[WalterBB]

Never heard anything more ridiculous.

[Florrick]

(Original post by TheHansa)
How would you know?

See the fifth post up from your post quoting me.

[Notethis]

Ironic that you dislike Muslims yet imply those who are letting in droves of Muslims are guilt-free.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Florrick)
See the fifth post up from your post quoting me.

Ah yes

Well I hope you spat it all out

[Florrick]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Ah yes

Well I hope you spat it all out

Indeed. Oh look I found something that describes it perfectly:

[Trailblazer]

(Original post by Notethis)
"Lovely, welcoming people"

Do you live in the real world?

Whoah, I detect a slight twinge of Anti-Semitism here. What the hell are you trying to say?

[11flon]

That's scary, my friend lives in Prestwich

I wish people could just be happy with their own religions and life choices and stop trying to force their views onto others...

[Florrick]

(Original post by 11flon)
That's scary, my friend lives in Prestwich

I wish people could just be happy with their own religions and life choices and stop trying to force their views onto others...

I passed my driving test in Prestwich. No don't be alarmed, it's an isolated incident, there is a Muslim Asian community that lives within the Jewish community in Prestwich and one that also neighbours it. They get along fine. You can see both shopping along in Tesco (Prestwich) without a fuss or even walking on the same street.


Anyway, I admire how they're a tight-knit community, like how you can see a couple of Jewish mothers taking care of a whole group of little Jewish school girls to walk across roads and go back to their homes safely. Reason why I see this because I've had to stop my car a few times because of it.

[Notethis]

(Original post by Trailblazer)
Whoah, I detect a slight twinge of Anti-Semitism here. What the hell are you trying to say?

And I detect a typically emotionally unstable, intellectually troubled "sunshine and rainbows, love another and he'll love you in return" leftist.

A point to be made is that you can't base an argument off an hour long "reality" TV show. The fallacy in doing so has been demonstrated in this case, in that you think the Jewish people are "welcoming", when, relative to any other community, they are the most un-welcoming collective. Your opinion that they're "lovely" you can keep to yourself as an opinion, but I would say for a group to tick the criteria of "unwelcoming" that group would:

-exclude those who aren't genetically analogous to other group members
-live in tight-knit, closed communities
-run own schools
-adhere to strict marital customs which dictate that you must marry within the group

And before you play the overused "yeh but i know this jew whos dating a black girl" (alternatively known as the "but not every Jew is like that" card) remember that I'm speaking of Jews as a group relative to other ethnic minority groups.

[green.tea]

Anyone else think ed milibands immigration u turn may have something to do with bradfords muslims stopping voting labour now it has a jewish leader?

[Trailblazer]

(Original post by Notethis)
And I detect a typically emotionally unstable, intellectually troubled "sunshine and rainbows, love another and he'll love you in return" leftist.

A point to be made is that you can't base an argument off an hour long "reality" TV show. The fallacy in doing so has been demonstrated in this case, in that you think the Jewish people are "welcoming", when, relative to any other community, they are the most un-welcoming collective. Your opinion that they're "lovely" you can keep to yourself as an opinion, but I would say for a group to tick the criteria of "unwelcoming" that group would:

-exclude those who aren't genetically analogous to other group members
-live in tight-knit, closed communities
-run own schools
-adhere to strict marital customs which dictate that you must marry within the group

And before you play the overused "yeh but i know this jew whos dating a black girl" (alternatively known as the "but not every Jew is like that" card) remember that I'm speaking of Jews as a group relative to other ethnic minority groups.

Not exclusively based on that show actually. I've never had a bad experience of the Jewish community, or a Jewish person for that matter, and I have quite a fascination for their way of life. Your criteria apply only really to orthodox Jews, and they make up a minority, especially here in England. Most Jews here and in the US are not actually that religious; they are just as secular as your average person.

You're making a completely ungrounded stereotype of an entire group of people. You could criticise any group within our society like you have just done, but it doesn't actually hold any weight. Do you think that "Christian" British people are any better? My point was that ultimately there is no real reason to hate a specific group of people, certainly not enough to try and kill them.

I like how you didn't deny the Anti-Semite accusation, and instead resorted to an Ad Hominem.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by 11flon)
That's scary, my friend lives in Prestwich

I wish people could just be happy with their own religions and life choices and stop trying to force their views onto others...

Unfortunately we can't wish away what is written in holy books.

Only hundreds of years of education, economic and social devlopment, and enlightenment ... if you will, would change that

[prog2djent]

(Original post by green.tea)
Anyone else think ed milibands immigration u turn may have something to do with bradfords muslims stopping voting labour now it has a jewish leader?

U-turn?

Which way?

They've been admitting they ****** up immigration for years, unenthusiasitaclly, however. God I HATE "left" populists.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Trailblazer)
Not exclusively based on that show actually. I've never had a bad experience of the Jewish community, or a Jewish person for that matter, and I have quite a fascination for their way of life. Your criteria apply only really to orthodox Jews, and they make up a minority, especially here in England. Most Jews here and in the US are not actually that religious; they are just as secular as your average person.

You're making a completely ungrounded stereotype of an entire group of people. You could criticise any group within our society like you have just done, but it doesn't actually hold any weight. Do you think that "Christian" British people are any better? My point was that ultimately there is no real reason to hate a specific group of people, certainly not enough to try and kill them.

I like how you didn't deny the Anti-Semite accusation, and instead resorted to an Ad Hominem.

Agree with everything in this post but please cut the *point out ad hom stuff, Its a buzzword that students, upon sociology, General studies or politics/critical thinking classes ... think applies to lots of situtations which can only loosely attributed to the ad hom argument. Same with straw man, which is overused on here too due to people learning it off others and attempting to use it for themselves, to look superior imo. Despite the fact it isn't used properly and is appropriate for only a few situations.

[Notethis]

(Original post by Trailblazer)
Not exclusively based on that show actually. I've never had a bad experience of the Jewish community, or a Jewish person for that matter, and I have quite a fascination for their way of life. Your criteria apply only really to orthodox Jews, and they make up a minority, especially here in England. Most Jews here and in the US are not actually that religious; they are just as secular as your average person.

You're making a completely ungrounded stereotype of an entire group of people. You could criticise any group within our society like you have just done, but it doesn't actually hold any weight. Do you think that "Christian" British people are any better? My point was that ultimately there is no real reason to hate a specific group of people, certainly not enough to try and kill them.

I like how you didn't deny the Anti-Semite accusation, and instead resorted to an Ad Hominem.

Calling me an anti-Semite because I thought your views were ludicrous was in itself an Ad Hominem attack, but, unlike you, I didn't think I needed to point that out. Being a morally aware leftist I guess you can cast the first stone.

Your classification of those Jews who fulfil my criteria as "Orthodox", to contrast those normal ones who don't is facile, and presumes that most non-Orthodox or atheistic Jews don't subscribe to a Jewish Peoplehood point of view, which is patently false given the existence of Jewish communities which would have otherwise been integrated hundreds of years ago.

Your point was that the Jews were a "welcoming" people, which relative to other groups, they are not. Unlike you, I don't presuppose that being "welcoming" is an advantageous quality, and consequently I don't agree with your statement that I'm criticising the Jewish people.

[green.tea]

(Original post by prog2djent)
U-turn?

Which way?

They've been admitting they ****** up immigration for years, unenthusiasitaclly, however. God I HATE "left" populists.

The latest one. If their immigrant votes arent gonna come in theyd try to go in the other direction to win back the sections of the white working class theyve alienated.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Notethis)
And I detect a typically emotionally unstable, intellectually troubled "sunshine and rainbows, love another and he'll love you in return" leftist.

A point to be made is that you can't base an argument off an hour long "reality" TV show. The fallacy in doing so has been demonstrated in this case, in that you think the Jewish people are "welcoming", when, relative to any other community, they are the most un-welcoming collective. Your opinion that they're "lovely" you can keep to yourself as an opinion, but I would say for a group to tick the criteria of "unwelcoming" that group would:

-exclude those who aren't genetically analogous to other group members
-live in tight-knit, closed communities
-run own schools
-adhere to strict marital customs which dictate that you must marry within the group

And before you play the overused "yeh but i know this jew whos dating a black girl" (alternatively known as the "but not every Jew is like that" card) remember that I'm speaking of Jews as a group relative to other ethnic minority groups.

They don't, there are different ethnic groups within Judaism and doesn't it stand to reason that the Jews who marry out and may be mistaken for gentiles giving the illusion that they all cut themselves off a bit?

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Chazzer66)
1) What are the Taliban fighting for if not patriotism and nationalism against the 'infidel' NATO forces? Don't say NATO is oppressing them, given the $57 billion (and rising) aid budget distributed in Afghanistan and the 8 million now in education.

Taliban's fighting to protect their land, which they have every right to. It's basically fighting to stop oppression.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
2) The Muslims that fought in WW2 were not just tools and slaves. You seem extremely uneducated on this subject for someone who talks like an expert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senussi
The Libyan Senussi fought WITH the British is WW2 against the Nazis and Italians. Over 250,000 Senussi died fighting (not FOR but WITH) British forces in the Western Desert Campaign.
Similarly the Arba Revolt against the Ottomans in WW1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt

Of course they were tools and slaves. What has Germany got to do with Muslims fighting UNDER the rule of the British? Let the British fight their own wars rather than waste the lives of Muslims. You also had Muslims having ties with the Germans, making Muslims kill Muslims.

It's a disgraceful part of our history, not to be remembered. That includes the Arab revolt, which was one of the main causes of the Caliphate being removed.

There were some legit reasons to fight though, where Chinese Muslims took up arms against the Japanese oppressive ruler ship upon them, and where the Egyptians attempted to overthrow British rule etc.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
Please tell me WW2 was unnecessary on the part of the Allies from the safety on 21st century Britain. If the Germans had won WW2 I think it's safe to say Hitler would've had no qualms eliminating Islam after Judaism and Communism.

Lmao, we could worry about that then. Considering the Mongols, Crusaders etc. tried and couldn't, Germans wouldn't have had a chance either.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
And just a final point, wasn't the conquest of all the land from Morocco to Pakistan by Muslims a bit like nationalism and imperialism? Imho you seem to attribute your own beliefs anachronistically to the religion you follow. Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism etc. in this respect, however.

Nationalism? Completely clueless. That's why Historians famously say; the conquered nations, were Islamized, not Arabized.

Nationalism was the one thing that was hated the most. You had one Caliphate, joining people of all different colours, races, nationalities, under one banner, this banner represented a closer blood tie than any nationalism or race; it was Islam.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
I know a lot of Taliban attacks are misattributed but the scale and pattern are undeniable. Look, 3 days ago:

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...edomain=usnews
"They opened fire on everybody. Everybody just ran. There was a party outside and I saw the father shot dead and his wife wounded," Rahi told Reuters.

Msnbc...

(Original post by Chazzer66)
And again, the Taliban PROMISING to attack civilians voting in elections!
(http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/0...ations-090510/)

Navytimes? Get real please. And even if this is true, the fact that Taliban warned where they were going to attack, and the reasons for their attack, shows that civilians are never the target. That's why they would tell the EXACT place of attack before it happening.

Had they wanted to kill civilians, they wouldn't have given such warnings. And they simply would want to deter voting, since it is well known afghan polls are always rigged, that's how Karzai wins.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
If you still won't believe me, here's this from Al-Jazeera quoting Taliban attacking people voting. Look: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2...642674322.html

Al Jazeera isn't exactly a better news source. And I already addressed this above, it doesn't prove Taliban target civilians, they simply want to deter people from voting in a corrupt polling.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
Look at this graph (and don't say the Guardian is biased against the Taliban, they're as anti-war and leftwing as you can get in the UK mass media):
http://datamarket.com/data/set/1eh1/#!ds=1eh1!xt4=3.1&display=line&m =im,in,io,ip,iq
There is quite clearly a massive correlation between anti-govt. forces (mostly Taliban) killings and total killings. ISAF do not kill nearly as many as you are led to believe.

And you have completly and utterly ignored what I said. Look at the sources Guardian use, it's UN. And it doesn't matter whether they hate war or not, they certainly ain't going to be neutral with Taliban.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
Stop looking at the Taliban through tinted sunglasses.

The great irony.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
They are terrorist thugs like the IRA, who target civilians that oppose them.

Not at all. They target people who support/give the government help against them. People who mind their own business etc. are never attacked.

There are tons of Afghan forces who defect to the Taliban. They do it with reason, and that's certainly not to "join thugs", because if you had even the slightest clue about the Taliban, you would know better than to use such a label against a group that has a good home support. They would never have survived without it.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
They also profit $150 million a year from the drugs trade, like the IRA used to.

According to who? Obama?

(Original post by Chazzer66)
In that quote Mulla Omar was just trying to create positive PR. Nobody likes accepting they are deliberately targeting civilians and he might say his people do not do such attacks but the evidence points otherwise.

Believe whatever you want, but the fact is, on this rare occasion, legitimate source comes through from the mouth of Afghan Taliban themselves (instead of the media always "talking" on their behalf) setting the record straight.

No doubt, unlike the US soldiers, no taliban has gone on a rampage killing random civilians in villages, or shooting people "for sport".

(Original post by Chazzer66)
As for support like you say? I'd wager that's out of fear and nationalism that people support them, especially against the white Christian invaders. Please prove that people actually LIKE the Taliban, I see no real reason to, other than in comparison to NATO or Hamid Karzai.

Whatever their reasons for support, at least they support them. They most certainly prefer the Taliban over the US/Karzai.

(Original post by Chazzer66)
And also don't say the Pak Taliban are distinct. They have helped each other and Stanley McChrystal once quoted that the Afghan War would've ended by now if Pakistan stopped helping the Taliban. The Pashtun guerrillas are one and the same and only divided by an artificial border!

You don't get it, there's a difference. Mullar Omar was previously getting fed up of Pak Taliban due to the things they were doing, such as ransom kidnappings, suicide bombings etc. and they even had a fall out.

That's why he said;

---

”Convey my message to the Pakistani Taliban that you have forgotten the real purpose, which is to fight the invading forces in Afghanistan and liberate it from their occupation,” Mullah Mohammad Omar

http://www.pakistankakhudahafiz.com/...s-in-pakistan/

---

He's been trying to unite them both, and it seems like it's slowly becoming successful as Pak Taliban has vowed not to target innocent civilians.

But the point is, they were two separate groups, and Mullar wasn't calling the shots on Pak Taliban. And due to the name similarities, people always get them mixed up.


End of the day, the Taliban may have it's flaws etc. But you need to realise and accept, that no, they do not target innocent civilians. Had they done so then;

a) They wouldn't be getting good home support
b) Army defects would not be joining them.
c) They wouldn't be getting the upper hand in the war against the US (especially given their inferior weapons etc.)

[Organ]

(Original post by Florrick)
No because bacon tastes disgusting and to be frank, prostitutes- pity them not sleep with them.

Yeah I agree with you on bacon. Horrid tasting stuff.

(Original post by Algorithm69)
We get it. You're a typical young angry Muslim who hates the West and who has a serious case of confirmation bias and stupidity. Change the record, it has become boring.

Have a drink, go see a hooker, have a bacon sandwich. Just chill out.

[Chazzer66]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Taliban's fighting to protect their land, which they have every right to. It's basically fighting to stop oppression.

I think we can agree to disagree that ISAF aim to oppress the Afghans. I'd say modernisation, democratisation and aid/investment isn't oppression.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Of course they were tools and slaves. What has Germany got to do with Muslims fighting UNDER the rule of the British? Let the British fight their own wars rather than waste the lives of Muslims. You also had Muslims having ties with the Germans, making Muslims kill Muslims.

Please read the wikipedia article I posted on the Senussi. They willingly fought side-by-side with the British in Libya against the Axis in order to later achieve nominal independence, which Mussolini's "reconquest" of the old Roman colony did not promise by any stretch of the imagination....

(Original post by Perseveranze)
There were some legit reasons to fight though, where the Egyptians attempted to overthrow British rule etc.

You mean where Hitler tried to manipulate pan-Arab nationalism to cause Britain extra worries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Ka...ab_nationalism
(excuse the use of wikipedia, it's easy and I cant be bothered to quote fully reliable book sources)

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Lmao, we could worry about that then. Considering the Mongols, Crusaders etc. tried and couldn't, Germans wouldn't have had a chance either.

I'd say if the Nazis took on France, the UK and the USSR (3 great powers) and won for 2 years (1939-1941) they could quite easily have demolished all Arab states in half that time. Hitler's hate for all non-Nordic/'Aryan' races is self-evident, meaning he had the motive and capacity to carry out another genocide. Outlandish I know, but the Gulf's oil would have been yet another incentive to destroy 'your' culture as well.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Nationalism? Completely clueless. That's why Historians famously say; the conquered nations, were Islamized, not Arabized.

I'd say one is the same. Islam is an Arab invention and Arab culture is imbued (through religious sects, language, food etc.) throughout the Muslim world. You cannot deny that on your basis the prophet Muhammad waged nationalistic wars to spread his religion, as did his descendants.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Nationalism was the one thing that was hated the most. You had one Caliphate, joining people of all different colours, races, nationalities, under one banner, this banner represented a closer blood tie than any nationalism or race; it was Islam.

Sounds a lot like the British Empire to me! (just replace Islam with Protestantism and capitalism)

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Had they wanted to kill civilians, they wouldn't have given such warnings. And they simply would want to deter voting, since it is well known afghan polls are always rigged, that's how Karzai wins.

It was clearly a threat and not a warning. It was as if to say: "if you vote, even if you are unarmed or a woman etc. we will blow you up and shoot you to pieces. Don't vote, 'cos if you do you're dead." Use of the word "warning" implies polling booth massacres are out of the Taliban's control and they are being kind and seeking to prevent deaths...

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Al Jazeera isn't exactly a better news source. And I already addressed this above, it doesn't prove Taliban target civilians, they simply want to deter people from voting in a corrupt polling.

If a Muslim source is not reliable on Afghanistan, by your logic this argument cannot take place because nobody is reliable. You quote Pakistani sources, who are going to be far less reliable on the Taliban (who could quite easily assassinate or murder their editors) than Al-Jezeera or the Guardian or UN.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
And you have completly and utterly ignored what I said. Look at the sources Guardian use, it's UN. And it doesn't matter whether they hate war or not, they certainly ain't going to be neutral with Taliban.

Give me as source who will be neutral with the Taliban if not the UN?! It is NATO and not the UN in Afghanistan and the UN is the highest and best staffed and funded international organisation in the world.
Besides, being neutral with the Taliban is not going to be best anyway, they will get a bad press anywhere with a modern society, technology and liberal 'modern' values for their backward outlook, sexism and incessant violence.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Not at all. They target people who support/give the government help against them. People who mind their own business etc. are never attacked.

How is supporting your government not 'minding your own business'? Even a humble policeman or tax collector on your logic is fair game to be blown up.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: these people are therefore civilians and therefore you have inadvertantly accepted that the Taliban target civilians as an official policy, unlike ISAF who only target civilivans when a rogue/mentally deranged (normally American...) soldier loses it and goes on a rampage.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
There are tons of Afghan forces who defect to the Taliban. They do it with reason, and that's certainly not to "join thugs", because if you had even the slightest clue about the Taliban, you would know better than to use such a label against a group that has a good home support. They would never have survived without it.

And vice-versa, the Afghan army now numbers around 200,000, as many Taliban fighers also switch sides. "Good home support" could also be used for the IRA, who had minority backing (Catholics=Pashtun in this case) on the basis not of their own virtues (far from it, civilian-murderers and drug-runners the lot of them) but of the seeming illegitimacy of the opposing government. The Taliban's only realy appeal aside from Pashtun/Afghan nationalism is its good record for being punitive when it comes to justice, cracking down on crimes with mutilations and executions when compared to weak Karzai-led control in rural areas. On a side note the IRA also had a good reputation for repression-caused law and order, "knee-capping" drug dealers and acting as paramilitary policemen.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
According to who? Obama?

No, actually, it is common knowledge that the Taliban profit from opium. Since ISAF aim to curb it, how else would it remain?! Evidence: (please dont say the Saudis are unreliable this time)
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index...simplelayout=1

Conclusion: in 2011-12 the Taliban made $150 million from selling opium and hashish, by 'taxing' farmers (I'd call it extortion or protection money)
Original figures are from UNODC (Drugs and Crime UN division) who I'd wager don't pluck figures out of the air and have reliable figures for Afghanistan as the farmers there are responsible for 90% of global use.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Believe whatever you want, but the fact is, on this rare occasion, legitimate source comes through from the mouth of Afghan Taliban themselves (instead of the media always "talking" on their behalf) setting the record straight.

I think you have fallen for exactly what the Taliban want, young (probably Muslim) Westerners to think they are some idealised freedom fighting force who never attack civilians, when the evidence is they are driven by xenophobia, the drug-trade and intimidation of civilians and soldiers alike.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
No doubt, unlike the US soldiers, no taliban has gone on a rampage killing random civilians in villages, or shooting people "for sport".

Dawn (Pakistan's oldest English-language newspaper) says the Taliban blew up a minibus full of civilians.
http://dawn.com/2012/06/12/minivan-h...-five-afghans/
Also, evidence points to the recent massacre by a US soldier being caused by mental health issues/previous brain damage, not "for sport"..... And as the page says most civilian deaths are caused by the Taliban, who lay IED's on roads hoping to kill ISAF troops but accepting they will more often than not kill innocent civilians who have to use the roads to go about their daily lives.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Whatever their reasons for support, at least they support them. They most certainly prefer the Taliban over the US/Karzai.

I think you mistake fear of the Taliban and coercion into paying 'taxes' for genuine grass-roots support.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
You don't get it, there's a difference. Mullar Omar was previously getting fed up of Pak Taliban due to the things they were doing, such as ransom kidnappings, suicide bombings etc. and they even had a fall out.

Well they are both Pashtun, far right-wing Islamist movements separated only by an artificial national border. Both also have close ties to Al-Qaeda. I think it is pretty obvious only tribal/national differences divide them, and both seek to remove western influences from the region and have cooperated extensively in the past.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
End of the day, the Taliban may have it's flaws etc. But you need to realise and accept, that no, they do not target innocent civilians. Had they done so then;

a) They wouldn't be getting good home support
b) Army defects would not be joining them.
c) They wouldn't be getting the upper hand in the war against the US (especially given their inferior weapons etc.)

I think they do not have good home support. They have fear and weapons at their disposal and a dangerous religious ideology to use on vulnerable and desperate young men. Again, awfully similar to the IRA. They have recruits because of Pashtun nationalism, blackmail and the fact that they pay $300 a month in a country with average per capita GDP of $900 a year. It's economics. Army defects are not as large as you would have us believe, unless you can prove otherwise. The ANA is near 200,000 at the moment.
They only have what appears to be the 'upper hand' because of the money from oil states and opium which funds their war effort, the difficult mountainous geography ("the graveyard of empires"), the US failing to maintain its supremacy after 2003 by removing troops for Iraq and the ruels of war adhered to by the ISAF forces. If they targeted pro-Taliban areas (btw most concentrated in the main opium regions of Helmand and Kandahar) and killed everyone supporting their opposition (as you have accepted the Taliban kill government supporters) the war could be over in an hour.