp and clear contrast for the discussion.

[Gunny]

I fail to see how anyone could consider all religions as 'just another religion', and as such no worse than each other, there is a reason why muslims tend towards suicide bombing and why janists do not, do you consider the reason to be one other than their respective religious texts? And if not, then what?

Okay. Since you like to push buttons, I'll give you one:

My daughter is crippled because of an IED. She was a medic, not a combat soldier.

My brother's a psycho and alcoholic.

I sleep in a week about what you probably do in a day.

So what is it exactly you want to know I'm for and against? KIll my best friend, blow up my daughter and turn my brother into a nutcase and you even have to ask?

I'm STILL not blaming the religion. But you put one of those radical islamic fucks in front of me and I think you won't be asking anymore questions. They disappear real fucking easy.

[Noir]

Peter, or Christopher ?

Besides, having a degree of fame or social respect does not guarantee correctness (Obama's one good example).

Christopher Hitchens.

I have many books by both Hitchens and Sam Harris if you'd wish for a copy without having to purchase, as you're but a second class stamp away. Though they are also probably available for free as a .pdf if you consume e-books.

[Noir]

Okay. Since you like to push buttons, I'll give you one:

My daughter is crippled because of an IED. She was a medic, not a combat soldier.

My brother's a psycho and alcoholic.

I sleep in a week about what you probably do in a day.

So what is it exactly you want to know I'm for and against? KIll my best friend, blow up my daughter and turn my brother into a nutcase and you even have to ask?

I'm STILL not blaming the religion. But you put one of those radical islamic fucks in front of me and I think you won't be asking anymore questions. They disappear real fucking easy.

Not pushing any buttons, just trying to have a discussion.

The injuries, both medical and physical sustained by yourself and your family are not something that i would consider necessary to the discussion, nor would i feel comfortable discussing it, so i shall not.

You believe 'Radical islamists', often referred to as 'Islamic fundamentalists', are the problem. I submit that in order for a 'fundamentalist' to be a poor example of human, there must first be at the root 'poor fundamentals'. From this base you can then start to distinguish what fundamental principles lead to better or worse outcomes.

[Gunny]

Answering this part first as it portends to the rest of my post - A brief glance HERE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) gives a simplified overlook of Jainsim if you are unaware of it. An ancient Indian (but still practiced) religion with a fundamental core philosophy of non-violence, non-absolutism, and non-possessiveness.



Islam helps bread a culture from which suicide bombing is a reasonable extension.

The foundations are laid as such
-There is life after death
-Killing non-believers is a good act
-Good acts will be rewarded after death.

This trifecta enables acts such as suicide bombing, because once you believe the scripture, then the links can be made. Now not everyone will make such links, and indeed many argue the links are made only by cherry picking the bad bit etc. but none the less the links are there to be made in the first place.

When you take a religion like Jainism, there can be no suicide bombers, because there are no such links than can be made even with the worst interpretations of the texts

Indulge me this analogy - Jainism is a butter knife, and Islam is a steak knife. Both can be used to butter a slice of bread, of that we have no quarrel. However, the steak knife can as easily be used as a murder weapon when the butter knife can not.
You may believe that all knives are just knives, and as such should be viewed the same, in my opinion this is a critical mistake.

And just to clarify, I am not presenting Jainism as some sort of perfect or wonderful example of a religion etc, nor do i wish to be seen to be promoting it, I am merely using it as an example as it provides a sharp and clear contrast for the discussion.

Dude, talking knives with me is a no-go. I used to carry 6. Unfortunately for you, none of them were butterknives and you could cut paper with each one.:laugh:

Your correlation appears to be promoting one religion over another. But you keep going into left field on this. I didn't say radical Islam wasn't bad. I didn't say the tools were not there. I sure as Hell didn't say I was going to be best buddies with them.

I have a problem with condemning the entirety for the actions of the few just as much and I can't stand our laws catering to the minority at the expense of the majority. Donald Trump is tame compared to me. I'd put every military asset we had Iraq, Syria and Africa and wipe them off the map. The difference is, those military people would trust ME. Issuing orders is simple. "Go do your job and tell me how it went in your after action report".

You're not going to wipe out a religion. We can't even keep illegals out.

[Noir]

I didn't say radical Islam wasn't bad. I didn't say the tools were not there. I sure as Hell didn't say I was going to be best buddies with them.

And i didn't say that you did say those things.

Keeping with the knife analogy I posted - refusal to accept and state the fundamental difference between a blunt and a sharp knife, is not something that can be overlooked.

[Drummond]

Christopher Hitchens.

I have many books by both Hitchens and Sam Harris if you'd wish for a copy without having to purchase, as you're but a second class stamp away. Though they are also probably available for free as a .pdf if you consume e-books.

Thanks for the offer - I shall decline it, though. Both authors regarded themselves as versions of Lefties, I understand .. I'm certainly unwilling to BUY any Left-wing propaganda, and I'd only take it for free if I had a log fire needing fuel. Since I don't have one ....

[Noir]

Thanks for the offer - I shall decline it, though. Both authors regarded themselves as versions of Lefties, I understand .. I'm certainly unwilling to BUY any Left-wing propaganda, and I'd only take it for free if I had a log fire needing fuel. Since I don't have one ....

Fair dues, but i'd advise that you're missing out on some critical and interesting thought experiments.

[Drummond]

Fair dues, but i'd advise that you're missing out on some critical and interesting thought experiments.

You mean, they're into mind control (well, Christopher Hitchens is dead now, but you know what I mean ..) ???:eek::eek:

Why am I not surprised ....

[Gunny]

Fair dues, but i'd advise that you're missing out on some critical and interesting thought experiments.

I don't fail to recognize Islam as an issue. But YOU fail to recognize people as part of the issue. Words mean things. How people take those words is a whole different story.

Calling a Sunni a Shia is like calling a Baptist a Catholic. So here's the paradox:

ISIS are radical Sunni's. The Shia (mostly persian) are Iranian. Our allies are the Sunni states and our (until Obama) enemy are the Persian states. But we support Iran by bombing Sunni's.

And everyone is doing something in the name of a religion.

[Noir]

I don't fail to recognize Islam as an issue. But YOU fail to recognize people as part of the issue. Words mean things. How people take those words is a whole different story.

Calling a Sunni a Shia is like calling a Baptist a Catholic. So here's the paradox:

ISIS are radical Sunni's. The Shia (mostly persian) are Iranian. Our allies are the Sunni states and our (until Obama) enemy are the Persian states. But we support Iran by bombing Sunni's.

And everyone is doing something in the name of a religion.

Okay, so let's approch this from a different angle:

Imagine two separate planets, U-A and U-B, they are identical in every way except for a scriptural difference in their respective 'New Testaments.'

In U-A they have a New Testament that matches the one we have in our world, word for word.

In U-B they have an almost identical New Testament, however, at the end of every chapter there is an additional verse that reads 'Remember to behead any woman with red hair, for she is the devils messenger'

Given the above
-Would you be surprised to history of violence on U-B towards red headed women that supersedes similar violence on U-A?
- Do you think it would be easier for someone use their religion to be hateful towards red headed women on U-B than it would U-A?
-Do you think U-A is a more moral religious text than U-B?

[Perianne]

Excellent debate!