Muslim Anti Terror Camp - Page 4

Stuart · 08-08-2010, 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteL

first of all, how is it racist in suggesting a religion has no place in this country, does christianity have a widespread place in pakistan ? india ? saudi arabia ?

It may not be specifically racist. However, it is fascist to impose your views on other people in this way (by banning religion). Remember, Hitler victimised people based on their religion as well as race.

TheDaddy · 08-08-2010, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

You were the one who bought up forcing people to attend. I didn't, and neither did the article on the BBC.

I think he has a point there to a degree, certain people (Abu Hamza etc) wont be signing their kids up and they would be the people that need it most, the point he missed though and indeed the whole point of the camp isn't to turn the misguided and brainwashed around, it's to give people a chance of answering back when they are being preached at so hopefully fewer will be drawn in by them.

nomadking · 08-08-2010, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

You were the one who bought up forcing people to attend. I didn't, and neither did the article on the BBC.

I say again, how do you know this?

TBH, the way I see it is simple. It may or may not work. I think (and hope) it will, but even if it doesn't, then at least it has been tried. At worst, we lose nothing. At best, we end up a little safer.

I said two things, and you were not clear on which of them you where disputing, so I pointed out, that as a matter of common sense both premises were true. 1) The people attending are not the problem, 2) What brand new arguments could be used that haven't been available before?

Quote:

The full argument takes him 15 minutes

Is that him ad-libbing or repeating what has been said many times before.

Stuart · 08-08-2010, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteL

these influential leaders should not be required the fact is if somebody interprets a "peaceful religion"'s writings as blow up a bus then wtf is wrong ?

Every religion needs an influential leader. What do you think the Pope is?

The fact is that Islam is a peaceful religion. The fact that people are being taught that it is OK to perpetrate such babaric acts against non-believers is what is wrong and is what I believe this guy is trying to correct.

**Maggy** · 08-08-2010, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

I said two things, and you were not clear on which you of them you where disputing, so I pointed out, that as a matter of common sense both premises were true. 1) The people attending are not the problem, 2) What brand new arguments could be used that haven't been available before?

Is that him ad-libbing or repeating what has been said many times before.

The people attending are to be the ones that confront the ones that ARE the problem...

Gary L · 08-08-2010, 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

The people attending are to be the ones that confront the ones that ARE the problem...

That should be fun to see. peaceful ones arguing with the extremists. who wins. they decide.

nomadking · 08-08-2010, 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I think he has a point there to a degree, certain people (Abu Hamza etc) wont be signing their kids up and they would be the people that need it most, the point he missed though and indeed the whole point of the camp isn't to turn the misguided and brainwashed around, it's to give people a chance of answering back when they are being preached at so hopefully fewer will be drawn in by them.

The people attending aren't going to be listened to. There was no new magic argument that couldn't have been used before.

Stuart · 08-08-2010, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

I said two things, and you were not clear on which of them you where disputing, so I pointed out, that as a matter of common sense both premises were true. 1) The people attending are not the problem,

You stated "The people attending the camp will not be the ones deemed 'most likely to bomb' and therefore forced to attend."

I asked "How do you know this?"

To which you answered "a) Where does it say that attendees are selected and forced to attend. It's not some form of rehab."

I merely replied "You were the one who bought up forcing people to attend. I didn't, and neither did the article on the BBC."

Quote:

2) What brand new arguments could be used that haven't been available before?

Without knowing what arguments have been used before, I could not even begin to guess. I would suspect, however, he will be teaching different ways to interpret the Qu'ran though.

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

The people attending aren't going to be listened to. There was no new magic argument that couldn't have been used before.

Do you actually know this, or are you assuming? You can argue it's common sense, and it may be, to you. It's common sense to me to let this guy try this.

nomadking · 08-08-2010, 19:51

Have there been some brand new teachings of Mohammed that have revealed?

If not, there is nothing to be said, that couldn't have been said before. It's not like, if the Pope made a declaration and said that it had come from God and that people had to obey it or face excommunication.

I have yet to see any possible(even theoretical) examples of something that could be said now that would change things, that couldn't have been said before.

08-08-2010, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Without knowing what arguments have been used before, I could not even begin to guess. I would suspect, however, he will be teaching different ways to interpret the Qu'ran though.

i think it's more about who is saying it and the enviroment he is saying it in .It's open and in the public eye not closed off in some obscure mosque in east london .
It's like if a catholic priest in a sleepy hamlet says that abortion should be ok for catholics,not many would take him serious ,but if the pope said the same on christmas day in st peters square it would certainly stir up feelings

**Maggy** · 08-08-2010, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

That should be fun to see. peaceful ones arguing with the extremists. who wins. they decide.

The point is IF you had read the article, is to give the peaceful the wisdom and wording to confront and repudiate the lies of the extremists and in doing so deal with those in their communities that are twisting the words of their faith to make martyrs of the young Muslims who have a lack of skills to deny what they are told by those extremists.

Stuart · 08-08-2010, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

Have there been some brand new teachings of Mohammed that have revealed?

If not, there is nothing to be said, that couldn't have been said before. It's not like, if the Pope made a declaration and said that it had come from God and that people had to obey it or face excommunication.

Try studying the Catholic Church. They have been known to change their interpretations of the Bible. I see no reason to assume the same cannot happen in Islam.

Quote:

I have yet to see any possible(even theoretical) examples of something that could be said now that would change things, that couldn't gave been said before.

Whether it could or could not have been said before is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it was or not, and who it was said to. Someone could have said "Slavery is bad" a long time before they did, and if they had said it to the right people, it could have ended torture for millions of people. The fact is, they didn't, or at least not to the right people.

Also, with due respect, if you did see something that "could be said now" would you even understand it? After all, it may require intimate knowledge of Islam, it's beliefs and the Qu'ran. Even if you understood it, would you be open minded to it? Based upon your posts here, I suspect you would not be open minded.

nomadking · 08-08-2010, 20:07

If something could have been said before and hasn't, then that's a problem and if it has been said before, then it hasn't had much effect, if anything things have worsened.

Slavery was around for thousands of years and still it exists in areas(including Africa).

**Hugh** · 08-08-2010, 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

If something could have been said before and hasn't, then that's a problem and if it has been said before, then it hasn't had much effect, if anything things have worsened.

Slavery was around for thousands of years and still it exists in areas(including Africa).

But it was addressed one step at at time, and is no longer widespread.

According to your logic, we shouldn't try to cure sick people, as they are all going to die in the long run.

Stuart · 08-08-2010, 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

If something could have been said before and hasn't, then that's a problem and if it has been said before, then it hasn't had much effect, if anything things have worsened.

I agree, if something could have been said before, and wasn't, that *is* a problem. That may be the problem they are trying to solve now.

If something was said that didn't have much effect or made things worse, maybe it's time to say something else? Remember, banning religion has been tried and generally doesn't work.

Why are you so opposed to trying?

Quote:

Slavery was around for thousands of years and still it exists in areas(including Africa).

Slavery is not nearly as widespread as it was. Sounds to me like someone said the right thing to the right person at the right time.