Why don&#x27;t we have sikhophobia, hinduphobia or buddhismophobia?

Original post by chemting

Faragophobe is more catchy :tongue:

That sounds like distress over cigarettes. :giggle:

(I read it "fa-rag-o-phobe", sounding like "fag".)

I'm adopting that tho :tongue:

Reply 302

Rorschach II

Original post by chemting

Faragophobe is more catchy :tongue:

Can you come up with a good one for brexitophobia?

Reply 303

troubadour.

Original post by SalmaSalma

Constantly asking for facts to back up a statement is basically asking for a link and tbh I have not got that time.

Not at all. To be clear, the argument that you're making here - that a speaker of English saying 'Moslem' must be offensive because it apparently has negative connotations in Arabic - does not require any links to be made or refuted.

And if I didn't send a link you would automatically act as if you have won.

Of course I wouldn't, if you'd presented a convincing argument. That I don't think you have (and have listed the reasons for why I think this) doesn't mean I'm declaring victory over an absence of links. :tongue:

I think you are playing the dumb card here because as part of the troll nation you lot tend to use the word 'MOSLEM' instead of Muslim.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'dumb card', but for the record: I write it as 'Muslim', so this is yet another assumption on your part. I'm simply defending the use of a less widely circulated (yet equally inoffensive) variant on the part of others, because I don't think it's proper to falsely assert, as you have, that people who use 'Moslem' are trying to demean Muslims.

I thought I would throw in a little humor and insults to keep you pissed

You certainly failed in that endeavour. :wink:

because I knew more of your bigot filled nonsense would be known by the TSR community.

Oh, believe me, the rational members of the TSR community can see who is acting unreasonably here. :tongue:

Reply 304

troubadour.

Original post by hilrho

I love your brain, I'd marry it if you'd allow me to

Oi, go revise history. :whip:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 305

Original post by QE2

The US gets less than 5% of its oil from Iraq. UK less than 2%.
North Korea has considerable proven mineral reserves. The problem is the lack of infrastructure and power to exploit them (because of trade sanctions, and because the end of the Cold War saw a massive drop in material support received from USSR and China).
DPRK have also had the military backing of USSR and China. Attacking DPRK would have started WW3.

The decrepit state of North Korea makes it a massive market for redevelopment, with trillions of dollars worth of reconstruction possibilities.

As with the ME, it's not what we get from them that is important, it's what we can sell to them.

Also very true, thanks.

Reply 306

Original post by lNurl

sooo... the "We do have a problem when they kill their own people..." is not valid reason, everything down to finance, money, mutual interest....

Killing people, freedom, human rights, media freedom.... it's all game, it's all fake things.... no government cares about it, they only use it to win financial battles....

Yep. The invasion of Iraq was ******** and unjustifiable in the broader context. That doesn't mean that tyrants and despots should be given a free pass, simply because we can't get them all. But if it's going to be done, it needs to be done properly, with the needs of the locals as the paramount consideration. If local conditions mean that removal of a stabilising influence would lead to chaos and even more suffering, then it should not go ahead until it is possible to improve the situation, with a very high likelihood of success.

Reply 307

Original post by Dilzo999

Don't think anyone has ever spouted more ******** than this post right here on this site.

We both have been in this site long enough to know that it's not true :wink:

We could have been friends :biggrin:

Reply 308

hilrho

15

Original post by Hydeman

Oi, go revise history. :whip:

Yes daddy, anything for you :redface:

Spoiler

Reply 309

SalmaSalma

1

Original post by Good bloke

I resorted to calling you a troll because you repeatedly posted inane drivel about an Arabic word after asking what an English word meant and receiving explanations from at least two people. I concluded that nobody could be that stupid so you must be doing it deliberately to get a reaction. I apologise for calling you a troll. It is clear now that you genuinely don't understand what you have been told.

I received two DIFFERENT definitions both claiming to be the English word, read what was written first before you jump to conclusions.
You see that's where your wrong.
I have repeated my arguments several times and if you have not understood it by now please remove yourself from this thread.

You criticize me for using insults but look whose being a hypocrite.

Reply 310

Original post by Butternuts96

Islam isn't forcing you to accept its ideology.

It would under the right conditions.
Most Muslims claim that there is no truly islamic state (although it could be argued that there is one now) yet even in these IslamLite countries, there is at best an expectation and at worst, a requirement, to observe Islamic ideology.

There are many scriptural references to using threats of violence to "persuade" people to submit to Islam.

No one is forcing me to accept FGM, or child labour, or capital punishment, or corporate asset stripping, or deforestation, etc... but does that mean that I should not be concerned of make my objections heard.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, why are religionists so puzzled by people opposing or supporting things that don't affect them? Why can they not see beyong what helps them avoid punishment or gain reward?
It is demonstrated over and again - religionists have an essentially selfish worldview.

Reply 311

Original post by weamy

I have a theory. It may not be right, but I'm just putting it out there.

What do the West (the government, not the general population) love? - Oil (Look at what happened to Iraq)
Where are the majority of muslim countries? - The Middle East
What is the middle east rich in? - Oil
How can the West get more oil? - 'Doing an Iraq'
How can they justify an invasion? - Propoganga of Islamophobia

Ta-da.

If they are any flaws, please let me know. Educate or be educated is my motto.

The main one is that the US and UK get hardly any oil from the region. US about 10% and UK about 6%. Iraq provides around 2%. The "oil" motive is a myth.

And it's "propaganda".

Reply 312

SalmaSalma

1

Original post by Hydeman

Not at all. To be clear, the argument that you're making here - that a speaker of English saying 'Moslem' must be offensive because it apparently has negative connotations in Arabic - does not require any links to be made or refuted.

Of course I wouldn't, if you'd presented a convincing argument. That I don't think you have (and have listed the reasons for why I think this) doesn't mean I'm declaring victory over an absence of links. :tongue:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'dumb card', but for the record: I write it as 'Muslim', so this is yet another assumption on your part. I'm simply defending the use of a less widely circulated (yet equally inoffensive) variant on the part of others, because I don't think it's proper to falsely assert, as you have, that people who use 'Moslem' are trying to demean Muslims.

You certainly failed in that endeavour. :wink:

Oh, believe me, the rational members of the TSR community can see who is acting unreasonably here. :tongue:

However you use the word, the most widely used interpretation of it is negative whether you like it or not.
If you had read my previous posts you would see that I said most, emphasis on most, people use the word knowing the Arabic meaning. Here in Britain and many many other countries. Just like we use many other words meanings from different countries.
The majority of people who use this word are doing so purposefully, then argue they use it as it is the historical term for Muslims when we know that is far from the truth.
To be honest, I prefer those who come out and say they use these words after the actual meaning they intended to use it for.
Its really easy to realize why they use it as they usually, no always finish it off with an Islamophobic statement.
Now, you may write is as 'Muslim' and argue that 'Moslem' is simply historic. I'm not arguing with that. I m arguing as to why you think you have to defend people who use 'Moslem' in a negative way.
We all know what they mean.

Oh, and the rational members of TSR being the EDL, BNP, Britain First members I presume.

Reply 313

Original post by QE2

Yep. The invasion of Iraq was ******** and unjustifiable in the broader context. That doesn't mean that tyrants and despots should be given a free pass, simply because we can't get them all. But if it's going to be done, it needs to be done properly, with the needs of the locals as the paramount consideration. If local conditions mean that removal of a stabilising influence would lead to chaos and even more suffering, then it should not go ahead until it is possible to improve the situation, with a very high likelihood of success.

You make lots of sense, I see where you are coming from.
In real life, I have first hand experience how governments don't really care about little countries, little people, how it's all about geopolitical power and control.

You know it better than me probably, lets look at Georgia, their leader at the time of war with Russia, removed all the corruption, very good country, happy people, government and people tried really hard, and they achieved their goals in terms of human rights, happiness,,,, but they still lost Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Russia.

Same with Ukraine, they lost Crimea.

World didn't do anything, anything, it was a big show, we just needed popcorn!

It's all about control, who is scared of who. who is more crazy. Religion, human rights, freedom of speech they are all tools to gain supporters.

Reply 314

Original post by Hydeman

Oi, go revise history. :whip:

Original post by hilrho

Yes daddy, anything for you :redface:

Spoiler

Hydeman, jealous? *joking* :smile:

Yes of course you can marry, I can have 4 brain wives yes?? :smile:

but you will be my first one!! :h:

Reply 315

Alexion

17

Are you aware of any Sikh/Hindu/Buddhist terror organisations? Question solved.

Reply 316

Whiggy

1

I think it's because of the connotation of Islam; many people simply associate Muslims with terrorists, even more so now with ISIS.

It's totally inexcusable and unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe!

Reply 317

Original post by weamy

Umm. Islam is not violent. You seem to be under the common misconception that just because someone says in the name of allah, it means they are muslim.
My analogy for that is that of someone saying "in the name of being sober" followed by them drinking 2 gallons of wine.
ISIS are b**t***s who are saying they are muslim as an attempt to get recruits and due to the location they are based.

I never said that only the west was under attack from terrorist organizations.

P.S. My theory is still possible.

With all due respect, you seem to be under the equally common misconception that a Muslim doing something that is sanctioned in the Quran or sunnah is not a Muslim, simply because that something is violent.

ISIS most certainly are an Islamic organisation, with the vast majority of members being Muslims. A Muslim is a Muslim because they sincerely take the shahada, perform salat, pay zakat, and fast, all in the context of a belief in the truth of the Quran and sunnah. Whether or not they kill people is irrelevant to this - especially if they believe that the killing they do is sanctioned by Allah or Muhammad. And there is plenty of killing sanctioned in the Quran and sunnah, which you would know if you had read them.

Reply 318

chemting

16

Original post by XcitingStuart

That sounds like distress over cigarettes. :giggle:

(I read it "fa-rag-o-phobe", sounding like "fag".)

I'm adopting that tho :tongue:

Spoiler

Original post by XcitingStuart

Can you come up with a good one for brexitophobia?

you're putting me in an impossible position.
I'm not that creative :tongue:

democrophobe
redtapeophile
sovereignophobe
brusselsophile
parliamentophobe
tradeophobe
regulatophile

I'll PM you if I think of any good ones :colondollar:

Reply 319

Rorschach II