to be sick of people on FB comparing Syrian refugees to the Jewish refugees

[paintandbrush]

Please stop bandying about the terms 'Kindertransport', 'Operation Pied Piper' and so on because I've studied the Holocaust extensively, and it's not actually the same, ok?

This article says it all better than I can, please read: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12130175/The-plight-of-Syrian-refugees-is-not-on-a-par-with-Jews-fleeing-the-Nazis.html

For the record, I really don't believe we should be bombing them to hell in the first place: in this day and age, wars are not won in the towns and fields of North Africa. Wars are won round a conference table somewhere in Switzerland.

The whole attitude of Cameron's government at the minute seems to be "Let's make their homeland hell on earth, then pat ourselves on the back for letting, say, 10% of them into the UK". What a bloody mess.

Bill

I always enjoy reading your posts, even when I don't agree with them, you are without a doubt one of the more intelligent and erudite posters on MN.

Anyway I am glad some posters have done some reading about the war is Syria at long, long last .

All we need now is some acceptance that ISIS is in fact an Islamic operation that is rooted in the religion, then we can start to move forward with the debates.

Pont hasn't done any 'name' calling. Therefore it's not fair to have a go at her based on what others have said. I have had a lot of posts deleted, most with the word 'xenophobic' in them. In my opinion, that doesn't constitute a personal attack or name calling.

Bill said that Pont had slurred moderate Muslim groups then stated that it eas clear where her sympathies lie, which is a nasty slur and inferring she sympathises with extremists. It's similar to the slur that I get for wanting to help refugees, that I must be a far left no borders activist. You can see flaws in groups like the William Foundation without being an extremist. They've had a lot of flak from many people, particularly for their use of Tommy Robinson.

I described people as xenophobic because of what they said, not because they just disagreed with me. It was the prejudice in what they said, notions of Muslims as 'other' and dangerous, as less important, incapable of integration, inherently sexually aggressive, that sort of thing. I disagree strongly with this kind of prejudice.

Some threads were deleted because posters rounded on me. Many threads are still up that shoe deletions where people rounded on me in a pack. I think this is indicative of some posters fear of what I have to say.

How about you just engage with what myself and other posters are actually saying

I do! The vast majority of my replies are responses engaging with other posters. I rarely raise primary points myself, I just respond to others.

Which is distinctly different from posters who spend months dodging difficult questions they can't answer never engaging with anybody and merely posting links to biased, unreliable left wing propaganda YouTube videos presented as fact. cougn cough emily

I am not under any obligation to answer questions. I answered some and was met with a barrage of snide remarks. The YouTube clips I posted or other links were entirely relevant to helping refugees. They were met with the usual 'no borders' nonsensical slurs.

I don't think there are 'sides' as such- or if there are, I imagine there are many of us who don't know which side they are on.

I know I wouldn't want to be onnorthernshephadesses side tho.

Hitler 'offered' Jewish 'refugees' to the zionists, U.K. And USA who all said no way...
Do people believe that? (If so, can I have some evidence please.)

How about her analysis of the refugee crisis? forget Assad, forget Isis, forget Russia, forget the three million dead, it's actually the uk and the USA who enjoy bombing the crap out of Syrians.

is this not 'prejudiced'thinking too?

You might think they're relevant emily. But you offer them up as indisputable evidence when in fact they're absolutely laughable and most of them make spurious claims with very little evidence to back them up.

Anyway. I sense another little campaign to get a thread deleted. So I'm not engaging with this anymore.

Plus you contradicted yourself there Bill by stating you merely engage with threads, then bringing up other threads I've been on.

The links I posted were of people directly involved in the refugee crisis. Eric Kempson for example. Living on Lesbos and running a centre to house refugees as he does, I hardly think he is making spurious claims. He meets the people off the boats, sometimes those who lost relatives on their journey across the sea. I take what he has to say very seriously. I hardly think it's the vague piffle you would like to imagine it is.

I haven't tried to get any thread linked to refugees deleted.

Would you like to enlighten us as to how Isis are rooted in Islam Mint as you sound so confident about it?

The sad truth is that Islamic State is following the true, unadulterated word of Islam, as laid down by the Prophet. Smite the infidels and the heretics, etc etc is - exactly what IS is doing.

Listen to this nun, Sister Dogan, who herself has been persecuted.

And Islam is not peace, please. Whoever says ISIS has no connection to Islam or something like this is, he's a liar. ISIS is Islam; Islam is ISIS. Islam and democracy are opposite, like black and white.

www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/May/Nun-Islam-is-ISIS-Whoever-Says-Otherwise-Is-a-Liar

I haven't tried to get any thread linked to refugees deleted.

Unless that is a guilty conscience. No one has said you have.

I am not under any obligation to answer questions.

Neither is anyone else.

What makes one interpretation of a religion more 'true' than another, shake?

During the Bosnian war a priest was photographed on a tank holding g a Kalashnikov. In Bosnia, Bishops openly supported Radovsn Karadicz, blessing his war and getting him as a hero.

Serbian paramilitary leaders, many responsible for atrocities such as rape and mass murder, invoked the church as their inspiration for defending Serbs. The Orthodox Church officiated at the wedding of one of the warlords.

Abdul Myriad comments, 'One of the most disturbing features of the war which devastated Bosnia was the widespread refusal of Western politicians, churchmen and newsmen, to acknowledge the role religion was playing in the conflict. The reality, which was one of militant Christian extremism, was never, to my knowledge, frankly discussed.'

One priest expelled a Muslim family and seized their home. Another read a list of captured Muslim settlements in church and then blessed the congregation which I used a war criminal.

Did these warlords, paramilitaries and war criminals follow 'true' Christianity's or did they exploit, even invent a violent narrative which invoked Christian themes and symbols?

I think most people do realise it Emily and are enlightened.

But here you go

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.

news.vice.com/article/muslim-scholars-make-the-theological-case-against-the-islamic-state

Why isn't the interpretation of Islam by these scholars 'true' Islam, shake?

Those scholars are mainly Sufi, so not Salafi like ISIS, SA etc who probably wouldn't even regard them as Muslims.

Salafism is a powerful and growing school of Islam, at the expense of Sufism.

I must say, I do find it incredibly amusing that liberal Westerners like lecturing Muslims on the meaning of their own religion when they clearly don't see it that way, given the way the structure of their cultures and societies are moving more and more towards conservatism and salafism.

Yet the more they move towards salafism the more desperately 'liberal' westerners insist that the true interpretation of Islam is a moderate Sufi one. What a shame that Muslims don't have their theology dictated to them by the regressive left. It would solve the worlds' problems at a stroke.

And again, emily, when you post links to pop media like Vice or YouTube, it's often best to check out the background rather than just taking things at face value.

"Listen to this nun, Sister Dogan, who herself has been persecuted."

Oh yes. Who better to learn Islam from than a Christian? A nun, no less. Well done, Shake.

'The sad truth is that Islamic State is following the true, unadulterated word of Islam, as laid down by the Prophet'.

I was responding to this statement and the question of what is 'true' Islam, Bill.That seems to have gone over your head though.

Yep. But you didn't know the answer to your own question did you? Because ISIS and Conservative Muslims and those who currently hold the most power in the Islamic world don't believe that it's true.

I do know Bill, but posing questions is a way of getting people to think a bit more deeply.

'A coalition of leading Sunni Muslim scholars from across the world took a stand against the jihad waged by Islamic State militants by issuing a letter denouncing the terrorist group's claim that their war is in the name of God'.

The letter is by Sunnis Bill, yu know, the ones you think are Isis. Ooops.

Speaking ofyoutube Bill, here's a song for you. Sweet dreams.

The letter is by Sunnis Bill, yu know, the ones you think are Isis. Ooops.

Sigh. Sufism and salafism are both movements within Sunni Islam. ISIS are Sunnis but also Salafis. They will not see Sufis as true Muslims even though they are Sunni. So not 'Oooops' at all.

What is 'Oooops' is that you don't even know something basic like that, yet you're dishing out lectures on the true meaning of Islam.

I do know Bill, but posing questions is a way of getting people to think a bit more deeply.

Not if they just ignore the question and post another inane YouTube link eh flower?

'They will not see Sufis as true Muslims even though they are Sunni'.

Eh? Are we letting Isis decide who qualifies as Muslim now?

The fact that the letter is by Sunnis is incidental, although it is funny that you are trying to separate them into 'good Sunni' and bad Sunni'¨now when a few days ago you seemed to be stating they're all Islamic extremists.

The point is, that a poster is arguing that Isis represent 'true' Islam when a far more peaceful interpretation exists, although I would argue Isis is no interpretation at all.

So whether they are Sufi or not is also irrelevant. The question is, what makes one interpretation more 'true' than another? On what basis can Isis's 'interpretation be considered 'true' or more 'true' than the interpretation of the scholars that wrote the letter.

'Hee hee, but they're Sufi'' isn't an answer.

The thing is, emily, your interpretation of islam doesn't matter a shiny shite. It's how isis and AQ and boko haram and their ilk interpret it that counts. Because you can't argue with "because god says so".

And because they are using it to recruit people. A lot of whom grew up in the uk or other western countries with all the advantages that most of the world would kill for - and yet they can't wait to turn their backs on it for a strict life under sharia.

Of course the vast majority of Muslims loathe isis and what they are doing. But it's the dangerous brainwashed ones who don't.

Which makes it v difficult indeed with the refugees. You can't guarantee who you are letting in. You can't guarantee what they will do when they are here - look at what Mohamed Emwazi turned into. And whilst I have huge amounts of sympathy, do I want to risk my DD's future by letting in uncontrolled swathes of people from cultures where women are treated like they are in ME countries? It may well be v selfish, but I'd far rather give money to resolve where they come from and help that way.