What do you think of this ?

  • Thread starter Bert Blitzkrieg
  • Start date
Yes, i know turkey has a murkey past, as does just about every country in the world.

I am by no means pro muslim, i'm not pro any religion, i'm just worried that we're on the way to a second holocaust which i think (or at least hope) none of us want.

And i take no offense from somebody that disagrees with me, everyone here i feel has the ability to put across their point without being insulting. I don't think anyone on here has ever offended me
 
Jonny said:
Yes, i know turkey has a murkey past, as does just about every country in the world.
Click to expand...

Turkey /murkey ...funny. Canada does not have a murkey pass :nono::spit:

I am by no means pro muslim, i'm not pro any religion, i'm just worried that we're on the way to a second holocaust which i think (or at least hope) none of us want.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it will but I hope we see in countries a form of nationism that breeds pride in who we are and what we do.
 
These type of things come around every so often, once a country slides into some kind of recession the emigrant community for some reason gets the blame or is resented for "hogging" jobs that the natives had at one time considered to be beneath them.
 
Exactly nathan, the group that is penalised is just the group that's fashionable to penalise at the time

Right NG?

417434gif.png
 
"No dogs or Irish allowed inside" was another one that was popular.
 
It's an example in Ireland at the moment since the recession came, I wouldn't be surprised if Sinn Fein get a upsurge in votes in the next election if things don't get better.
 
Bootie said:
Getting back to the original question do you think anti-Muslim parties are gaining more support from the public.
Click to expand...

Well , my original question was meant differently :eek:hwell:
Although your question is sort of in the same direction.:biggrin:

To me a populist politician is someone who gains support by appealing on peoples emotions. Common sense and rationality are thrown out of the window and simple one-liners and often abusive remarks are used to get support. Furthermore they are not formulating policy etc about issues they are just against (like islam).

My point is that although the islam is a religion which is very unpermissive towards others (although the jews lived a safe life in Spain under the rule of the muslims but were persecuted by the Spanish Inquisition) it should not be the sole purpose of a party to restrain them. Why must an entire religious group suffer for the transgressions of a few ?

Moreover, in France any signs of a religion are banned in governmental buildings. So, the wearing of a cross by a Christian is forbidden as is the veil/niqaab etc by a muslim. Is that a good thing ?
 
I think one of the problems is that race, culture and religion get thrown into one big pot and called "muslim", everyone is different and the combination of all 3 (along with many many other factors, wealth, education etc) determines a persons outlook on the world.

I feel the BNP have as much of a right to express their views as the muslims in the articles linked that are against alcohol being sold in their area etc, what worries me is when either of these extreme ends of the spectrum gain mainstream support.
 
If moderate Muslims wish not to be lumped in with extremists than they ought to be a lot more vocal in condemning their heinous acts. People perceive their silence as tacit approval of the extremist agenda. I feel that comparing current attitudes toward Muslims with attitudes toward Jews that led to the Holocaust is not an accurate comparison. No sect of the Jewish faith in the mid 20th century had declared jihad on the entire non Jewish world.
 
ACSpectre said:
If moderate Muslims wish not to be lumped in with extremists than they ought to be a lot more vocal in condemning their heinous acts.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, i think the media doesn't have much time for moderate muslims, they'll get much more viewers from showing a nutter with a hook

There's an Omid Djalili clip that demonstrates my point, but i can't seem to find it, if anyones seen his live at the apollo performance they will know what they mean
 
Jonny said:
Unfortunately, i think the media doesn't have much time for moderate muslims, they'll get much more viewers from showing a nutter with a hook
Click to expand...

That is true, but rightly or wrongly, perception is reality. If moderate muslims truly cared about changing people's perception they would be going out of their way to make themselves heard. Even in a sensationalized media, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Their relative silence sends a message, if that is not the message they wish to convey than it is incumbent upon them to change it.
 
ACSpectre said:
I feel that comparing current attitudes toward Muslims with attitudes toward Jews that led to the Holocaust is not an accurate comparison. No sect of the Jewish faith in the mid 20th century had declared jihad on the entire non Jewish world.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but I think this is a reaction to an earlier post of mine. Perhaps it is because English isn't muy native tongue, but I wasn't comparing attitudes towards jews and muslims. I was making a bridge/comparison between some present politicians who villify all muslims and the nazi politicians who villified the jews.
 
A populist is someone who publicly declares something that previously has only been expressed by the majority of people in the normal course of everyday conversation. It is always associated with politics. The newly crowned populist is typically a member of a traditional political organization, who's membership have been privately bemoaning about a particular policy for sometime.

Eventually a member of the organization gets sick and tired of hearing his colleagues whine about it and puts it out into a public forum,(not terribly public, mind you.) The elitist sound offended, but are mindful to mention that the offending populist does have some small points.(Never know when one might have to let on that he was on the populist side all along.)

Consider that the antonym of populist is elitist.

If the opinion of a populist sided with the minority, his title would be changed to un-populist, correct?
 
USS Wyoming said:
A populist is someone who publicly declares something that previously has only been expressed by the majority of people in the normal course of everyday conversation. It is always associated with politics. The newly crowned populist is typically a member of a traditional political organization, who's membership have been privately bemoaning about a particular policy for sometime.

Eventually a member of the organization gets sick and tired of hearing his colleagues whine about it and puts it out into a public forum,(not terribly public, mind you.) The elitist sound offended, but are mindful to mention that the offending populist does have some small points.(Never know when one might have to let on that he was on the populist side all along.)

Consider that the antonym of populist is elitist.

If the opinion of a populist sided with the minority, his title would be changed to un-populist, correct?
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom