Government rejects Islamophobia definition ahead of debate.

DWB

Well-Known Member
People should fear muslims. They are just like a copperhead snake, blending in to their environment and waiting. They may not kill you today, but keep walking by them and sooner or later you will get bit. I used to use rattlesnakes as an example, but copperheads are better because they strike without warning. At least a rattlesnake will usually let you know it is about to try and kill you.

I hate to feel that way about a group of people, but facts are facts. One of the world's biggest problems today is we ignore facts because the truth may hurt someone's feelings.
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
Something that strikes me is HOW can you POSSIBLY have a debate if you don't define what you are debating about??????

But the problem there, is that only one side is being allowed to define the term.

So it's becoming a basket case diagnosis covering everything from a person raising a legitimate concern about Muslim terrorists hiding behind local mosques, Muslim schoolkids taught songs about decapitating Jews and Christians or taught that they should wage terror on the infidels when and where they can which IS IN THE KORAN all of which NEED TO BE DISCUSSED; all the way up to the extremely rare event where some nutcase attacks a mosque. Meanwhile the number of attacks on Jews, and Christians worldwide, BY MUSLIMS cannot be mentioned or compared to the rarity of an attack on Muslims, even by secular westerners.

And the next thing that would worry me, is the possibility for anyone bringing up any legitimate concern such as any of the above, being labelled "islamophobic" which means they could end up in jail just for bringing up a question.

So on the one hand any Muslim firebombing a church, or decapitating someone on the street is immediately branded as a lunatic no matter how many times they furiously shout they are doing it for Allah

and on the other hand, the 2 mosque attacks in recent memory (one in Canada, one in New Zealand) both carried out by people Immediately labeled as "christian" and "islamophobic" yet all evidence was denied that both held racist extremist views, neither of whom were Christian, in fact I think the New Zealand man was adamantly against Christians.

That my friends IS a double standard.

And if everyone who brings up a concern or has legitimate cause to examine the numbers and facts behind attacks, is called an Islamophobe, then no muslim can be held to account simply because MUSLIMS are now IMMUNE to prosecution for ANYTHING!

Which is exactly how CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood organizations want it.

They get to define the terms, and throw their accusers, and the weight of legal evidence into jail, and silence them under the UNDEFINED charge of "islamophobia".

Those who agree to allowing the Muslim organizations to define the term, which is just about everyone in this article, is essentially agreeing to Dhimmitude, which is a permanent subservience to the ruling Muslim empire.
 
Top