Friday, August 12, 2011

Big Test for Conservatives



I have been impressed by David Cameron's robust response to the London riots. Here's hoping it is successful !

40 comments:

builder man said...

Rioting is wrong but it's easy to talk tough to encourage revenge from middle England. Cameron is a Murdoch
man, whose newspapers have done their
best to moronise (to make morons of)
the population, which has helped to cause the problems in the first place
There were no books in our house when
I was young but I had the BBC whose mantra was to inform, educate and
entertain - in that order and with NO
ADVERTISING.So my moral compass developed from the greatest artists
writers, composers, philosophers etc. As Shakespeare said:'Knowledge
is like Heavens glorious sun, and will not be deep searched with saucy looks'.What is the compass for many youngsters today? A diminished cultural experience and
an avalanche of advertising for products and a lifestyle they cannot afford.I was raised a Catholic. No fan of the Church but
I still rate the Prophet.What I like about Jesus is that he spoke in parables. Expected you to use your brain. The adulterous woman.
'You without sin cast the first stone.'In other words, if something
bad happens in society, we are ALL
responsible. Tough message. No wonder they nailed him on a cross -
those middle Judeans!

Ted Leddy said...

Builder Man

I don't think you can blame Murdoch's tabloid culture or crass advertising for the riots. I think you have to give those involved a little credit that they can think and act for themselves. Although I take your point that they hardly have positive examples to follow. It would be nice if we could make the disillusioned youth of today enjoy Shakespeare, Jesus and philosphy but that would be dictatorial and theocratic. If we want to live in a free society, then we have to accept that some people, perhaps many people will chose unwisely with that freedom.

builder man said...

But Mr. Leddy, ignorance is a PRISON,
that enslaves the imagination, and is now literally prison for many thousands behaving out of ignorance.
Ignorance harms and ignorance kills.
Islamaphobia and anti-semitism are born out of ignorance. Ignorance empowers despots like Hitler (who was
elected) and corrupt and incompetent
politicians. But we do not have to accept ignorance prevailing. The BBC had standards that raised people like me, through greater knowledge, to a better and more fulfilled life. They told us that we are not going to give you what you think you want, but what is good for you. And they were right.
For we would not allow children at school to set their own agenda for learning. But surely we are not children? A recent world wide survey indicated that the average awareness age for ADULTS is 14. And you only have to look at the state of the world today to concur.
It is knowledge that sets you free and empowers you, and we should ensure, if we want a decent world,that our institutions promulgate greater knowledge at
every opportunity.

Ted Leddy said...

Builder Man

You make some excellent points but I do believe that an essential part of democracy and living in a free society is that you have to let people make their own mistakes. Remember all the great tyrannies of history, fascism. communism, religious fanaticism, all have in common the fact that they wanted to pefect society. I think we have to accept that people and society are imperfect and that we should just have laws. Just so you know I agree in principle with everything you said. I am all for promoting the the things you cherish. I am just scepticle when it is the state leading the way.

Paul said...

'Builder man', 'how were you raised by the BBC to a better and more fulfilled life'? The BBC is left wing anti-Christian propaganda and numerous former beeboids have testified as such including Robin Aitken, Peter Sissons and David Vance. Plus as a UK citizen we are obliged by law to pay for it a gross abuse of state power. The riots were caused by a fundamental failure of big government.

I don't wish to appear picky but a Catholic would not call Jesus a prophet, those that do tend to follow a far more dangerous cult than Catholicism.

Anonymous said...

What we witnessed in the UK were the fruits of secularism! A people devoid of morals, responsibility and religion see no wrong in anything they do. You've brought it upon yourselves and it will consume you utterly!

Paul said...

Look Egan/halfwit were the Muslim riots of 2001 and 2005 in France a product of secularism? Why as I pointed out in my blog are riots less frequent and less enduring in the US, which unlike the UK has a secular constitution?

Ted Leddy said...

Anonymous

What about the much more widespread and far worse violence across the Muslim Arab world. I suppose that is because of secularism too. Perhaps if religion was more central to society in Libya and Syria there would be peace and harmony, just like say, Saudi Arabia. Order, harmony and zero crime are easy to achieve, just ask Paul Pot or Sadam Hussein.

Anonymous said...

'we'rewere the Muslim riots of 2001 and 2005 in France a product of secularism' No, they were the product of marginalization, isolation and discrimination - no comparison you fcukwit! Feral brats were the instigators of the riots in the UK, kids brought up on the lies of atheism, the abdication of responsibility and the irreligious immoral culture of secularism - chickens coming home to roost!

Paul said...

There's no greater abdication of responsibility and moral stuntedness, than under Islam Fcukwit! That is because the tyrannous laws that are passed stifle any initiative as well as ensuring whatever morality an individual may possess is through external pressure. Christianity on the other hand relies upon inner spirituality to be a better person. This is especially true of Calvinism for instance, whose followers are urged to 'walk with Christ' and seek salvation as individuals for example.

But hey slag off atheism as much as you like I'm no atheist. But in terms of comparative religion, where for instance is there more corruption, violence, nepotism and greed? In countries where Muslims form the majority or countries where Jews and Christians are in the majority? And let’s not even get started on contributions towards science and the arts. Based on any of the above factors Muslim countries do appear to be very fcukwitted indeed, I mean any country and people would have to be pretty stupid to be solely reliant upon outside help to produce their main economic resource for export. The tragedy of course with the Saudis is they are not stupid, they are however saddled with the morally and intellectually deadweight of Islam.

Anonymous said...

Every country has laws to enforce what is deemed the norm, why should you expect any less of Muslim lands? You do seem rather defensive, hit a sore spot have we?

Secularism is flawed, the riots are but one of the many manifesations of that. Face up to the facts Paul, admit the mistakes, learn from them and move on.

Paul said...

You did a really good job of explaining how secularism was responsible for the riots anonymous? I was talking about culture anyhow and not the law in my previous comment, but discussing a comparison between the laws passed in a Muslim country and those in the west will only lead to a further drubbing for you. Better to go back to dreams of your theocratic utopia. The west is light years ahead of any Islamic entity.

Anonymous said...

Happy to discuss any laws you wish Paul, Ireland is hardly a shining beacon of morality and justice and pales in comparison to the Islamic ideal.

As for proving the doctrine of secularism played a role, it's self explanatory - only the most ignorant or blind could deny it.

Paul said...

The Islamic Ideal? You mean like the Taliban or Iran? Ireland's laws like the UK's are derived from an elected parliament. By contrast Islamic laws are and have spread by force and held in place by fear.

For instance the death penalty for apostasy.
The death penalty for Blasphemy. These laws ultimately lead to a society incapable of self-criticism and critical inquiry. After all a system that kills you if you question the value of its so called religion is hardly going to encourage free thought.

Discriminatory laws passed against non-muslims the Dhimmi.
Four male witnesses required for a rape conviction (in essence this makes rape impossible to prevent as with Pakistan and the Hudood laws.
Women being half the value of a man in testimony and treated legally as chattels.
The age of 'consent' being nine years old for a female, wonder why they have that one? That's because Mo consummated his marriage to Ayesha when she was nine according to Bukhari Hadith. That is actually the law in Saudi, Iran and other places for that reason.
Criticism of the 'prophet' leading to the death penalty what a cool idea, but then Muhammad as well as being a phoney was a megalomaniac as well.

Ultimately Muslims suffer under these laws as they are rendered intellectually and morally mute. Have no effective means of commerce, no freedom of expression, and their daughters if they're not raped or mutilated as children will always belong to a man throughout life. And what if you're gay like about 50% of Afghani men are? Well you get killed for that as well.

I much prefer a secular democracy and the US constitution is currently the best on offer. As I write this a young Turkish man has been arrested for murdering two Northern Irish women. Allegedly he was affronted after they refused him permission to marry their under-age daughter. But of course as a product of a culture that meant as a Muslim man he was entitled to view women as possessions and non-muslims as inferior he solved the issue as old Mo would have done.

First things first Liam, tell us how secularism caused the English riots. I suppose the only riots that would occur under Islam are the food riots currently occurring in Somalia.

Anonymous said...

Paul for someone who espouses European enlightenment you do appear rather challenged when it comes to Those ideals. Quite aside from regurgitating the Islamophobic rethoric that the likes of Brevik adhered to, you have very little knowledge of what Islam is and quite honestly like the Breviks of this world I don't think you really care. You're driven by a hate ideology that will not see any good no matter what. In another era I rather suspect you'd readily don a swastika armband.

Paul said...

Except I triumphed the US constitution as a model I believed in so no Nazi numb nuts. Again before you obfuscate further how did secularism cause the UK riots? Also where was I actually wrong in my descriptions of Islam? I mean does Islam have the Dhimmi laws yes or no and do you get executed for changing your religion yes or no? Hint, look what the law is in Saudi and Iran.

Anonymous said...

Paul said, 'I much prefer a secular democracy and the US constitution is currently the best on offer. As I write this a young Turkish man has been arrested for murdering two Northern Irish women. Allegedly he was affronted after they refused him permission to marry their under-age daughter. But of course as a product of a culture that meant as a Muslim man he was entitled to view women as possessions and non-muslims as inferior he solved the issue as old Mo would have done.' taking you up on your last line and working on generalities - do you think all Irish men are pedos? I don't - but given your line of reasoning it appears you might!
There are 'dhimmi' laws that apply to non-Muslims, as there are immigration laws that apply to non-nationals in Ireland and Europe. Neither have the same entitlements as those who are fully-fledged members.

Anonymous said...

If the riots had occured in the north of Ireland, police and army would have used rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannon as first option, no doubt live ammo would have followed. Double standards and another example of how the Brits make distinctions along the lines of nationality. This explains why they are so trigger happy in places like Iraq and Afghanistan too.

Paul said...

Public order in Northern Ireland is handled by the PSNI. The British army has not been so deployed since 2001 in Belfast in any case that's preferable to simply surrendering the streets as the British police recently did. Besides since when were you republican, you want an Islamic Ireland under rules like the Taliban.

Immigration laws similar to the Dhimmi laws what a laugh. Nowhere in any UK court would an immigrant's word be considered half the testimony of a UK resident. Indeed the idea behind immigration into most western countries is to assimilate immigrants as citizens. However the Dhimmitude is a permanent means of violently subjugating an individual and is based solely on religion. No one in the UK or Ireland would seek to have Muslims deprived of the vote. But Islamists are seeking to permanently disenfranchise the non-muslim communities of the countries to which they have in most cases emigrated. The same countries that have afforded them benefits and rights they could normally only have dreamed off.

What is it with the paedophilia thing? Please explain your point, how could most Irish be paedophiles after what I said? In any case think about it why would paedophilia not be a good matter to raise with an Islamist? Any civilised person would regard Muhammad's marriage to a six year old child as immoral; he was fifty four at the time. He consummated the marriage when Ayesha was nine, deny that? Yet the Qur'an describes Mo as an ideal example of conduct. Today in the 21st century old and middle aged men will marry pre-pubescent girls in parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. The age for marriage in such countries is actually nine precisely because Muhammad engaged in such vile predatory behaviour. What is witnessed is paedophilia being institutionalised through marriage. Another example of this was in Channel Four's 'undercover mosque' broadcasted in 2008. One of the preachers extolled this behaviour and claimed there was nothing wrong with it as it was just 'marriage'.

It's too much to expect you to answer any of my earlier questions Liam or explain how secularism caused the English riots. But bottom line would you condemn a 54 year old man who had sex with a nine year old child? At what age would you like to see Irish girls married off in your utopia?

Anonymous said...

Paul - your insistence on labeling any Muslim contribution on this site as belonging to a 'Liam','Khalid' or any other name you evoke is most irritating, if you can move beyond your fixation I'll happily reply to the silliness you've gleaned from Islamophobic hate sites.

Ted Leddy said...

Interesting discussion lads

Anonymous

Comparing immigration laws to the Dhimmi laws in Muslim countries is a non runner for the reasons stated by Paul and I'm not sure where you're going with the Northern Ireland thing. I suspect you might be trying to drive a wedge between myself and Paul. Very crafty !

I am afraid you have failed to convince me that secularism caused the riots in the UK.

A quick question for you. Do you believe that nations which embrace Christianity or Judaism will also be spared such social breakdown?

Anonymous said...

I don't find Paul's arguments convincing at all Ted, and I'll state my reasons later today. I can't say whether riots will occur in lands where religion dominates - if they did however the reasons would be very different. The UK's were instigated by a bunch of unrestrained, irreligious, selfish louts who had been weaned on a culture of self-serving secularism. They have demonstrated the need for restraint, that man left to his own devices doesn't always choose the correct path. Religion has in the past and present provided a set of rules that do not originate with man and are therefore immutable.

Paul said...

'Religion has in the past and present provided a set of rules that do not originate with man and are therefore immutable.'

But the US is a secular state and the riots would not have lasted as long there due to a stronger sense of citizenship. I actually agree that many rioters are irreligious, but to suggest Islam would provide a cure is like saying Soviet Communism would provide a cure. Meanwhile vastly worse food riots and uncountable deaths occur in Somalia controlled by Islamists. So thanks to Islam millions will die over there.
Can’t wait for your answer although as has already been proven any points that contradict your blinkered dogma will be avoided. Death penalty for apostasy yes or no? Death penalty for adultery and homosexuality yes or no? And what age should it be legal for girls to be married off (i.e. raped as occurs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Saudi citing Muhammad’s marriage to Ayesha as example)? Under Islam it would be nine as anything else would serve to undermine the oft quoted claim that Muhammad was an ‘ideal example of conduct ‘as per the Qur’an (which he made up). Your utopia (which if it had ever worked would be here now) is a violent, unworkable construct that appeals to the tyrannical, the misogynous, the sexually frustrated and the intellectually and morally moribund. Kind of ironic how Anjem Choudhary lives off benefits funded by the Kuffar isn’t it, which in itself effectively highlights the failures of Islam and Islamists.

Anonymous said...

Paul - you consistently pick bad examples of Muslims to push the idea that all Muslims are bad. That was precisely why I used the Pedo argument. The existence of pedophilia in Ireland is in no way an indication that all Irish men are pedophiles, no more than the existence of bad elements within the Muslim community proves that all Muslims are bad. Your rhetoric is dangerously similar to the Norweigan mass murderer - please be careful!

Before answering your questions, allow me to get some idea of your moral compass. Do you have any objections to incest, polygamy, sodomy, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, wife swapping or any other sexual activity involving people. Do you have any objections to countries interfering in the politics or even the day to day running of another country? Do you believe everyone should be free to do as they wish? If there are objections, what is the basis for those?

Paul said...

What a surprise you have attempted to shift the focus of the debate. Answer my questions first Liam. Most of the points you raised can be referenced with my support of the US constitution. Over to you crazy beard!

Anonymous said...

The US constitution? Paul you do remember the race riots in the US, where up until the 60s blacks were less than 2nd class citizens in the country you now seek to extol. What about the riots after Hurricane Katrina, etc???

I can't and won't answer questions with a simple yes/no and it is intellectually unreasonable of you to suggest so. Besides, I conditioned my responses upon your committment to stop labeling me Khalid, Liam or any other Islamic bogeyman you seek to conjure up. You have failed and this is the end of our discussion.

I sincerely hope those seeking to prevent another Norway massacre begin to keep a close eye on sites like this and people like yourself. Your rhetoric of hate, discrimination and distinction has no place in modern Ireland.

Paul said...

'Your rhetoric of hate, discrimination and distinction has no place in modern Ireland.'

Oh and what you have said about Jews and Ahmadiya Muslims is what precisely? I know you wouldn't bother answering any questions as you lack intellectual honesty or moral courage. Unlike you I have never excused nor acted as an apologist for terror. I will accept your surrender and withdrawal from this debate. You stated you would discuss any aspect of Islamic law but you were not equal to the task as Ted also pointed with your childish obfusication over the Dhimmi laws.

Anonymous said...

I would suggest, as most would, that silence on Israeli atrocities in Gaza and its penchant for killing civilians is tantamount to approval and therefore excusing terrorism. If you think it is wrong of the Jews to kill civilians then please state as much without equivication.

Paul said...

Answer my questions first. The killings of civilians is wrong. However according to you if they are Jewish or Ahmadiya Muslims it can be condoned.

Anonymous said...

"Answer my questions first. The killings of civilians is wrong. However according to you if they are Jewish or Ahmadiya Muslims it can be condoned."

1. The Jewish leadership in Occupied Palestine has placed Jewish civilians in harms way by granting them cheap subsidized housing on Palestinian land. By refusing to stop, refusing to talk, aggressively and incessantly bombing and murdering civilians the Jews have given Palestinians no other alternative but violence. Violence begets violence Paul. And I rather suspect that if you were a young Palestinian living under Jewish repression as opposed to an Irish man with an inordinate amount of time on his hands you'd think differently.

There are Ahmadis, there's no such thing as an Ahmadi 'Muslim'! And if they insist on calling themselves Muslim then they must submit to Islamic law which deems them apostate. The choice is theirs, they can't have their cake and eat it in this matter. As has been said before, you have no say in this matter, you don't get to decide who is or isn't Muslim.

Paul said...

And the penalty for Apostasy is?

Anonymous said...

It depends Paul. You've been over this before with a number of Muslim contributors (you're an easy person to find on P.ie, Boards.ie, etc) so I probably don't have much more to offer. But just to recap for you: if a person leaves Islam, is seditious and fights against the state then his punishment is death. A similar penalty for treason exists in the land you extol as the model country - the USA.

Paul said...

I'm not surprised that you've chosen to say that Islamists are so predictable and frequently dishonest. But as to apostasy this no more equates to treason (and if we are talking treason I could think of a few UK clerics incidentally) than the Dhimmi laws do to immigration, so it's another lie of yours.

Apostasy is the act of changing one's religion, specifically leaving Islam. It is based upon the saying of Muhammad 'he who leaves his Islamic religion kill him' and is the actual law in many Islamic countries. Yusuf Qaradawi the so called scholar has described it in such exact terms, if he’s wrong you will tell him won't you? Of course you will not as you know apostasy is leaving Islam, like in the case of the Afghan Abdul Rahman sentenced to death for just such an act in 2006 until diplomatic pressure got him released. The number of western based Liam Egan’s telling the Afghan authorities 'hang on apostasy is treason against the state not just changing your religion lay off him'? Zero of course.

Presumably therefore going on what you're saying if the Ahmadis are apostates, then when they were massacred by the Taliban in May 2010 that was just as the bearded furies that carried it out were acting out Allah's judgement? I believe Liam Egan said such a thing on MPAC.ie before it was closed down but I'm sure I don't need to remind you of that.

Anonymous said...

The wee Lancashire laddy says,"But as to apostasy this no more equates to treason (and if we are talking treason I could think of a few UK clerics incidentally) than the Dhimmi laws do to immigration, so it's another lie of yours. "
Paul, Paul ... didn't ur daddy ever teach you that there are other opinions other than yours. Difference doesn't imply lying. In any other book fomenting dissent against a state by fighting it, supporting it's enemies and providing ideological support to them is considered treason - hence your allusion to the 'UK clerics'. You are an odd sort!

"Apostasy is the act of changing one's religion, specifically leaving Islam. It is based upon the saying of Muhammad 'he who leaves his Islamic religion kill him' and is the actual law in many Islamic countries."

I know you're 'self-employed' but please ... Islamic scholar is really not your chosen path... trust me! Picking out one statement as an evidence while ignoring all that qualifies it is dishonest, but then Paul you've no desire to be truthful in this regard have you?

As for the Ahmadi, if they choose to call themselves Muslim then they are subject to Islamic law which deems them apostate because of their ideological deviancy, their desire to spread that and their attempt to foment dissent by that. As such the Islamic state (not individuals) being the sole administrator of justice is obliged to meet their treason with a just and ideally swift response.

Heard a lot about this mpac.ie, but can't find anything by them - just comments by people like yourself and Leddy. Given your predilection for half-truths about Islam and Muslims I'd much rather read what they actually said, so if you have anything from them please post links.

Paul said...

We can't post links as mpac.ie was taken offline as you are fully aware. However Ted has previously highlighted this. Ooh what a surprise though you have not engaged with a single point made. Love it how you pointed out Qaradawi was wrong according to Islam or that Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi and others should not execute people for leaving Islam. A cleverer man would have employed Taqiya but that's beyond you!

Anonymous said...

The wee lancashire laddy says, "We can't post links as mpac.ie was taken offline" by whom? You have implied a number of times that this was done by other than the admins of that site - do you have evidence for that claim?

"Love it how you pointed out Qaradawi was wrong according to Islam or that Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi and others should not execute people for leaving Islam"

if I thought they were wrong I would. But I'm not aware of anyone who has justly been punished without fulfilling the stated criteria. If you are the onus is upon you to present your evidence , but given your penchant for lying, half-truths and usual deceit I don't see that happening.

Taqiya is deception in war Paul, such as not disclosing your full might or plans. Other than that the way of a Muslim should be truth. You really shouldn't project your ways upon me.?

Paul said...

On a separate point halfwit it's Lancashire not Lanarkshire so 'wee laddy' is the wrong language. I'm surprised you don't know that as you'd surely feel at home in parts of Blackburn.

Unwittingly you have conceded my point, you stated that apostasy was killing someone for treason and not simply changing their religion. Yet Qaradawi and others stated it was changing their religion as does the law in Saudi, Iran etc. You just stated that you felt they were correct in their interpretation so any disagreement between you is moot.

Anonymous said...

Lancashire, are u part of the EDL - I ask as the Neanderthal rhetoric is similar.

'Unwittingly you have conceded my point, you stated that apostasy was killing someone for treason and not simply changing their religion. Yet Qaradawi and others stated it was changing their religion as does the law in Saudi, Iran etc. You just stated that you felt they were correct in their interpretation so any disagreement between you is moot.'

There is no disagreement at all Paul boy, no one advocates capital punishment for simply leaving the religion, the issue is your lack of understanding or, as is more likely, your unwillingness to understand.

Paul said...

Are you a part of Al Qaeda? We both know you are not or not yet at least.

'"The blood of a Muslim individual who bears witness that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, is not to be shed except in three cases: in retaliation (in murder crimes), married adulterers (and adulteresses), and the one who abandons his religion and forsakes the Muslim community."

Well guess who was reported as saying that, yep old Mo himself according to the Hadith. (Bukhari, volume 9, #17)

http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/crimes-and-penalties/apostasy/169569.html
Further sources all contextualised before you start:
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm

Anonymous said...

I'm aware of the Hadith Paul, as I'm sure Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was too. As I previously stated, understanding comes from a holistic approach not your cut and paste, pick and choose meanderings.