NSR Netherlands: Current events (in the world).

Acceding to their demands? My critique on Islam is one from the left, not the right. Many people on the left have made a great mistake. Rather than defending liberal values, they have started to defend all groups that they see as "victims" and turned a blind eye to what some of those so called "oppressed" groups hold on to. That resulted in this hilarious situation where regressive left liberals are defending theocratic people who if they get any power, would start to reverse their own exact work. Yes that is a form of appeasement or actually idiocy. You need to be tolerant to the tolerant, but intolerant for the intolerant.




This is why I posted this tweet in this forum:

665641605618139136 is not a valid tweet id

That is not appeasing, that is standing by my principals, also if it concerns a minority in our society who has it maybe tough now, or tougher. I reach out my hand, but I am clear. Any intolerance in their values is not tolerated by me and is something we have to really start debating about. We need to start to talk about values. That is one process. The other one is a form of activism where we enter more Socratic conversations and really challenge certainty. This literalism, certainly and insistence on being 100% right needs to be challenged. I encourage you to watch this video"



Read on that guy and buy his book that he just wrote with Sam Harris. He is I think also an adviser of David Cameron who has developed a strategy this year I think to battle Islamism. Any form of intolerance, any form of wanting to impose religion on society, let alone endangering secular society needs to be battled by a counter narrative.

 

Wahhabism is programming of people. If you use bombs or as you suggest even bigger bombs, then they use that and convince even more people. You need a counter narrative and a movement to deprogram people. There is a battle of ideas going on and that can only be won by better ideas+activism+better communication.

 

They are defeated? Can I see a source?

So it is difficult to pinpoint your stance. The picture you posted spoke about "the Muslim world", we are now back to terrorist organisations?

Let's take that as your point moving forward.

No, conversation with the true terrorists who want to blow things up, will almost never come back. Once they are in that stage and commit actions that go with it, things are too late. Yes, there we have to use force, but surgical. Why would we risk killing any innocent life? On the contrary. Our values forbid us that to do. I would even say, the more surgical and tailor made our response, the more we act according to our humanist values. Your proposals make us look more and more like them. The people you say to hate.

However and I say this for the tenth time now. This is just the top layer of a much bigger monster. ISIS today, x,y,z tomorrow. Wipe out one, another pops ups. They are all over the world. Go to wiki and you find dozens and dozens of Muslim extremist organisations and they attack all kinds of countries. What feeds this is Wahhabism. What feeds this is what KSA exports. Their second main export product. Their first one poisons our climate, the second one our social climate. They subsidies schools all over the world (madrassas) and mosques and what not. All programming institutions. They are building a Muslim robot army across many borders, that can radicalize very easily. That is what you need to attack. First by cutting off all their money lines to subsidies their initiatives and create a movement that counters that narrative. Both moderate Muslims need to do this and non Muslims. This is also good in the end for Dutch people. This curveball that is being thrown at us, forces us to understand better who we are and what we stand for and how defend it not only with weapons, but also with words. It will make us stronger in the end and will develop us.

 

Source?

 

Cheers and welcome. Look forward to future discussions about the beautiful game.

I think the issue for me happens right at the end of the video. It is again this evading of the issue. Again we do not get to the issue as we have to come together, as otherwise we do what ISIS wants us to do. What I have a problem with in this video is that opposition of the other is all hate. There is initiation hate and there is response hate. That women at the end is against Muslims in her country as there is scripture that is not nice towards non Muslims. However there is also not nice scripture in the Bible and look at us now. However that has cost us a lot to establish. The people believing that book had quite outspoken opinions about certain minorities. They followed scripture and as a result of that they excluded others. I find that initiation hate. There is nothing what a gay person did to them. There are not gay suicide bombers wanting to force people to have sex with gay men. Or to marry them. Or to also become gay. Or whatever. It is hate towards them without any reason, except what their fairy tale book tells them about them and those are discriminating and demonizing things and as a result they have treated them as they have.

Muslims follow a religion that is also full of discrimination towards others an minorities:

http://memd.cf/100ReasonsILeftIslam.html#h.jsv1s5fdvczo

This is all initiation hate. The Islam existed many, many centuries before that women in the video existed. Before a Wilders was born. They look at Muslims and feel threatened. They look at Muslim countries and do not like what they see. Their rejection of Muslims is response hate and this distinction matters. If people want to demonize the response haters, they have to come with facts. They must point out that the women in the video is lying. That can easily be done by showing clear evidence that Muslims when they are in a majority, treat minorities equal and let them live in freedom (especially grand them freedom of expression). Why? Well if that is not the case, then things depend on control and power and are not intrinsically motivated. I have looked at these things. I have looked at the freedom levels in Muslim countries:

* https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2015#.VVsJFfmqqko

I have looked at Freedom of thought levels:

* http://freethoughtreport.com/download-the-report/

I have looked at equality reports:

* http://eclj.org/UN/

I have looked at laws:

* http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/index.php

I have looked at pages of polling data from PEW, for example:



I look at trends like the one in Turkey that is interesting for 2 reasons. It is known to be a secular country and many Turks live in the Netherlands. If we look at Turkey things go very bad:

* https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/turkey

Read the report and I notice a lot of -1 and -2 notations for just 2015. I also watched this video:



Now I watched how many Dutch Turks voted on that creep that is this enemy of freedom and secularism:

* http://secim.aa.com.tr/YurtDisiENG.html



This was from earlier this year, not the latest election, but since he even gained, it will not be much different, maybe more. Turns out that 70% are voting here for that Putin. For a man that is putting more journalists in jail than almost any other country and is moving to some kind of theocracy. Yes, he is a huge threat for freedom and so people who vote for him are that too and they live here.

If I look at scripture, if I look at at certain videos:



If I look at polls, If I look at laws in Muslim countries, if I look at punishments, If I look at anything, where do Muslims when they have power, not discriminate/suppress minorities and non Muslims? Where does equality and freedom rises in a Muslim country? Where does the condition for minorities improve? That is my question.

So to me, there is initiation hate and response hate. If the facts tell different that the response haters tell us, then yes they are lying and should be called out. If not, then that needs to be acknowledged by all people, from left to right. Then it remains up to people what the solution is in that case, but we need to operate on basis of what the reality is.

So the man in the video is the past IMO. It is time for clarity (what are the exact and relevant facts?) and a debate about values that can follow from it.

Also a man of the past on this issue IMO. Him and John Steward have been weak, coward and political correct on the Muslim issue. They are regressive left people and what he does here is an open door. As I said previously in this thread. The left has made a huge mistake. Many people have bought into the idea that they need to protect all minorities that they see as oppressed/getting stick, rather than standing for their liberal values. That is now a huge divide on the left. Bill Maher (a liberal, just like me) gets it:

 

Agree 100%. Their army is a joke to (if we talk about existential levels) me if we are talking about conventional warfare where they would engage us on a classical battlefield. They will be wiped out before breakfast. What is not a joke to me in the slightest is if that army goes into stealth mode and starts to blend into Europe. We see what they can do if they do that.

Agree.

I think this is where we have to discover each others ideas more in the future. I am still not able to tell myself exactly what you are saying, though you have been quite clear already. Are you saying that all this violence and such is the result exclusively of people using religion as a vessel to justify what they already want, or do you also leave open the possibility that people that otherwise would have been perfect productive members of society by just following scripture come to spread terror?

So in short, people inject into scripture (as a result of emotion) exclusively, or they take also away and go do crazy extremist stuff, while otherwise they would not?

 

This is a small, but good action. Not wanting to kill others for no reasons is generally a good thing..... However it does not answer my questions. Do they see me (an atheist) as their equal and do they fight for equality for me when they have the power? We now know that 70% of the Turkish people in the Netherlands have voted for Erdogan. A Putin. They voted on that man. What does that say about how much they value freedom when it comes to being able to enroll their religion over a country further and further? What else than power and control keeps them from doing the same in the Netherlands? Those are sincere questions of me. Sincere concerns. Do you have an answer to that?

Noted, but as usual you are wrong and you have a very hard time dealing with that and that is also why you keep coming back being a disruptive force and make me an issue here, while you have every reason to look in the mirror. My opinion was asked about 2 videos and I gave it. It was asked and you probably missed that. Yes judgmental language was used (demonizing is faulty use of words and it is not "left", but regressive left that I attack), but I also explain why with certain reports, data, statistics. Being judgmental in this case comes from standing by certain values and pointing out the corrupting forces and people contributing to that. You watch any pundit show and they use stronger language than me. Also it is funny you pick on this post and I have been pretty dovish in others. Nice cherry picking. So this was petty reaching attempt that felt flat on its face again. If you have a case opposing mine, please show me and if I am convinced I revise my position. If you have nothing of worth to share, then move on.

Anyway. Since you talk about loonies. You have found a new friend. The guy that wants to nuke the whole place. Oh the irony

 

This is actually a good point. FSF had only 1 person to go after if judgmental language was bothering him and that was DT, who put down KGOranje, Orange14 and has been clear about his feelings towards using a Nuke. A NUKE. Then makes the choice to look past that and complain about a post where I come across opinionated when drawing a clear divide on the left that is hugely confused on this issue IMO, which means that clarity is needed.

Another clear indication somebody is reaching.