Do You Support Quilliam

[tinfoilhat]

The Muslim world doesn't do extreme reactions individuals do.

 

Those posts are on threads discussing who was behind 7/7 and I wouldn't call it denial I would call it analysing the evidence for the official account of 7/7. I have never denied that extremists exist within the Muslim community in Britain or any other part of the Muslim world. The extremists have found a lot of new recruits over the last 13 years thanks to the foreign policy of America and its allies towards the Muslim world and the utter silence of the regimes in the Muslim world on this issue. What else would you expect from regimes who were put into power by Britain and France during the last century. This is why extremism takes hold.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2013 at 17:45 ----------

 

 

You obviously can't read then.

 

Where have I stated that I'm British when it suits me?

 

Where have I said I don't want an end to terrorism because it's justified?

 

In what way am I confused about the Quran? It was the crusades coming from Europe that were killing and enslaving in the Middle East not Muslims. When Salahudin Ayubi kicked the crusades out of the Middle East the Muslims, Jews and Christians of the Middle East lived together as neighbours. Many western historians and scholars have acknowledged this but you seem in denial.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2013 at 18:20 ----------

 

 

How very Ironic.

 

Reclaimed land? So you believe God promised the land to the Jews therefore they can kick the people who have been there for two thousand years out of their houses of their own land massacre them and throw them in refugee camps? Most Israelis are of European descent they were never on that land. So if you believe its reclaimed land based on a Zionist Extremist ideology then you have a cheek coming here and talking about Muslim extremism.

 

I know the history of the Ottoman Empire I don't need a history lesson from you. Clearly you have left out the part of history where Britain forced the Ottoman Empire to ally itself with Germany. Also leaving out the fact that Britain and France carved up the entire Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire for themselves. Which is why the Middle East is full of false nations between people who have the same religion culture and language. The regimes in the Middle East were put there by Britain and France and later Israel put there by Britain. Where Britain and France left of the new American Empire continued. So its quite clear that without western interference the Muslim world would be peaceful and has been peaceful when in Muslim. The Ottoman Empire did conquer lands but to say everyone had to submit to Islam or die is a total lie. The non Muslims living under the Ottoman Empire had to a tax called the Jizya for their security under the state. This tax was less than the Zakah tax for Muslims. So actually non Muslims had to pay less tax under the Ottoman state.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2013 at 18:39 ----------

 

 

So which country was Iraq invading in 2003 when the west stepped in to terrorise? Which country was Afghanistan invading? The only people I can see invading Muslim countries are the West and Israel. Which Islamic leaders of which Islamic countries? I am guessing you are referring to Syria and yet you try to give me a lesson on history. The Alawis were put into power by the French, most of the population of Syria are Suni Muslims. So Asad regime can hardly be classed as Muslim leaders killing their own people. I don't support any group I support peace where as you support western imperialism which can and never will bring about peace. I'm opposed to blowing up innocent civilians your opposed to it if Muslims are doing it, but if America is doing it with planes and drones then that is fine and therein lies the problem. Which is why Quilliam wont be successful and neither will we achieve peace. Peace will only be achieved when western nations change their foreign policy towards the Muslim world to one based on justice and fairness.

 

But the west is pulling out of and not getting involved in Muslim conflicts as fast as it can. Are we "safe"? Worth pointing out other Muslims won't be safe - they are globally killing each other at a rate bush and Blair could only dream about.

[erebus]

Lets deal with extremism by .....being extreme?????????? But pretending one is part of the good persons tribe?

 

Kill extremists? lock them up for life????

 

All religions have become is tribal identities where the followers believe ..... they believe, as opposed to actually knowing, and this is not questionable?

 

Preaching to the converted suggests exploiting through donations to allow those at the top to live a jet-set lifestyle while preaching values they do not practice to the followers, which is what its all about ...innit?.

[Rampent]

I voted for donkey kong.

 

I voted for The Dead Kennedys

[tinfoilhat]

I voted for The Dead Kennedys

 

Why you on about the dead kennedys? This is about quilliam - and I happen to think he's come on leaps and bounds since the black eyed peas split up.

[Rampent]

Why you on about the dead kennedys? This is about quilliam - and I happen to think he's come on leaps and bounds since the black eyed peas split up.

 

He's overrated IMHO. Plus, he should start doing Slayer covers

[altus]

The end of the Ottoman empire came about when they joined forces with Nazism

 

Wrong world war. The Ottoman empire was over in 1922 - long before the Nazis came to prominence in Germany.

[OPEN BORDERS]

yes and if islamists could just stop attacking and killing people, the wests response to them might be less extreme.

 

good sentence.

[angos]

Wrong world war. The Ottoman empire was over in 1922 - long before the Nazis came to prominence in Germany.

Thanks for correcting my error.

[Bounce]

No they didn't, the Jews and Christian that weren't slaughtered by Muslims submitted to the laws of Islam.

 

Absolute nonsense!

 

 

No, but Jews and Christians occupied the land before Muslims.

 

Correct Jews occupied the land and then Christians and then Muslims. It was a natural progression as all three religions have the same roots of which Islam was the last. At some point in history every part of the world belonged to another group. You can't come in from Europe 2000 years later kick people out of their own houses of their own land into refugee camps and massacre and occupy them based on an extremist belief that God promised the land to you.

 

The vast majority of Israelis were born in Israel and not Europe. There were Jews in Israel when it was occupied by the Ottomans, The Ottomans joins the Nazis and lost, the Jewish people were given a very small part of the Ottoman empire as their homeland and Muslims were allowed to continue their occupation of the remainder. The Jews of Israel have every right to invite other Jews to live in Israel. Muslims are spreading round the world and you think Jews should give up a small piece of land for Muslims.

 

The vast majority of Israelis came to what is now Israel after the second world war and what followed was the expulsion of the native peoples from their own land which you know as well as I do. You can't justify it by saying that modern day Israelis were born in Israel. How did the Ottomans join the Nazis when the Ottoman empire fell in 1924. They did ally with the Germans during WW1 because Britain forced them into a situation where they had to for their own defence. Muslims are spreading around the world but they are living in Europe, Canada and elsewhere as citizens. If Muslims were to kick all non Muslim indigenous English people out of half of England despite being a minority and claim they are the rightful people of the land under God I'm sure violent conflict would follow. They could use the argument that because Britain created Israel which saw the expulsion of the Arabs from their homes they can now kick the English out of London. By your logic this would be justified would it not? If not why not? Considering you think kicking people out of their houses and massacring them is ok because the Jews were their first 2000 years ago.

 

Keep posting rubbish and I will keep trying to educate you.

 

Coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between the first and the second world war.

 

 

Without Western intervention, Isalam would have conquered more of the world. And all non Muslims had to submit to the laws of Islam or die.

 

Nonsense they had to pay a tax called the Jizya which was less than the Zakah tax Muslims have to pay. I'm not denying the Ottoman Empire conquered lands but so did the European Empires so does the American Empire. The Americans dropped nuclear bombs on Japan after the war had ended to test them out. Lets get things in perspective here Muslims are not invading non Muslim lands at the moment but the west continues to do so with its imperialist policies. The puppet regimes of the Muslim world are silent which is what has lead to an increase in extremism. You can beat around the bush as much as you want but this is the fundamental point.

 

Non-Muslims in parts of the empire had to hand over some of their children as a tax under the devshirme ('gathering') system introduced in the 14th century. Conquered Christian communities, especially in the Balkans, had to surrender twenty percent of their male children to the state.

 

To the horror of their parents, and Western commentators, these children were converted to Islam and served as slaves.

 

You like to talk about the Ottomans a lot so let me ask you this, when the Jews were being massacred and enslaved by the Spanish inquisition who rescued them? I don't agree with everything the Ottomans did, they did some good things and some bad things. Similarly the American Empire has done some good things and bad things. They intervened in Kosovo which was mainly to get one over on Russia but at least they did it. Also some cities in America are very diverse and inclusive where as others are the total opposite. The fact of the matter remains though that American foreign policy towards the Muslim world is doing a lot more harm than good.

 

Lets not forget that Iraq had already invaded kuwait, Saddam Hussein had already gassed some of his people.

 

If you are trying to justify kicking people out their houses massacring them and occupying their land because it belonged to someone else 2000 years earlier surely you can't be arguing that Iraq shouldn't have invaded Kuwait? Since Kuwait was a part of Iraq carved of by British imperialism. Saddam never saw the Kurds as his own people he was a Sunni Arab. The gassing took place in 1988 when America was arming and supporting Saddam to fight the Iranians, not in 2003.

 

No you don't, you ignore atrocities carried out by Muslims, which in many cases are carried out against other Muslims.

 

Yes because when the Imperialist west bombs its way into a Muslim country they use a divide and conquer policy. They promise one group power in that country which then causes that group and those that support them to be viewed as traitors and therefore violence erupts among different factions which is rather good for the occupation. Divide and conquer policy has been used by western imperialism throughout history.

 

 

 

But only when it is the West doing the killing. You appear to support it or just ignore it if it is done by Muslims.

 

I don't ignore it I look at the causes and the cause is quite clearly Western Imperialism. Which is why the west needs to change its policies towards the Muslim world if we want peace in the world.

 

 

 

Its a necessary consequence of violence committed by Muslims, peace will only come when all Muslims want peace.

 

What are you talking about? The Taliban said they will stop fighting when NATO gets out of their land and the drone bombings stop. Hakimullah Masood was ready for peace talks with the puppet government of Pakistan and America carried out a drone stroke on him just as peace talks were about to commence. If there was peace America wouldn't be able to continue its imperialist expansion all ove rthe world which is why it doesn't want peace. It's not even about religion its about having a strong military presence in that part of the world on the door step of China and Russia so America can keep its hold on the natural resources.

 

Peace will be achieved when genuine leaders are given a chance in the Muslim world who will act in the interests of their people and not imperialist America. Leaders such as former cricketer Imran Khan and not a fat stooge who got in on the back of election fraud supported by America. America has done everything in its power across the Muslim world to stop genuine leaders from ever getting into power but change is on the way. Change will bring peace.

[erebus]

Simple question. Are they doing good work? Is it the answer to expel terrorism. I suggest a visit to their site to see what they're about.

 

They have to be a good thing?

 

Could Ii request that all contributors please vote in the poll if they want to post. I've left the poll open so our votes can be seen. Its the best way to see who's serious about their thoughts and who's a troll.

 

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/

 

 

Addressing the second point now, regarding expelling terrorism. One should assume this is not, and never should be about state terrorism, which of course is the petrol one continuously pours on the fire. Well what's the point of letting things cool down, is it not excitement that makes us feel alive, and poking sticks into a bee's nest will have the same result as if was a wasps nest.

 

So maybe its a not so much a chicken and egg question as one can easily kill the chicken, and get a particular result.

 

Using deadly force to invade countries in order for corporate domination of the resources could be seen as terrorism, theft through deception, or a business opportunity.

 

So it depends on what you refer to a terrorism, the art of terror, over individuals and populations???? Living in constant fear?

 

If so its not just an occasional bombing here or there, done by small organisations or individuals, but also about terrifying a population through direct or indirect military intervention.