A Muslim Brit nails it again on the New Zealand attack

[Olde Europe]

Mr. Nawaz advocates that all religions clean their own house, which requires some difficult soul-searching that we don't see much today:

Following Mr. Nawaz's doctrine that "all religions clean their own house", Mac - presumably not a Muslim - resolutely moves to clean the Muslims' house. Or rather, he points out he discovered filth everywhere in their house, and bemoans that his orders they clean it up went unheeded.

On the other hand, in case some (presumed) Christian says a nasty about Christianity, Mac couldn't be more indignant.

Funny how that oh-so "difficult soul-searching" goes, eh?

 

[Mac1958]

Mr. Nawaz advocates that all religions clean their own house, which requires some difficult soul-searching that we don't see much today:

Following Mr. Nawaz's doctrine that "all religions clean their own house", Mac - presumably not a Muslim - resolutely moves to clean the Muslims' house. Or rather, he points out he discovered filth everywhere in their house, and bemoans that his orders they clean it up went unheeded.

On the other hand, in case some (presumed) Christian says a nasty about Christianity, Mac couldn't be more indignant.

Funny how that oh-so "difficult soul-searching" goes, eh?

Okay, I'll put you down for a "no" and a "no" for the questions I pose in post 581.

Thanks so much!
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Mac - presumably not a Muslim - resolutely moves to clean the Muslims' house"

What a dumb thing to say. Read the OP. It's a muslim talking.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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?

Thats a great question. I would also add that I would like to see some examples of this alignment.

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

I get a lot of grief on here for stating that not all Muslims are terrorists. Does stating a fact make me "aligned" ?

 

[Mac1958]

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?

Thats a great question. I would also add that I would like to see some examples of this alignment.

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

I get a lot of grief on here for stating that not all Muslims are terrorists. Does stating a fact make me "aligned" ?

Nope!
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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?

Thats a great question. I would also add that I would like to see some examples of this alignment.

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

I get a lot of grief on here for stating that not all Muslims are terrorists. Does stating a fact make me "aligned" ?

Nope!
.

So who are these commie bastards ?

 

[Mac1958]

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?

Thats a great question. I would also add that I would like to see some examples of this alignment.

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

I get a lot of grief on here for stating that not all Muslims are terrorists. Does stating a fact make me "aligned" ?

Nope!
.

So who are these commie bastards ?

I don't know of any "commie bastards". Looks like we have another straw man-dependent winger here.

Please see post 544 for examples that you will clumsily deny.

And then please answer the questions in post 581. Your whining is tedious.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Half the posts on this freakin' thread are Regressives whining about the freakin' thread.

 

[Olde Europe]

Mr. Nawaz advocates that all religions clean their own house, which requires some difficult soul-searching that we don't see much today:

Following Mr. Nawaz's doctrine that "all religions clean their own house", Mac - presumably not a Muslim - resolutely moves to clean the Muslims' house. Or rather, he points out he discovered filth everywhere in their house, and bemoans that his orders they clean it up went unheeded.

On the other hand, in case some (presumed) Christian says a nasty about Christianity, Mac couldn't be more indignant.

Funny how that oh-so "difficult soul-searching" goes, eh?

Okay, I'll put you down for a "no" and a "no" for the questions I pose in post 581.

Thanks so much!
.

Nice deflection, Mac. It's still clear how you fell on your red, honking nose, but the deflection is still nice.

On the other hand, I've made the case repeatedly that Mr. Nawaz's "efforts" (let's be charitable) are not just not promising, they are actually rather counter-productive. So, either the man doesn't know what he's doing, or he is a propagandist for his rightarded sugar-daddies and excels at denigrating and belittling Muslims on their (the sugar-daddies') behalf.

As to your second question, concerning your ludicrous assertion that the alleged alignment of some elements of the left and Muslim fundamentalists makes Nawaz's work harder, nope, that's just ludicrous. Nawaz fails all on his own, and Muslims in the Muslim world probably don't listen to a Western non-scholar on religious doctrine, and they listen way, way less to some elements on the Western left. So, no, the assertion the left is making Nawaz's work harder (how would that even work? You have not a hint of a supporting argument) is just another figment of your imagination.

I have also, repeatedly, made the case that "reform Islam" is a mindless, monstrously stupid endeavor, one that would sure antagonize Muslims the world over. The solutions to the problems of the Muslim world isn't a reform of Islam, it's a reform of their societies, and that has to come from within. That is to say, Mac, you are not helping. You are just another supercilious, blowhard White supremacist telling Those people what to do, how to behave, what values to endorse, just as they were in the olden days. Because Mac knows what's best for them. And then you whine because other than a small circle of Trumpletons - who collectively still don't know anything about anything - no one takes you seriously.

 

[Mac1958]

Mr. Nawaz advocates that all religions clean their own house, which requires some difficult soul-searching that we don't see much today:

Following Mr. Nawaz's doctrine that "all religions clean their own house", Mac - presumably not a Muslim - resolutely moves to clean the Muslims' house. Or rather, he points out he discovered filth everywhere in their house, and bemoans that his orders they clean it up went unheeded.

On the other hand, in case some (presumed) Christian says a nasty about Christianity, Mac couldn't be more indignant.

Funny how that oh-so "difficult soul-searching" goes, eh?

Okay, I'll put you down for a "no" and a "no" for the questions I pose in post 581.

Thanks so much!
.

Nice deflection, Mac. It's still clear how you fell on your red, honking nose, but the deflection is still nice.

On the other hand, I've made the case repeatedly that Mr. Nawaz's "efforts" (let's be charitable) are not just not promising, they are actually rather counter-productive. So, either the man doesn't know what he's doing, or he is a propagandist for his rightarded sugar-daddies and excels at denigrating and belittling Muslims on their (the sugar-daddies') behalf.

As to your second question, concerning your ludicrous assertion that the alleged alignment of some elements of the left and Muslim fundamentalists makes Nawaz's work harder, nope, that's just ludicrous. Nawaz fails all on his own, and Muslims in the Muslim world probably don't listen to a Western non-scholar on religious doctrine, and they listen way, way less to some elements on the Western left. So, no, the assertion the left is making Nawaz's work harder (how would that even work? You have not a hint of a supporting argument) is just another figment of your imagination.

I have also, repeatedly, made the case that "reform Islam" is a mindless, monstrously stupid endeavor, one that would sure antagonize Muslims the world over. The solutions to the problems of the Muslim world isn't a reform of Islam, it's a reform of their societies, and that has to come from within. That is to say, Mac, you are not helping. You are just another supercilious, blowhard White supremacist telling Those people what to do, how to behave, what values to endorse, just as they were in the olden days. Because Mac knows what's best for them. And then you whine because other than a small circle of Trumpletons - who collectively still don't know anything about anything - no one takes you seriously.

Great! Thanks so much!
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And then please answer the questions in post 581.

Would you restate them for me? I cant see post numbers.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I get a lot of grief on here for stating that not all Muslims are terrorists.

No, you get grief for your motivations for stating it, whether the criticism is accurate or not. Let's be clear.

 

[Mac1958]

And then please answer the questions in post 581.

Would you restate them for me? I cant see post numbers.

Maajid Nawaz is trying to bring reform and liberalization to his beloved religion.

Do you agree with his efforts, or do you disagree with them?

He believes there are people who claim to be liberal who are making it much tougher for him by, in effect, aligning themselves with Islamic fundamentalists against this effort.

Do you agree with that opinion, or do you disagree with it?
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thank you.

Do you agree with his efforts, or do you disagree with them?

Agree wholeheartedly.

Do you agree with that opinion, or do you disagree with it?

Can I agree 200%? If so, then I will.

 

[Mac1958]

Thank you.

Do you agree with his efforts, or do you disagree with them?

Agree wholeheartedly.

Do you agree with that opinion, or do you disagree with it?

Can I agree 200%? If so, then I will.

Much appreciated.
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Thats a great question. I would also add that I would like to see some examples of this alignment.

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

I get a lot of grief on here for stating that not all Muslims are terrorists. Does stating a fact make me "aligned" ?

Nope!
.

So who are these commie bastards ?

I don't know of any "commie bastards". Looks like we have another straw man-dependent winger here.

Please see post 544 for examples that you will clumsily deny.

And then please answer the questions in post 581. Your whining is tedious.
.

Well here you go.

Read a thread after the next jihadist atrocity. You'll see Regressives doing their standard deflect/pivot/attack routine, away from the atrocity. You'll see them trying to attack the messenger, as we're also seeing on this thread. You might even be treated to one of them bringing up the Crusades, which is one of my favorite comic goodies.
I have never seen this. Certainly never seen the crusades mentioned. Atrocities get condemned but it is also brought up that not all Muslims are terrorists. That fact enrages right wing idiots. Perhaps you have some examples we could use to discuss your assertion.

Read a thread in which the religion is criticized to any degree. You'll see someone screaming ISLAMOPHOBE or RACIST in an attempt to change the subject and put the target on the defensive.
I have seen these words used and have used them myself. This would be in response to dumbarse comments linking the actions of a few to billions of people who have had nothing to do with those actions.I dont see them as inappropriate.


Read a thread that discusses Christianity. You'll see those same people launching the most vicious personal attacks possible, in an act of hypocrisy that borders on amazing.
As a Christian I dont think we are above criticism. There are strands of,mainly American, Christianity that are foreign to my understanding of the faith. These are based, in my opinion. on hate and fear. Hate towards anybody different. I condemn anti gay attitudes wherever I see them , Muslim or Christian. Some examples here would be good.

Read or listen to any conversation that includes a Regressive. They are loving and tolerant and open-minded regarding the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet, and completely intolerant about the largest religion in this country.
This seems to be anecdotal so I will smile and move on.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I get a lot of grief on here for stating that not all Muslims are terrorists.

No, you get grief for your motivations for stating it, whether the criticism is accurate or not. Let's be clear.

No,I get grief for stating it. People have no interest in my motivations. I have certainly never been asked.

 

[Mac1958]

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

I get a lot of grief on here for stating that not all Muslims are terrorists. Does stating a fact make me "aligned" ?

Nope!
.

So who are these commie bastards ?

I don't know of any "commie bastards". Looks like we have another straw man-dependent winger here.

Please see post 544 for examples that you will clumsily deny.

And then please answer the questions in post 581. Your whining is tedious.
.

Well here you go.

Read a thread after the next jihadist atrocity. You'll see Regressives doing their standard deflect/pivot/attack routine, away from the atrocity. You'll see them trying to attack the messenger, as we're also seeing on this thread. You might even be treated to one of them bringing up the Crusades, which is one of my favorite comic goodies.
I have never seen this. Certainly never seen the crusades mentioned. Atrocities get condemned but it is also brought up that not all Muslims are terrorists. That fact enrages right wing idiots. Perhaps you have some examples we could use to discuss your assertion.

Read a thread in which the religion is criticized to any degree. You'll see someone screaming ISLAMOPHOBE or RACIST in an attempt to change the subject and put the target on the defensive.
I have seen these words used and have used them myself. This would be in response to dumbarse comments linking the actions of a few to billions of people who have had nothing to do with those actions.I dont see them as inappropriate.


Read a thread that discusses Christianity. You'll see those same people launching the most vicious personal attacks possible, in an act of hypocrisy that borders on amazing.
As a Christian I dont think we are above criticism. There are strands of,mainly American, Christianity that are foreign to my understanding of the faith. These are based, in my opinion. on hate and fear. Hate towards anybody different. I condemn anti gay attitudes wherever I see them , Muslim or Christian. Some examples here would be good.

Read or listen to any conversation that includes a Regressive. They are loving and tolerant and open-minded regarding the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet, and completely intolerant about the largest religion in this country.
This seems to be anecdotal so I will smile and move on.

Perfect, thanks!
.

 

[Olde Europe]

Perhaps you have some examples we could use to discuss your assertion.

You mean to say...

Please see post 544 for examples that you will clumsily deny.​

... you also failed to find any examples in post #544? Or maybe in Mac-istan "example" means something not very similar to the standard English meaning of the term.

Naw, Mac is just disingenuous. Resorting to generalities facilitates the lying about posters, their arguments, and about their motivations in particular. So, "examples" in Mac-istan means examples for the generalities and other straw men he disingenuously uses to further his agenda.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Perhaps you have some examples we could use to discuss your assertion.

You mean to say...

Please see post 544 for examples that you will clumsily deny.​

... you also failed to find any examples in post #544? Or maybe in Mac-istan "example" means something not very similar to the standard English meaning of the term.

Naw, Mac is just disingenuous. Resorting to generalities facilitates the lying about posters, their arguments, and about their motivations in particular. So, "examples" in Mac-istan means examples for the generalities and other straw men he disingenuously uses to further his agenda.

I think I get it but I am in the middle stages of an all day session so I cant be too sure.