Is it Racist to Post Evidence of Crimes Done by Muslim Immigrants?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: ScepticScot

SO how is JIHADI PHOBIA expressed there,HIDING?
OH yes CAMERAS to record your DEATHS because you got EMO about a NUT who hit a school and can't TRUST yourselves with an SLR like a boy can here...
WE have been LIVING with ISLAMISTS for DECADES, AND guns since the beginning when we left you r lands ,SHAME SCOTLAND didn't fight hard enough to get free.
ONLY Sharia kills them as it must.

We don't like school kids getting shot, call us old fashioned.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Call us CALLOUS then,we have to BE like this to keep RUSSIANS off your collective BUTTS.
ISLAM is CONFUSING but WE always can figure out HOW to win of the CIVILIANS keep out of the action loop and STAY in the primary decision loop
NOT to mention ISLAM looks like it's taking up the task and cleaning house anyway.
We already have the RUDE monicker anyway,apparently YOUNG Brits HATE COWBOYS.

Not waded through the thread because I can only bet its been a 2 sided argument.

To actually answer the question posed by the OP, it depends what the crime is, if its not a crime directly linked to the religion and you are pointing out that they are Muslim just for the hell of it then its not racism but it is hate. Take rape, its a horrible crime done by many types of people, it has no one perpetrator but in recent years many have attributed it mainly to Muslim men and in truth Islam has not really done enough to sort those in its community out BUT and its a big but, just because its a Muslim man doing the raping does not make it a Muslim attached crime, that ONLY happens when the rapist decries that he did it because its part of his belief in the off shoot called Radical Islam.

There are Muslims who rape but not because they are Muslim but because of other factors, mostly the same factors any horrendous person rapes for.

So yes, to make it about their religion if the crime is an act commonly committed by all people then its hate, same as calling all Catholic priests child molesters, its a cheap shot.

Where people tend to get in to muddy water is when the crime committed is predominantly part of a countries culture because of ignorance or even radical beliefs. if the offender uses the excuse its because of their beliefs then I think its ok to name the beliefs simply to make an accurate statement but using it to claim all do it because of this is false.

Our problem is that people expect others to drop any radical culture they follow at the passport desk on their way in to a country that does not support that culture, needless to say many don't change, we know this because of the distinct types of crime being committed like Honour Killing but its not a crime done by a majority of people.

So, if the evidence proves the crime was being done because they were Muslim then its not an issue to show it, but it has to prove that it was wholly based on a belief, if the crime was done on common criminality reasons then NO, making it Muslim is just hate.

Personally I just wished we did a more business like approach to people coming here from ANYWHERE to stay, do they benefit the country, are they safe, will they adapt to an acceptable degree.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: ScepticScot

Call us CALLOUS then,we have to BE like this to keep RUSSIANS off your collective BUTTS.
ISLAM is CONFUSING but WE always can figure out HOW to win of the CIVILIANS keep out of the action loop and STAY in the primary decision loop
NOT to mention ISLAM looks like it's taking up the task and cleaning house anyway.
We already have the RUDE monicker anyway,apparently YOUNG Brits HATE COWBOYS.

The trouble here is that people tend to not know how to see the difference between Islamist and Muslim, this can be shown also as the difference between aggressor and normal person. I have the ability to say this as I am married in to a Muslim family while NOT being Muslim myself, had the family been Islamist I'd not be part of the family and possibly injured for daring to try and marry one of theirs.

There IS a HUGE difference.

Muslims have been among us in Britain for decades, they have almost ALL lived happy normal lives but then we started to see the rise in Radical Islam and its rather disgusting wishes, ordinary Muslims do not follow or even like their Sharia law, its not part of their belief system, sadly the fear of the others tends to group all as one. Some would say that Muslims don't do enough to Police their community BUT to be honest do ANYONE do enough to Police their community, look at knife crime and common criminality, if you rise above the silence then you are labelled a grass and the possibly live in fear of a gang targetting you.

People have to look at all options.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: ScepticScot

Call us CALLOUS then,we have to BE like this to keep RUSSIANS off your collective BUTTS.
ISLAM is CONFUSING but WE always can figure out HOW to win of the CIVILIANS keep out of the action loop and STAY in the primary decision loop
NOT to mention ISLAM looks like it's taking up the task and cleaning house anyway.
We already have the RUDE monicker anyway,apparently YOUNG Brits HATE COWBOYS.

Literally no idea what you are trying to say.

Something about you need to let your school kids get shot to protect us from Russians???

a reply to: ScepticScot

Must be your failed ENGLISH as another poster got it ..HOOT.nah.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Didn't pretend anyone made any remark. I asked you if a remark was bigoted and you claimed it wasn't.

The only ways you could legitimately believe that is true is if you actually do not understand what bigotry is or if you actually believe that all Muslims are terrorists.

Personally I think you are desperately tying yourself in semantic knots to try and defend a position you must know is wrong.

It's possible to legitimately criticise Islamic religion without being bigoted. That doesn't mean that islamophobia isn't real and that any and all criticism is legitimate.

Your right that words do matter. Trying to claim that opposing bigotry is itself a form of bigotry is devaluing the word and giving a defence to the real bigots.

Oh and 'virtue signaling' is pathetic snarl phrase generally used by racists and other bigots who don't like being called on what the are.

It wasn't bigoted. If you had a tiny grasp of semantics and grammar, you might realize that.

Yes virtue-signalling. It's sometimes used to describe racists who hide it all under a veneer of moral posturing. Pretty accurate, in my opinion.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Didn't pretend anyone made any remark. I asked you if a remark was bigoted and you claimed it wasn't.

The only ways you could legitimately believe that is true is if you actually do not understand what bigotry is or if you actually believe that all Muslims are terrorists.

Personally I think you are desperately tying yourself in semantic knots to try and defend a position you must know is wrong.

It's possible to legitimately criticise Islamic religion without being bigoted. That doesn't mean that islamophobia isn't real and that any and all criticism is legitimate.

Your right that words do matter. Trying to claim that opposing bigotry is itself a form of bigotry is devaluing the word and giving a defence to the real bigots.

Oh and 'virtue signaling' is pathetic snarl phrase generally used by racists and other bigots who don't like being called on what the are.

It wasn't bigoted. If you had a tiny grasp of semantics and grammar, you might realize that.

Yes virtue-signalling. It's sometimes used to describe racists who hide it all under a veneer of moral posturing. Pretty accurate, in my opinion.

Do we need to redo the posting of definitions that showed how spectacularly wrong you are again. I thought we were by that stage.

Claiming its really the other side who are racist or bigoted is a classic play of racists and bigots.

There is a word of difference between racism & bigotry and people who oppose such behaviour. Is up to you if you want to pick a side with the racists.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Do we need to redo the posting of definitions that showed how spectacularly wrong you are again. I thought we were by that stage.

Claiming its really the other side who are racist or bigoted is a classic play of racists and bigots.

There is a word of difference between racism & bigotry and people who oppose such behaviour. Is up to you if you want to pick a side with the racists.

Go ahead. None of your definitions accurately describes your make believe statement.

I would much rather pick a side with racists than the thought police.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Do we need to redo the posting of definitions that showed how spectacularly wrong you are again. I thought we were by that stage.

Claiming its really the other side who are racist or bigoted is a classic play of racists and bigots.

There is a word of difference between racism & bigotry and people who oppose such behaviour. Is up to you if you want to pick a side with the racists.

Go ahead. None of your definitions accurately describes your make believe statement.

I would much rather pick a side with racists than the thought police.

Ah the thought police. Another bogey man of bigots everywhere.

originally posted by: mazzroth
a reply to: PistolPete

See this kind of "Apologist" attitude hides facts, the facts are one particular race has a penchant for crime and the imprisonment statistics prove that beyond any shadow of doubt but you try and muddy the water with that garbage you just wrote. It seems we are living in an age where the lie is more important to some people than the truth.

Or....those of a lower socioeconomic status tend to be more likely to commit crimes due to growing up in poverty and those poorer areas happened to be populated with people of a particular race. By citing to race, you're asserting that crime and violence are inherent in the genetics of an entire group of people regardless of the circumstances of their birth and the environment in which they grew up. You're completely ignoring environmental factors because that would not be consistent with the agenda you're pushing.

originally posted by: mazzroth

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why not admit that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and harmless, and that attempting to ban all Muslims is nothing but hateful, and won't even solve the problem of terrorism?

Because people like you who are unaware of the Islamic Agenda need to be taken to task for being stupid and naive, it has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with preserving our very way of life. You have no idea what has happened in Spain, France and now Germany...I will give you some advice, go and listen to Bill Warner on youtube and come back and talk in here. Islam is invading the West and the facts are there for all to see.

www.youtube.com...

Someone once said the same thing about Catholics, Jews, and Blacks. Humanity never changes. I, however, choose to not live in fear like you.

I would much rather pick a side with racists than the thought police.

Christ. This has to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read.

Race is not an ideology.

Islam is an ideology.

Ideologies can and should be linked to a person's behavior. Especially especially when it is clear that behavior results from that person's ideology.

However it gets more complicated if they are acting against their ideology. For example: Catholic priests molesting children.

originally posted by: Mclaneinc
Not waded through the thread because I can only bet its been a 2 sided argument.

To actually answer the question posed by the OP, it depends what the crime is, if its not a crime directly linked to the religion and you are pointing out that they are Muslim just for the hell of it then its not racism but it is hate. Take rape, its a horrible crime done by many types of people, it has no one perpetrator but in recent years many have attributed it mainly to Muslim men and in truth Islam has not really done enough to sort those in its community out BUT and its a big but, just because its a Muslim man doing the raping does not make it a Muslim attached crime, that ONLY happens when the rapist decries that he did it because its part of his belief in the off shoot called Radical Islam.

There are Muslims who rape but not because they are Muslim but because of other factors, mostly the same factors any horrendous person rapes for.

Islam lays a strong foundation for justifying rape. Historical leaders of Islam are described in the Hadiths as actually taking and keeping pleasure slaves, and sleeping with them. Also raping female prisoners who were being held for ransome, while in their custody.

The concept of Jizyah, argues that forcing non-believers to give the Muslims a "tax" of some kind, they are ultimately forcing them to "submit to Allah". Which is a duty of Muslims.

The fundamental idea of Islam is that everyone should be a slave to Allah. Muslims are voluntary slaves. It is their duty to make everyone else pay the submission tax, so that Allah is being at least somewhat respected. I guess they think somehow they're doing the world a favor? Protecting us from Allah's wrath by appeasing him?

Anyway, in some Muslim denominations, rape has been described outright by some leaders as being a legitimate interpretation of that "tax".

No it's not racist because:

1. Facts are not racist. Beliefs can be racist, facts are not beliefs.

2. However facts without context are useless. If you post only a list of crimes done by Muslims, that's only helpful for increasing FUD. But if you list a graph showing crime RATE for different groups by religion, that puts things in context.

3. Islam is not a race. Muslims are made of many races.

Hi Donald! Perhaps you should have read this thread first. Anyway, keep making America great!