Christchurch Terror Attack, Motives & Global Prospects

Author: Yassine

Posts

Total: 155
Topic's author
#91
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6

I'm not sure what you're referring to by the latter part of your comment, or even what your point is. 
- My point was, if you have grievances & feel treated unfairly, that should help you understand others more, not dismiss & denigrate them. Injustice feels just as bad for everyone. Don't do unto others what you accuse others of doing unto you. 


You're right. Palestine and Israel get along just fine. India and Pakistan are the best of buddies. Where is the harm?
- Israel is an occupying force. Pakistan (& India) comprise numerous different peoples, Pashtu, Sindh, Penjab...etc. The conflict is a political one born out of post-colonialism (like many other conflicts around the world), not an ethnic one. Plenty other places with peace too. But seriously, imagine in Australia having 'Native' communities in their own territories with their own rulers & rules & laws & systems, 'White' communities, 'Indian' communities, 'Chinese' communities, 'Muslim' communities,,, & so forth, accordingly ; all under one flag, one nation, with an overarching government (Australia is a federation already) with representatives from all communities, everybody is happy. What do you think?


Ah so you engage in the authoritarian jam-down, too. Great. You didn't make an argument here or refute anything I said. You're literally just appealing to authority (some imagined authority, mind you, because you're still too retarded to post sources to support your arguments) and hoping people won't notice. Pathetic.
- I made no arguments, true. There is nothing to argue against, you've stated inaccuracies. I simply suggested that you look more into this, you'll find plenty. Slavery brutality is a well documented & recorded history. You have to understand the *extreme* prejudice & callousness Whites had at the time against other races, & most of all the Black race, that's what led to things like the Holocaust. It doesn't leave a lot of room for kindness to your own property.


- Wut????


Whites, in general, were some of the kindest slave owners. Blacks grew taller than Whites, due to better nutrition. Black slaves worked about 400 less hours per year than the average free (White) farmer. In 2015, non-slaves were able to pick cotton at about 95% of the same rate the Black slaves did. Corporal punishment data is incredibly difficult to find, which is funny because you said that Whites were "brutal" -- provide evidence, please. I have the facts here. You only have your feelings hurt (https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/slavery-in-the-united-states/).
- Yes, I've read the article. I see everything you quote comes from this website. Facts!... It's probably talking about the condition of slaves in the North. Some of things mentioned in the article were accurate, such as working conditions between chattel slavery for Blacks & labor slavery for Whites, in that the former got it bad, but the latter got it worse. But claims of kindness & wellbeing as a norm is an exaggeration. Indeed there were kind slavers, Jefferson is one. But the norm as documented in the South was not such -with the exception of Utah. Slaves were prohibited from learning otherwise punished, along with those who attempt to teach them. They were often brutalized & subjugated... Runaway slaves executed or branded & tortured..etc! Maybe there is an alternative narrative to this alternative hypothesis?


Meanwhile, Arabs did nothing to end slavery.
- Well, you see, we have fundamentally different understanding of what 'slave' is. Western style slavery was never a thing in Islam, to even end it. A slave in Islam is someone in a contractual or non-contractual (Qin, Mudabbar, Um Walad, Mawla) patronage with his master, in which the latter is legally responsible for the maintenance & protection of the former, while the former is responsible for his service to the latter in that which benefits him but does not harm himself ; anything beyond that is no business of the master. A contractual patronage can be in the form of Mukharaja (the slave contracts his master or another employer for a wage against a service) ; or Mukatada (the slave contracts the master over working to buy back his freedom). Non-contractual patronage comes in many forms too...etc. To illustrate the difference, slaves made up two of the 4 ruling factions of the Ottoman empire, the military (Janissaries) & the harem (eunuchs & concubines). Slaves in the Ottoman empire were generals & commanders & officers. Even further, many Muslim dynasties who founded states were slaves, such as the Mamluk dynasty of India or the Mamalik Sultanate in the Middle East. So, we don't really share the same concept of 'slave'.


Yeah, Whites not being allowed to form racial groups is "fringe". It only affects all of Whites (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/915).

- How are Whites not allowed to form groups, that's a constitutional right?!!! 


#92
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
If you don't have income inequality, people won't be free to choose to be more productive and more competitive than others. They also won't be free to use their superior DNA to better society for all of us either.
In my opinion, there is a certain level of income inequality you can have. I think we aren't leveled out better. I don't believe in free lunches or making the middle class rich so everyone can be. No, i still think we need to have what you are saying is good for the country. But we can make sure one side isn't robbing the other side blind just bc they have the power to do so. So sure income inequality can exist, we just shouldn't let it go unabated. There are levels to it and we can't just say "at least you have a job." 

#93
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
From my limited understanding of New Zealand, they have some of the strictest gun control policies in the world. In fact, I'm pretty sure he chose New Zealand to make that point.
Well... it's about to get stricter. 
#94
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Outplayz
Do you really believe the rich steal from the poor? Like at gunpoint? Or are they just exploiting the greed of the poor?

Did you know Massachusetts (my state) took in nearly 1 billion dollars of revenue this year through the lottery which is mainly supported with the greed of the poor? (most lottery tickets are purchased by the poor who have no clue about the risk/reward calculations)

What do you think of that?

Topic's author
#95
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
- Stephen, have you ever been in a Muslim country? 
Yes.
- I don't think so, but which?


I invite you to come visit, maybe we can discuss over a cup of tea.
No.     
- That's cold, man. You don't like tea?
#96
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you really believe the rich steal from the poor? Like at gunpoint? Or are they just exploiting the greed of the poor?

Did you know Massachusetts (my state) took in nearly 1 billion dollars of revenue this year through the lottery which is mainly supported with the greed of the poor? (most lottery tickets are purchased by the poor who have no clue about the risk/reward calculations)

What do you think of that?
You are right that in cases people that are poor just are bc of their choices... and as you say, bad DNA. Pointing to the lottery can be a positive in what revenue comes back or taxed, but that is just one isolated situation. I'm not saying everyone is bad and doesn't give back. I'm just saying there is more than there should be that aren't of the moral / ethical background. If you leave them unchecked, they will get worse and worse. 

My argument isn't bw the poor and rich, primarily. It depends, but i think a better correlation would be bw the rich and the middle class... those working and making the rich more wealthy. In that stage, yeah... i think they are stealing from the people that are helping them bc successful just bc they can. Not at gunpoint, but a gun is an assertion of force. Your power of those less powerful over you is also an assertion of force. One you can literally die if shot, one you can literally have your life destroy bc your employer threw you under the bus. So, yeah... i think if top level people in a company are only caring how much they can give themselves, and what is the "minimum" they can give their workers, is stealing from those workers. This wouldn't apply if you know, the top tier aren't making enough and the minimum is logical... to which the person should find another job if they are not feeling it at their place of work. But on the flip side, if a CEO is taking 400% of everything and leaving his/her workers to just scrap by... i think they are stealing from the workers. An extreme example would be an African nation or China. Sure they are getting rich if they own the company, but they are also paying the workers minimum. Is that okay for the sake of there being rich people? Would it really be a detriment to them if a billionaire made a million less?

There is a balance that can be found to benefit both the rich and other tiers. 
#97
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Outplayz
Redpill moment.

What if I told you that rich people are not in fact greedy as people like to portray, rather they generally sacrifice a lot of short term pleasures so they can afford long term investments and savings.

What if I told you that the greediest people are often made poor through their own greed by spending and consuming more than they make while never sacrificing short term desires to invest in themselves and in the future?


#98
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Redpill moment.

What if I told you that rich people are not in fact greedy as people like to portray, rather they generally sacrifice a lot of short term pleasures so they can afford long term investments and savings.

What if I told you that the greediest people are often made poor through their own greed by spending and consuming more than they make while never sacrificing short term desires to invest in themselves and in the future?

Sure that is great insight. And, your right. A lot of my family is rich and that is what they tell me they do. Invest, work, play, exercise, brainstorm ideas, etc. They are always on the move going forward in life. The problem is, not everyone is like them. Also, i don't mean they are greedy in the fullest sense. I mean, my cousins, uncles, etc. always take me out and never let me pay bc they're just rich. They are more giving too in that way. I understand what you mean, which is why i would never want a proposition that is a high detriment to the people that are successful. 

I've also observed the middle class. They buy Mercedes, expensive jeans, nice watches, all the stuff that they want others to think they are rich. Pretending to be rich is only harmful to the person that should be first focuses on success, then splurge when you made it. But as you say above, a lot of them will still go to Costco to get a jacket or t-shirt... why spend more than you have? I'm fully on board with that's bad mentality.  

With all that said, we still have 50% of the population making less than 30k a year. That's not good. Now, i don't know if that factors in jobs like working at fast food places... in those situations, everyone knows minimum is what you get in some places, so i think they should work to advance not stay stagnant. My problem is what portion of that percentage is also college graduates, or someone working their whole life... hard worker, getting jipped off just bc his boss wants an island. It's just a screw the people working for me, i'll give them minimum, but i need my ship and island... while the employee can't by milk bc he had an extra bill to pay.

Even though i will conceded you are right in how rich people handle their money and vice versa... there is still an element of greed bc we are humans. In part, humans only care for the ones they know and love, and like. Once you are out of that circle, you basically become nothingness to them. So i would say greed in that sense is still there. Why would i give more taxes to help out these idiot Commie Liberals. You don't know them, you already hate them, they just aren't in your circle and worse against your beliefs. Hell yeah you won't want to give more money. Sure, people you like can benefit... but i think the world is a bit more pessimistic when it comes to liking/helping other people you don't know.

It has to be addressed. The long term implications of this isn't going to hold bc it's almost like mass slavery with a smile that you're in control. No one is fully free unless they are at least financially stable. I don't think it would be that hard to at least make the ones trying financially stable. Safety nets for those that can't work, or have some kind of problem, sure. Maybe a little raise depending on where you live for the fast food type jobs, but for those that tried, got degrees, are pushing forward... at least we can make them stable. And notice, stable doesn't mean rich and it probably wouldn't even be that much extra money to get them there. It's just stable so the person feels free and doesn't have to be in misery in this country of happiness.

In this case, there will still be income inequality. There will still be CEO's making a crap ton more than the rest, creators will continue to be filthy rich, same as doctors, etc. It's just a little push, to keep people on their feet so they can breathe in the fresh air. That's how i see it could work. How we can get that? I'm not sure.        
#99
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Outplayz
Ben Shapiro states through a Brookings Institute study that a person needs to restrain his/her greed in only 3 specific areas to avoid poverty.

1) Don't have babies before you are married, and wait until you are 21 before you get married.
2) Finish high school.
3) Get a job.


Read that study, and you'll see that income inequality has a lot less to do with poverty than these 3 factors.
#100
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
1) Don't have babies before you are married, and wait until you are 21 before you get married.
2) Finish high school.
3) Get a job.
Oh man... i agree with all three. I even took this route, and more, bc i have a family that taught me this is how you find success. It doesn't hurt that i have a decent iq too. But, for some people, even if they did all three... does the study show it is a sure way to success? Bc the way i look at our system, it's set up like a pyramid scheme. It most definitely isn't an upside down triangle where everyone doing those three things can get to a comfortable, excess, top. Now, i don't know that's just speculation. I know it is a top up pyramid where only so many people can get to the top... but i'm not too sure about the middle ground. I think these three values do have the potential to get you to that middle ground, but how stable is that middle ground? 

But again, if the middle ground is corrupted, just like a pyramid scheme, only people at the top benefit.. well then i don't find that to be a good system. The middle ground should at least be stable while the top tier is still doing their thing and making a ton of money. I want both to be fair. Which is why ideas like socialism are disgusting to me. Bc it's not fair to the doctor that spent 20 years honing his craft through hard work and time. They deserve what they have... but so do people trying.   

It all comes down to your POV of this... or how you answer these types of questions: "In our current times, in regards to the people that make it to the top of the pyramid, are they taking too much and giving back too little"? So, is that right to continue how it is? Keep giving more and more power to the top? Will that really benefit us in the long run if we continued to allow this to go unabated? 
#101
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Outplayz
That's why I said read the study.
 
In addition to the thousands of local and national programs that aim to help young people avoid these life-altering problems, we should figure out more ways to convince young people that their decisions will greatly influence whether they avoid poverty and enter the middle class. Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class.

Consider an example. Today, more than 40 percent of American children, including more than 70 percent of black children and 50 percent of Hispanic children, are born outside marriage. This unprecedented rate of nonmarital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of children will spend part of their childhood—and for a considerable number of these all of their childhood — in a single-parent family. As hard as single parents try to give their children a healthy home environment, children in female-headed families are four or more times as likely as children from married-couple families to live in poverty. In turn, poverty is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes in children, including school dropout and out-of-wedlock births.

It is sometimes said that Americans are turning their back on the marriage culture. The high divorce rate, soaring nonmarital birth rate and consequent rise of single-parent families are certainly weakening marriage as an institution. But look again and discover that college-educated women have high marriage rates, low nonmarital birthrates, and low divorce rates. The marriage culture seems to be alive and well for those with a college degree. These families usually not only have enough money to afford good schools for their children, but they also provide a stable family environment that allows children to flourish.

The recent attacks by Planned Parenthood on Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s mayor, for launching a campaign designed to inform teenagers of the consequences of teen pregnancy provides a good example of how many in our society face the effects of nonmarital births on teen mothers and their children. In one of the campaign posters, a baby with tears rolling down his face says: “I’m twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen.” Another shows a girl saying to her mom: “Chances are he won’t stay with you. What happens to me?” Planned Parenthood criticized the ads, displayed in the subway and bus shelters, for ignoring racial and economic factors that contribute to teen pregnancy. Other critics say the ads stigmatize teen parents and their children.

Granted, most teen moms are from low-income families and face a number of barriers to success. Along comes Bloomberg with a direct message to get the attention of teenage girls and warn them not to make their situation worse and to think more about their future. If the mother wants to improve her future by continuing her education, being a teenage parent is precisely the wrong way to do it. As for blaming the victim, no one is blaming the baby—yet the baby will also bear long-term consequences.

Teenagers are capable of understanding principles and of using them to help make decisions. Anyone who delivers messages to teens about the consequences of decisions that could affect them and others for many years should be praised not criticized.

Bloomberg should next launch a public campaign about the value of marriage to adults, children and society. There will be at least as many critics of this message as the message that young people should avoid teen pregnancy. Good. The bigger the controversy, the more the media will cover the debate, and the more the nation will have the opportunity to reflect on what is at stake. I am confident that most Americans will conclude that organizations like Planned Parenthood have it wrong, and Bloomberg has it right.


#102
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Outplayz
Keep giving more and more power to the top? Will that really benefit us in the long run if we continued to allow this to go unabated? 
Then get government out of the business of running the economy if it's a problem that wealthy people are purchasing government power. If you take the ball and go home, there is no game, so cheating is irrelevant. Thousands of professional lobbyists will be out of a job overnight if the constitutional Commerce Clause were applied as was originally intended and not as some perversion of a bad FDR SCOTUS decision starting with Wickard vs. Filburn morphing into the monstrosity today that allowed Obamacare.

Give the rich opportunities to achieve. Don't give them the necessary government power to crush competition and form monopolies. 
#103
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The More I read about the reasoning and the justifications for the Wickard vs Filburn ruling, the angrier I get with the abuse of the government meddling in the economy.

A farmer owned land, grew some food, and consumed the food. The government punished him for that.

Legally speaking, you could be found in violation of state commerce if you swept the floor of your own house instead of hiring a maid to do it. The government can interpret any action you take in the privacy of your own home to affect state commerce, and then levy a fine simply for improving your own life. This is tyranny of the highest order. Why is this abuse of government authority allowed in the so-called land of the free?

#104
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Redpill moment.

What if I told you that rich people are not in fact greedy as people like to portray, rather they generally sacrifice a lot of short term pleasures so they can afford long term investments and savings.

What if I told you that the greediest people are often made poor through their own greed by spending and consuming more than they make while never sacrificing short term desires to invest in themselves and in the future?
What if I told rich people are usually incompetent in terms of actual production and drift by on a combination of naked graft and the support of institutional power which insulates them from the consequences of their bad decisions?
#105
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
What if I told rich people are usually incompetent in terms of actual production and drift by on a combination of naked graft and the support of institutional power which insulates them from the consequences of their bad decisions? 

Sure, the ultra rich purchase the government to avoid the inevitable bankruptcies associated with incompetency. No doubt. Too big to fail is a direct result of Wickard vs Filburn.
#106
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
What if I told rich people are usually incompetent in terms of actual production and drift by on a combination of naked graft and the support of institutional power which insulates them from the consequences of their bad decisions?
And include a picture of Donny Trump.

#107
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Give the rich opportunities to achieve. Don't give them the necessary government power to crush competition and form monopolies. 
Yeah, i agree with this. I think more unregulated competition without the top guys being able to throw money around to keep their power to the detriment of all others trying is a problem. I don't know if it will be the fix, but i'm willing to see whatever works. Bc ultimately, i live in this society. I would rather more people feel free and happy bc that will benefit my experience too. So i agree with you here that this could be a step in the right direction to allow for more competition. 

Thanks for the above explanation too. I'm often critical of studies done by people like Ben Shapiro bc he has his own thing too. I didn't read it bc i felt i'd have to go down a rabbit hole of checking his references. But in general, i can see how the above formula will allow more people to move forward. But again the thing is, what if some other people just didn't go that wrote for various reasons... should we just leave them in the dust? A kid in a single parent situation can still try really hard and go to school, but still end up in the wrong spot. I feel it's unethical to just forget not everyone has a loving home and resources. But maybe the more competition thing would equal more business and it will help them out too. 

You never acknowledged it, but considering the above quote at least i think we are on the same page maybe something small needs to change... that at the very least, it's not perfect as we are now. I'm personally open to any venue to get this patched. I just wish politicians didn't always ignore it. Financial stability is an important issue. It's a dark and depressing country when a large number of people are struggling and are in bad spirits all the time.   
#108
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
What if I told rich people are usually incompetent in terms of actual production and drift by on a combination of naked graft and the support of institutional power which insulates them from the consequences of their bad decisions? 
Sure, the ultra rich purchase the government to avoid the inevitable bankruptcies associated with incompetency. No doubt. Too big to fail is a direct result of Wickard vs Filburn.

It's not a function of government, it's a function of scale. Even without our current government, big companies possess inertia which allows them to crush competition. This is why every thinker worth reading predicted, accurately, that capitalism would undermine itself and devolve into socialism, because markets simply aren't sustainable if you scale them to this level.
#109
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
No monopoly can be sustained without government force.
#110
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Not true, lol. Some monopolies are structural. Monopolies form naturally with capital accumulation; you can't actually disentangle government force from the 'economy', since a market by necessity exists within a context of government force. It's literally a set of conditions backed by the force of law carved out of anarchy. Same goes for property as an institution. The fact of the matter is that this system, if not tuned to keep wealth widely distributed, tends towards monopoly and corruption because it subjugates force to wealth.
#111
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
Why is the prime minister of New Zealand doing these interviews in hijab? She's obviously not a Muslim, she's your typical progressive woman who sees no problem with sexualizing herself. Nobody think that it's sincere, and she's going to go back to her typical dress in a few weeks, so it's not like she's genuinely wants to start showing respect to God. It's so bizarre. Imagine if some nutso shot up a meat packing plant full of Mexicans and Trump started holding somber press conferences wearing a sombrero for weeks on end.
#112
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Why is the prime minister of New Zealand doing these interviews in hijab?

Appeasement? She is no different to the bonehead coward we have here in the UK; Theresa - the appeaser - May. While on the one hand she said about the NZ murders, "this will not be tolerated and should be condemned by every person with a soul",: the families of the Manchester islamic terror bombing victims were told (ordered) not to  "be angry", "Islam was a religion of peace,  don't look back in anger, and give peace a fkn chance!". , 

Where was the outpouring of grief and condemnation by the masses of the muslim communities of the UK for the children blown up in Manchester?

That Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch NZ had radicalised at least three people and had invited hate preachers to speak there and not a thing was done to stop it.

Similarly the same happened concerning  Salman Abedi of the  Didsbury Mosque Manchester where it was also revealed that 16 jihadis from that mosque  had gone to, and returned from fighting  JIHAD in Syria. 


Manchester mosque sermon 'called for armed jihad', say scholars


A sermon at the mosque where the Manchester bomber worshipped called for the support of armed jihadist fighters, according to two Muslim scholars.

An imam at Didsbury Mosque in December 2016 was recorded praying for "victory" for "our brothers and sisters right now in Aleppo and Syria and Iraq".
Scholars Usama Hasan and Shaykh Rehan said it referred to "military jihad".

The imam, Mustafa Graf, says his sermon did not call for armed jihad and he has never preached radical Islam.


The recording the BBC obtained is of Friday prayers at the mosque six months before Salman Abedi detonated a suicide bomb following an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena in May 2017.
Abedi and his family regularly attended the mosque and his father sometimes led the call to prayer."

The recording proved him to be a liar. no surprises there then.
Video recording here>>

#113
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I think we are all aware that radicalisation occurs.   But somehow I think machine gunning ordinary muslims isn't the best way to counter it.


#114
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
 
I think we are all aware that radicalisation occurs

And they do nothing about it, is my point, you buffoon.  WHY????? This BBC report ONLY came 18 months AFTER  the Manchester bombing and 2 years after the  imam at Didsbury Mosque called for "military Jihad" in a 3 hour sermon.  But even you admit they knew as "we all knew"?  Al Noor NZ, it was exactly the same. 4 YEARS before there had been a hate preacher there and at least three jihadis from that mosque had gone to fight jihad and  died. how many had visited and preached hate in that 4 years?


But somehow I think machine gunning ordinary muslims isn't the best way to counter it.

Then why don't you discuss what is "the best way to counter it" with Yassine? here>>>


Debate?Author: Yassine , 11 hours ago


But you will have to keep in mind that "Islam is the perfect religion of the one god Allah", before Yassine will entertain you.



#115
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I disussed things with Yassine last week.

I'm sure we will have further discussions.

No doubt he will want to answer you highly topical question first.


#116
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Respect. Something wingnuts know nothing about, especially Slump and Stephen. Such sad little people.
#117
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I disussed things withYassine last week.

I read that, nothing there in the slightest concerning "the best way tocounter it"  though, is there? Unless I have missed missed it.





No doubt he will want to answer you highly topical question first.
Not without lying he won't. Then he will respond with a question of his own as you do often .  He will then bury the post under plies of irrelevant bullshit  and by doing this, he somehow believes that he as answered the primary question.... which he hasn't, and never does.

#118
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Then he will respond with a question of his own as you do often
I don't think I do respond with a question 'often'.  More 'hardly ever'!

I look forward to Yass's answer to your unexpected question... I think all theists have problems explaining why their god sometimes loses... cf judges 1:19

"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

#119
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
And obviously a more powerful and intelligent god , too.
#120
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
That is what people in those days would have believed, yes.