Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Will You Still Tar Them With The Same Brush?
https:/
A sad story and my heart to all those who lost life,were injured or had to see this but the brave Tunisians clearly weren't in cahoots with the terrorist with many risking their life to try and stop him but as you can see it fell on deaf ears.
This is typical regarding groups as isis and other terrorist groups and many of the worlds muslims to my knowledge.
Many don't want their brand of murder,brutality and violent terrorism but the terrorists only hear the demons in their heads commanding them to kill innocent people.
Just a little food for thought.
Have a :) day.
A sad story and my heart to all those who lost life,were injured or had to see this but the brave Tunisians clearly weren't in cahoots with the terrorist with many risking their life to try and stop him but as you can see it fell on deaf ears.
This is typical regarding groups as isis and other terrorist groups and many of the worlds muslims to my knowledge.
Many don't want their brand of murder,brutality and violent terrorism but the terrorists only hear the demons in their heads commanding them to kill innocent people.
Just a little food for thought.
Have a :) day.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Broseph. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Look at it this way:
If you don't "tar them all with the same brush" then you must have a way of differentiating the "innocent" from the Jihadists and as far as i know, there is no method.
So, do you wait until another atrocity and them "tar them" with the same brush (bit late don't you think?) OR suspect ANY Muslim of being a Jihadist?
There is little doubt of the Islamisation of the West, as I see it and however unreasonable and unfair and until i can find a way of differentiation, I will indeed tar them with the same brush.
Unreasonable?...Yes, I suppose it is.
If you don't "tar them all with the same brush" then you must have a way of differentiating the "innocent" from the Jihadists and as far as i know, there is no method.
So, do you wait until another atrocity and them "tar them" with the same brush (bit late don't you think?) OR suspect ANY Muslim of being a Jihadist?
There is little doubt of the Islamisation of the West, as I see it and however unreasonable and unfair and until i can find a way of differentiation, I will indeed tar them with the same brush.
Unreasonable?...Yes, I suppose it is.
Mikey, //Carry on tarring everybody with the same brush//
You have that backwards. I’m not tarring everyone with the same brush – you are, as are all the people who favourably compare Islam to other religions. Islam, the 'moderate' version that you seem quite taken with, or the 'radical' version that you feel few adhere to, cannot be compared to any other religion. Islam is the greatest threat to the world today and we ignore it at our peril.
You have that backwards. I’m not tarring everyone with the same brush – you are, as are all the people who favourably compare Islam to other religions. Islam, the 'moderate' version that you seem quite taken with, or the 'radical' version that you feel few adhere to, cannot be compared to any other religion. Islam is the greatest threat to the world today and we ignore it at our peril.
-- answer removed --
Wow, what a thread.
I find it odd that mikey refuses to categories a Muslim, he never has a bad word to say even about the ones who bomb and shoot other human beings. Yet he doesn't have the same difficulty in categorising lesbians. The irony in his post below just about highlights mikey's double standards.
mikey4444
ichkeria...it wasn't a pleasant experience, I can tell you ! They were the type of lesbians that look like road menders, not Marilyn Munroe.
I strongly object to being labeled a potential rapist, purely due to the fact that I was born with a penis, and not a very big one at that !
Very scary ! ( The lesbians that is, not my willy )
I find it odd that mikey refuses to categories a Muslim, he never has a bad word to say even about the ones who bomb and shoot other human beings. Yet he doesn't have the same difficulty in categorising lesbians. The irony in his post below just about highlights mikey's double standards.
mikey4444
ichkeria...it wasn't a pleasant experience, I can tell you ! They were the type of lesbians that look like road menders, not Marilyn Munroe.
I strongly object to being labeled a potential rapist, purely due to the fact that I was born with a penis, and not a very big one at that !
Very scary ! ( The lesbians that is, not my willy )
@Broseph
I have no intentions to "tar them all with the same brush" but I may need to self-examine to determine whether that would be for entirely mercenary reasons, in the sense of (hypothetically) having something to lose by getting up their noses (business interactions, or seeking employment, say), or in the sense of losing respect of peers by transforming from the "I'm ok, you're ok", accept-everybody type to the grudgingly tolerant or as far as the reactionary, "send 'em back" type.
This country's most recent historical precedent was probably 1914, when there were forced expulsions (or internment) of those of German extraction. Rather than give them the benefit of the doubt, they were assumed to retain sympathies for their homeland and thus needed to be prevented from reconnoitering. (In the lead-up to WWII, they were conducting aerial photography because tourist maps had all likely points of interest blanked out).
So, white people can mass-deport other white people (in those days) and no-one batted an eyelid. We cannot apply the same principle under current circumstances because of the unavoidable racial element to it and worldwide condemnation would be directed at us, for evermore.
I apologise for making argumentum ad absurdam my opening offer, yet again but it is a habit I find hard to break. If we do not tar, we have the needle in the haystack problem, if we do tar and extend that to deportation, it's a massive logistical exercise (3.5m?) and we end up labelled as racists.
Classic no-win situation.
I have no intentions to "tar them all with the same brush" but I may need to self-examine to determine whether that would be for entirely mercenary reasons, in the sense of (hypothetically) having something to lose by getting up their noses (business interactions, or seeking employment, say), or in the sense of losing respect of peers by transforming from the "I'm ok, you're ok", accept-everybody type to the grudgingly tolerant or as far as the reactionary, "send 'em back" type.
This country's most recent historical precedent was probably 1914, when there were forced expulsions (or internment) of those of German extraction. Rather than give them the benefit of the doubt, they were assumed to retain sympathies for their homeland and thus needed to be prevented from reconnoitering. (In the lead-up to WWII, they were conducting aerial photography because tourist maps had all likely points of interest blanked out).
So, white people can mass-deport other white people (in those days) and no-one batted an eyelid. We cannot apply the same principle under current circumstances because of the unavoidable racial element to it and worldwide condemnation would be directed at us, for evermore.
I apologise for making argumentum ad absurdam my opening offer, yet again but it is a habit I find hard to break. If we do not tar, we have the needle in the haystack problem, if we do tar and extend that to deportation, it's a massive logistical exercise (3.5m?) and we end up labelled as racists.
Classic no-win situation.
@Svejk
" @Beso- Good post countering that nonsense Dusty posted. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Islam would know it was nonsense. The trouble is too many people believe that kind of propaganda without bothering to find out the truth. As can be seen daily on AB.
12:41 Mon 29th Jun 2015Report"
You've read the Koran then?
I have to ask because on one of the myriad TV discussions I have seen, someone set out 'rules of Jihad' very similar to what Dustypuss set out, so I am keen to root out where that particular meme (or set of memes) started out. In other words, whether it is just more apologist "don't worry about us, guv" bluff or if it is canonical to them.
Note: I am not pooh-pooh-ing beso's deconstruction. That was ably demonstrating how the terrorists are flouting these 'rules'.
We just need to establish that they actually exist and if they are from the Koran or something written later.
Didn't Naomi say she'd read it?
Sadly, a pro-tar apologist argument Hypognosis.
You start from "no intentions to tar them all with the same brush" and end with "If we do not tar, we have the needle in the haystack problem, if we do tar and extend that to deportation, it's a massive logistical exercise (3.5m?)"
If you need to examine whether you support a position for mercenary reasons, or social acceptance, then you may want to re-examine your opinions on a rather broader, comprehensive manner.
Internment rather than deportation seemed to be the 'norm' re Germans in Britain
http://
and one 'ad absurdam' I recognise is employing historical events to suit a situation.
You start from "no intentions to tar them all with the same brush" and end with "If we do not tar, we have the needle in the haystack problem, if we do tar and extend that to deportation, it's a massive logistical exercise (3.5m?)"
If you need to examine whether you support a position for mercenary reasons, or social acceptance, then you may want to re-examine your opinions on a rather broader, comprehensive manner.
Internment rather than deportation seemed to be the 'norm' re Germans in Britain
http://
and one 'ad absurdam' I recognise is employing historical events to suit a situation.
Hypognosis, Jihad means ‘struggle’ or ‘strive’. That can be on a personal level but more commonly it is understood to mean a struggle against the enemies of Islam – or Holy War. I don’t know where Dustypuss got his list from but much of it is inaccurate and that which isn’t fails to address the Islamic mentality – which is like no other. As far as I can tell, the only rule that applies in Holy War is the one that says if the enemy doesn’t submit to Islam he is to be killed. According to Dustypuss, rule number one states that the enemy must “always start the fighting”, but that neglects to take account of the fact that to an ardent Islamist anyone who isn’t Muslim has already begun the fight simply by failing to embrace Islam. It is permissible for men to rape women captured in battle (again bear in mind what ‘battle’ means here - all non-Muslims are the enemy), and it is permissible to lie to and cheat the infidel. Mohammed, the author of the Koran, was a wily old merchant - a power-hungry warmonger - but the Koran is not the only reference that Jihadists rely upon. Like the Koran, the Hadith, the sayings of Mohammed, is also considered to be beyond reproach, as he himself is, and that wields an unimaginable influence upon the faithful. Within Islamic literature Muslims are able to find justification for all sorts of things – from rape - to female genital mutilation – to old men marrying little girls – to bloodthirsty torture and slaughter. It’s all there. The ambition is to turn the world Muslim, which is why these wars are considered 'Holy' wars as opposed to political wars - and it’s all done in Allah’s name – and allegedly with Allah’s blessing.
Latest Posts
Road rules4 mins ago
I Can't Find A Santa Emoji Anywhere.
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.