Proof that the Taliban read Shakespeare

[NigelJK]

come across to me as hate fuelled xenophobia.

fueled

So 'Kill all infidels' is a message of integration and inclusion then?

[DimPrawn]

fueled

So 'Kill all infidels' is a message of integration and inclusion then?

Kill is early sanskrit for cuddle. When it was translated to Arabic it got mistakenly changed to hack, shoot or detonate.

[NotAllThere]

fueled

Only in American English.
Fueled/fueling vs. fuelled/fuelling - Grammarist

[NotAllThere]

hmmm. Not sure if I agree.

We can debate on a theological and evidentiary level if you wish.

Look carefully at what I wrote:

The idea being that while these acts of violence and violence are carried out by Muslims, the majority of Muslims abhor such acts and would much rather live at peace with their neighbours. Whether this idea is true or not is of course up for debate in a free society.

At no point do I say that this idea is correct. For all I know, the majority of Muslims might not want peace except in Islamic terms (i.e. peace with the group who they consider to be true Muslims only).

What I am opposed to is the continued use of "peace lover" in an ironic/sarcastic manner when referring to Islam inspired acts of violence. It's unnecessary and encourages hate fuelled xenophobes.

The state of it. Last week he had just heard about checking privilege and now it's all full on SJW and "dehumanising a people group"

You missed the bit where I was taking the piss of out privilege checking then?

[vetran]

they is nutters the religion bit is secondary.

[DaveB]

Lets start off with one that could go either way.

Mecca is banned to all non Muslims.

Guruvayur Temple in Kerala, India is banned for non Hindu's,

Lutheran GEL churches in Jharkhand, India are banned to non Christians.

I'm sure there are others for other faiths.

[TykeMerc]

Look carefully at what I wrote:

The idea being that while these acts of violence and violence are carried out by Muslims, the majority of Muslims abhor such acts and would much rather live at peace with their neighbours. Whether this idea is true or not is of course up for debate in a free society.

At no point do I say that this idea is correct. For all I know, the majority of Muslims might not want peace except in Islamic terms (i.e. peace with the group who they consider to be true Muslims only).

What I am opposed to is the continued use of "peace lover" in an ironic/sarcastic manner when referring to Islam inspired acts of violence. It's unnecessary and encourages hate fuelled xenophobes.

You missed the bit where I was taking the piss of out privilege checking then?

No NATzi it merely demonstrates your hypocritical attitude to racism and what appears to be a pet project to prevent the portrayal of one specific religious group and its typically brown skinned "worshipers" in a bad light.

You do it to the point of immediately trying to brand any criticism at all as racist and xenophobic, yet you have a history of ignoring direct attacks on other religions and races.

Islam has branded repeatedly itself as the religion of peace but it has a very long and bloody history of evangelical expansion by mass slaughter, it still officially utilises medieval methods of punishment and treatment and large elements of its leadership directly promote violence targeted at anyone they even vaguely dislike.
Many of the officially Islamic states operate legal systems that directly disadvantage other groups, religions and of course all women, so they are officially xenophobic, misogynistic and bigoted, yet you feel their behavior is worthy of defence.

You appear to wish to shut down any debate at all where adherents to the Religion of Peace who claim to be acting as muslims by yelling a certain phrase while committing some atrocity and your weapon of choice is the now grossly overused and massively disarmed word RACIST.

Here's news for you (it's not news of course you know it perfectly well) there is a nasty and not very small subset of Islam that is so totally opposed to anything non Islamic that they will happily abuse, mutilate and murder in the name of their God, the people willing to do this tend to be of a few racial groups from certain regions of the world. This is REALITY, not racism.

Oh and look to the left of this post, that's how the overuse of the Racist word leaves some people feeling, you've gone so far past that point it's ludicrous, you're going to have to employ another tactic, your overuse of the label is as meaningless as Sasdingbats Cretinism.

[minestrone]

What I am opposed to is the continued use of "peace lover" in an ironic/sarcastic manner when referring to Islam inspired acts of violence. It's unnecessary and encourages hate fuelled xenophobes.

Absolute mince.

[minestrone]

Guruvayur Temple in Kerala, India is banned for non Hindu's,

Lutheran GEL churches in Jharkhand, India are banned to non Christians.

I'm sure there are others for other faiths.

These are privately owned buildings, it is a different matter when the government enforces the discrimination by law.

[NotAllThere]

they is nutters the religion bit is secondary.

I don't agree. I think all they do is motivated by their religion. I also think that much of what is done in the name of Islam can be justified by reference to the Koran (if that's your source of authority). I know of Muslims who've escaped ISIS controlled areas who are thoroughly disillusioned with Islam, because they know (and were instructed by ISIS) that the atrocities carried out were backed by the Koran.

...I hate you, and everything you say and do really irritates me...