1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Against Terrorism -- But for What?

Tom1070 Wrote: Jan 24, 2015 9:32 AM
Well said, Pat. What is it that we in the West as a whole agree on? Not much, judging by politics. Even free speech, something that most in the West at first glance would agree is one of our pillars, is not much of a pillar at all when put to the test. How often are ideas that differ to our own treated on their merits v attacking the person who uttered them. Enter Islam, a religion/way of life that virtually all Muslims feel an incomprehensibly (to us in the West) strong attachment to, add in their much higher fertility, a fraternal society (eg the concept of Ummah) v our individualistic society, and I see an accommodation by us to their beliefs/politics and a waning of our own hard won freedoms. Either that or putting up the barriers to immigration (from a certain group)and retreating, or conflict. In a small organisation I work for in the Middle East, I know of at least 3 white males who have married Muslims and converted to Islam and three white females. No prizes for guessing the religion of the children. I see the writing on the wall. I like your quote from TS Eliot on democracy. Scary, but very possibly true.
In response to:

Against Terrorism -- But for What?

Tom1070 Wrote: Jan 24, 2015 9:08 AM
Not worthless at all if it prompts debate. I thought PB's was a very interesting perspective to say the least. What's your strategy for defeating this growing threat instead?
Well said, Dennis. Very difficult for the naysayers to counteract what you say by debating you on points, so all they can do is come up with slurs, as further evidenced below.
The western Left: The attack had nothing to do with Islam. It was the work of deranged people. If you say otherwise you are a racist. Watch the west continue to cower (with the Left leading the cowardice race) in the face of these ongoing Islamist/mafia attacks.
In response to:

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

Tom1070 Wrote: Oct 11, 2014 4:48 AM
I am simply questioning your assumptions that you made about Dennis. Given that you seem to be floundering in your response, especially point 5, I am beginning to detect that it's your assumptions which are lacking good faith.
In response to:

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

Tom1070 Wrote: Oct 10, 2014 6:40 PM
Your responses to each of the first 3 questions are so vague as to be meaningless. You didn't answer question 5 at all. You needed to point out how what she had done satisfied the criteria for winning the Nobel Prize. Conclusion: your lack of specificity on each occasion shows you have no basis for at all for your assumptions. No point in debating you further.
In response to:

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

Tom1070 Wrote: Oct 10, 2014 12:31 PM
1. Why would Malala's Nobel Prize be inconvenient to Dennis? 2. How is Malala inconvenient to Dennis? 3. What are the similarities to the way she allegedly makes both Dennis and Pakistani conservatives uncomfortable? 4. Why do you think Malala and the doctor in the UK who saved Malala's life continue to live under security, even in the UK? Who might they be in danger from? 5. In what way do you think Malala was the most suitable person in the world to win the prize for having "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." I'll be waiting with interest to see how you respond.
In response to:

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

Tom1070 Wrote: Oct 09, 2014 5:12 PM
"I won't defend Ben Affleck's argument, but I believe Dennis Prager's argument blaming Islam is indefensible as well." Prager has already laid out a convincing argument above, the logic of which you have chosen not to tackle, so pointless to itemise those points again here. But by saying that Prager’s arguments on Islam are indefensible you are also saying that Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and innumerable other highly educated people on this topic lay out equally indefensible arguments about Islam and its threat, vis a vis Christianity. I think you will need to come up a stronger foundation than the Congolese Christian militias to make your case. Interesting that not even Huff Po mentions religion as a cause of that conflict (not to say that it is not a cause at all) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/what-is-the-main-cause-of_b_5133945.html "You can't blame a religion of mostly non-violent people even if some extremists use it to justify their violence " I think you can, if the book which is the foundation of that religion is strewn with intolerance and violence toward non-members & non-compliers. That’s a no-brainer. Eg. OT Christians are more intolerant than NT Christians in my experience. If only there were a NT/softer version of the Koran, which in turn is more violent than the OT. Many “peaceful” Sunni Muslims the world over have sympathies for ISIS. I know because I work in a Muslim country (death penalty for blasphemy - now where did that come from?) The peaceful silents either justify the violence because of the alleged violence done to their religious group, or in many cases they deny even the existence of the group committing the violent acts and dismiss it as Jewish/American propaganda. Why? Too embarrassing to have their religion tarnished. Turning a blind eye and remaining silent is tacit approval. It is their common religion that makes them do this. If non-members of that religious group were to kill members of that group, the peaceful silent on the sidelines become quickly outraged. And the tacit support for the violence is world-wide, whether in response to a regional conflict somewhere (eg Iraq) or whether there are honour killings, genital mutilation, whatever. I have the impression that you already know all this 100 times over, but your ideology prevents you from internalising it. As Prager says, to the Left, political correctness is more important than the truth, even when the truth is blindingly obvious.
In response to:

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

Tom1070 Wrote: Oct 08, 2014 2:06 AM
I think a good Muslim is a Muslim who acts humanely. If being Christian means to act humanely, then agreed, a good Muslim is a Muslim who acts like a Christian.
In response to:

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

Tom1070 Wrote: Oct 07, 2014 5:53 PM
Three things at least we can glean from this episode: 1. Freedom of speech is certainly not a Liberal/Left value. 2. Progressivism is also not a Liberal/Left value. 3. Veering from blind obedience to the Leftist dogma of the moment results in excommunication (talk of Maher now being isolated from the Liberal community sums all this up) No wonder totalitarian regimes have been given a pass time and time again by the Liberal/Left. That's partly down to cowardice and partly because they have a totalitarian mind-set themselves.
1 - 10 Next