Denmark set to ban the burka and niqab.

Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
895
Likes
103
Points
43
Location
Faoi scáth a chéile
#26
Both of them are stupid people. They know how to speak English to a level that gives the impression they have some intelligence - but really they don't.
Just because you have read a lot of books and internet articles during your lengthy sojourns from work, does not make you "intelligent".

For example, having the capability to judge the intentions of people, "read between the lines", contextualise statements and "facts" presented, is an important part of intelligence.

People like Toland have that intelligence, as do many other contributors on p.ie.

And tell me what is the general consensus of the more intelligent contributor like Toland? Answer, the overwhelming consensus is that your representations are appalling and despicable. - Your idealising some of the basest ideologies and personalities in recent history. - Your ultra-nationalism, bigotry, xenophphobia, and everything else. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence is incredulous and appalled. - The average intelligent person who you pretend to represent the interests of, btw.

So you sequester yourself here among contributors generally of much lower intelligence, many of whom lack the intelligence to make proper judgements about you.

May I ask why do any of us in the west need to know any of this medieval rag-head shite?
Nice language. But to answer your question, well, SwordofStCatherine is a disgraceful, nasty type of totalitarian. And she spews out this stuff that not only contains no real critical thinking, but contains lies, misrepresentations, and anything at all that will support whatever half-witted argument she is concerned with making to promote her current held prejudices and hatreds.

So I only took up one single post of hers to demonstrate how the facts were misrepresented and distorted. I did this by presenting the actuality, and how it differed from what she tried to present and imply.

Btw I could not be bothered correcting the incessant stream of misrepresentations and lies she has put forward about what I have argued, and how I was arguing it, and why, in the past. (She seems to have recently picked up on Maxflinn's repetition of slogans and distortions to make a spurious point. I know from experience that dealing with that mindset is hopelessly sisyphean.)

Yes, it must be very difficult for them on a forum where the mods won't just ban anyone who demolishes their propaganda with facts.
Again, spot on.

I regularly did so on P.ie - as did you of course...
Making the most outlandish assertions, sloganeering, and 'liking' ideologically concurring posts, inanely, repetitively, with the confidence that comes from pure ignorance mixed up with fanaticism, has only a currency among a very select audience (who I'm glad to see you've surrounded yourself with).

You have no sense of the significance of "facts" whatsoever. Rather, you're a demented apologist for every anti-US, anti-Israel shibboleth going, and the conniving of the most abominable totalitarian ideologies and regimes in the world. And of course all of your spurious allegations, accusations and implications are dedicated to the suggestion of "retributive justice" whether you're aware of it or not.

Like so many of contributors on here, you rabidly come to the support of any person, group, or country that attacks Jews and/or Israel. Some people like myself challenge you on that. Purely because it's slimy and so transparent what you are doing - not because of any strongly held ideological viewpoint, such as Zionism, or pro-Westernism.

Maxflinn, you cut a particularly pathetic figure.

roc_ who believes little old me is an anti-Semite ideologue made it about Jews. His new found love for Saudi Arabia and particular hatred of the Shia is about that.
So, again, please explain to everyone the motivation that drove you to write each of these statements (which are a very small selection of similar), and why should someone on reading such statements not suspect antisemitism in their author?

And likewise, quote me in full to back up your spurious assertions and attacks. (In this regard I say that I have only ever brought relevant facts to the table that challenged the extreme demonising of Saudi Arabia - demonised obviously because the hated and abhorred US have actually made tangible diplomatic breakthroughs that have resulted in observable reforms there... and the complete white-washing of Iran and the Shia - white-washed obviously because they are declared deadly enemies of the US and Israel. - I have no love for Saudi Arabia or hatred of Iran and the Shia religion. I have never said that. Rather my issue is with the foregoing extreme demonising and whitewashing that so obviously springs from an ideological impetus, and is encouraged by certain agendas. Of course when I challenge that ideological consensus, then you cast me into the "agin' us" camp with your usual ridiculous attributions of what my opinion must be.)
 

maxflinn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
4,667
Likes
5,363
Points
263
#27
Demented, abominable, pathetic...

Nice to see you back complete with running ad hominem commentary, roc_.

I hope you'll engage and try to deal with substantive points going forward.

It's hard, I know, but it's what's required on the better forums like this, if you're to sway opinion.

Name calling and ascribing malice to people won't cut it here. This isn't the sheep-filled shithole you normally frequent!
 

kalipa44

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,070
Likes
1,547
Points
163
#28
Your every single post is laced with ignorance, misinformation, and innuendo. Towards a single purpose.

Takfir is a concept in Islamist discourse as a whole, Sunni and Shia - denoting excommunication, as one Muslim declaring another Muslim as a non-believer.

The term Takfiris has recently been applied to ISIS because Zarqawi massively expanded the range of behavior that could make Muslims infidels. (To do this he focused on "the sin", as being the measure of apostasy. Remind you of someone, Ratio?)

This extremist denouncing of other Muslims and pronouncing their punishment, usually beheading, is the practive of 'Takfir'. It is an extremely fringe outlook among both Sunni and Shia.

And a "hijab" is any covering that secludes women from the view of men in public. The burka is a hijab or covering that stems from Arabic culture, and not Persian culture. That's all.

There are no dogmatic differences between the large groupings of Sunnis and Shi’a. They have the same core beliefs. The only difference is essentially political - Sunnis believe that no person after Muhammad is infallible, while the Shias believe in the infallibility of the twelve Imams who are descendants from the family of prophet Muhammad.

Within both groups there are nearly infinite sub-groupings and sects. Certainly not all Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, are "Islamist" (believing Islam has something to say beyond the personal sphere, and not being content with Islam being restricted strictly to private life). And within Islamism to scratch the surface of the current Sunni extremism alone, you might have Salafis, Jihadis, Al-Qaeda and Takfiri. There're not all one and the same. For example, not all Islamists are Salafis. And Jihadis are Salafis but not all Salafis are Jihadis.

Did you know for example that normally, Salafism prioritises personal purification and religious observance, and they believe anything that thwarts those goals—such as causing war or unrest that would disrupt lives and prayer and scholarship is forbidden?

Listen, the point is your every post is dedicated to demonising one side, and idealising and whitewashing the other side.

These tiny fringe dubious cases you descend upon (and usually distort with it) demonstrates nothing except the lengths you will go to to perpetuate your ideologically driven narrative to posit "the enemy".

Your contributions bring nothing to the table anymore.
They only serve to embolden a grouping of the usual suspects you have coalesced with on here. Actually I perceive a kind of "sinful" concupiscence in your political association with these assortment of aggrieved souls you have found on here. But there is zero interest for me, so please stop badgering me, both you and Maxflinn, to "engage". There is nothing worthwhile to "engage" with on here. Thanks.
BIB. Neither do yours. From your very first sentence "Your every single post is laced with ignorance, misinformation, and innuendo.

Then in the midst of the sermon you have, " your every post is dedicated to demonising one side, and idealising and whitewashing the other side". Then you pronounce "By descending on tiny fringe cases and pathological malcontents and radicals who merely serve to rationalise your hatred of the west, western capitalism, Israel, and "sinful Jews" etc, etc, who you conveniently blame for all of the world's ills, you perpetuate lies. Your philosophy that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" serves nothing except these lies."

Next we have "Your contributions bring nothing to the table anymore. They only serve to embolden a grouping of the usual suspects you have coalesced with on here. Actually I perceive a kind of "sinful" concupiscence in your political association with these assortment of aggrieved souls you have found on here"

And finally the denial "But there is zero interest for me, so please stop badgering me, both you and Maxflinn, to "engage". There is nothing worthwhile to "engage" with on here. " Yet here you are , having obviously followed the forum here for several weeks, "engaging". Quite the little hypocrite aren't we :smiley:
 
OP
OP
SwordOfStCatherine
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
7,505
Likes
8,832
Points
313
#29
So, again, please explain to everyone the motivation that drove you to write each of these statements (which are a very small selection of similar), and why should someone on reading such statements not suspect antisemitism in their author?
I don't see anything anti-Semitic in those statements ( in fact the second one is Philo-Semitic) . Look the essay on which Erik Peterson's supposed anti-Semitism rests on and includes these words;

"If as a Gentile you lose your Faith, God will spare you even less than Israel. The Gentile who loses his Faith is nothing at all. The Jew who does not believe in Christ belongs none the less to the noble olive tree of God. The words of Saint Paul are expreriencing a fearful confirmation in the present. The Christian peoples who are losing their Faith succumb in fact to a measure of barbarism and loss of substance that is impossible for Jews".

That was written in Germany in 1935 and not only did he lose his job over it, but very narrowly avoided ending up in concentration camp because of it. His friends managed to forestall things enough in time for him to get away from his beloved Fatherland to Rome where friends were able to get him a job in the Vatican. He fell out with Carl Schmitt, the closest friend he had in his life, over the latter's at the time ACTUAL anti-Semitism. Yet now grotty little creeps like the ones you linked to slander him from being "anti-Semitic" in that essay, when what he says about Jews vis a vis Christians negatively isn't that much different to Martin Buber's essay critiquing Christian asceticism only what he saw as negative Martin Buber saw as positive.

I define anti-Semitism as ill will towards Jews out of the mere fact that they are Jews. You define it radically differently. You define it as any criticism of Jews and their actions which you approve of- of course Rabbi Weiss or a Shlomo Sand can have every type of wrath poured out on them freely because they don't go along with what you see as the "Tribal Line". I know you hate me drawing parallels between destructive neurosis within the "PUL" community in Northern Ireland and the same within Jewry but they are still there and cannot be wished away. My father wont speak to me because he considers me who am in many ways so like him and was once his favourite child a "Lundy". If you are going to have a rational definition of anti-Semitism than it will to include the "Lundys". So that Rabbi Weiss and Shlomo Sand will have to be as much protected from criticism as your Caroline Glicks and Rabbi Jonathan Sackses of this world. Do you really want to go there?
 

Myles O'Reilly

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
4,825
Likes
3,992
Points
263
Location
Ireland
#30
Just because you have read a lot of books and internet articles during your lengthy sojourns from work, does not make you "intelligent". For example, having the capability to judge the intentions of people, "read between the lines", contextualise statements and "facts" presented, is an important part of intelligence. People like Toland have that intelligence, as do many other contributors on p.ie. And tell me what is the general consensus of the more intelligent contributor like Toland? Answer, the overwhelming consensus is that your representations are appalling and despicable. - Your idealising some of the basest ideologies and personalities in recent history. - Your ultra-nationalism, bigotry, xenophphobia, and everything else. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence is incredulous and appalled. - The average intelligent person who you pretend to represent the interests of, btw. So you sequester yourself here among contributors generally of much lower intelligence, many of whom lack the intelligence to make proper judgements about you.Nice language. But to answer your question, well, SwordofStCatherine is a disgraceful, nasty type of totalitarian. And she spews out this stuff that not only contains no real critical thinking, but contains lies, misrepresentations, and anything at all that will support whatever half-witted argument she is concerned with making to promote her current held prejudices and hatreds. So I only took up one single post of hers to demonstrate how the facts were misrepresented and distorted. I did this by presenting the actuality, and how it differed from what she tried to present and imply. Btw I could not be bothered correcting the incessant stream of misrepresentations and lies she has put forward about what I have argued, and how I was arguing it, and why, in the past. (She seems to have recently picked up on Maxflinn's repetition of slogans and distortions to make a spurious point. I know from experience that dealing with that mindset is hopelessly Sisyphean. Making the most outlandish assertions, sloganeering, and 'liking' ideologically concurring posts, inanely, repetitively, with the confidence that comes from pure ignorance mixed up with fanaticism, has only a currency among a very select audience (who I'm glad to see you've surrounded yourself with). You have no sense of the significance of "facts" whatsoever. Rather, you're a demented apologist for every anti-US, anti-Israel shibboleth going, and the conniving of the most abominable totalitarian ideologies and regimes in the world. And of course all of your spurious allegations, accusations and implications are dedicated to the suggestion of "retributive justice" whether you're aware of it or not. Like so many of contributors on here, you rabidly come to the support of any person, group, or country that attacks Jews and/or Israel. Some people like myself challenge you on that. Purely because it's slimy and so transparent what you are doing - not because of any strongly held ideological viewpoint, such as Zionism, or pro-Westernism. Maxflinn, you cut a particularly pathetic figure.So, again, please explain to everyone the motivation that drove you to write each of these statements (which are a very small selection of similar), and why should someone on reading such statements not suspect antisemitism in their author?And likewise, quote me in full to back up your spurious assertions and attacks. (In this regard I say that I have only ever brought relevant facts to the table that challenged the extreme demonising of Saudi Arabia - demonised obviously because the hated and abhorred US have actually made tangible diplomatic breakthroughs that have resulted in observable reforms there... and the complete white-washing of Iran and the Shia - white-washed obviously because they are declared deadly enemies of the US and Israel. - I have no love for Saudi Arabia or hatred of Iran and the Shia religion. I have never said that. Rather my issue is with the foregoing extreme demonising and whitewashing that so obviously springs from an ideological impetus, and is encouraged by certain agendas. Of course when I challenge that ideological consensus, then you cast me into the "agin' us" camp with your usual ridiculous attributions of what my opinion must be.)
Fuck you Jew
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
895
Likes
103
Points
43
Location
Faoi scáth a chéile
#31
Both of them are stupid people. They know how to speak English to a level that gives the impression they have some intelligence - but really they don't.
Just because you have read a lot of books and internet articles during your lengthy sojourns from work, does not make you "intelligent".

For example, having the capability to judge the intentions of people, "read between the lines", contextualise statements and "facts" presented, is an important part of intelligence.

People like Toland have that intelligence, as do many other contributors on p.ie.

And tell me what is the general consensus of the more intelligent contributor like Toland? Answer, the overwhelming consensus is that your representations are appalling and despicable. - Your idealising some of the basest ideologies and personalities in recent history. - Your ultra-nationalism, bigotry, xenophphobia, and everything else. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence is incredulous and appalled. - The average intelligent person who you pretend to represent the interests of, btw.

So you sequester yourself here among contributors generally of much lower intelligence, many of whom lack the intelligence to make proper judgements about you.

May I ask why do any of us in the west need to know any of this medieval rag-head shite?
Nice language. But to answer your question, well, SwordofStCatherine is a disgraceful, nasty type of totalitarian. And she spews out this stuff that not only contains no real critical thinking, but contains lies, misrepresentations, and anything at all that will support whatever half-witted argument she is concerned with making to promote her current held prejudices and hatreds.

So I only took up one single post of hers to demonstrate how the facts were misrepresented and distorted. I did this by presenting the actuality, and how it differed from what she tried to present and imply.

Btw I could not be bothered correcting the incessant stream of misrepresentations and lies she has put forward about what I have argued, and how I was arguing it, and why, in the past. (She seems to have recently picked up on Maxflinn's repetition of slogans and distortions to make a spurious point. I know from experience that dealing with that mindset is hopelessly sisyphean.)

Yes, it must be very difficult for them on a forum where the mods won't just ban anyone who demolishes their propaganda with facts.
Again, spot on.

I regularly did so on P.ie - as did you of course...
Making the most outlandish assertions, sloganeering, and 'liking' ideologically concurring posts, inanely, repetitively, with the confidence that comes from pure ignorance mixed up with fanaticism, has only a currency among a very select audience (who I'm glad to see you've surrounded yourself with).

You have no sense of the significance of "facts" whatsoever. Rather, you're a demented apologist for every anti-US, anti-Israel shibboleth going, and the conniving of the most abominable totalitarian ideologies and regimes in the world. And of course all of your spurious allegations, accusations and implications are dedicated to the suggestion of "retributive justice" whether you're aware of it or not.

Like so many of contributors on here, you rabidly come to the support of any person, group, or country that attacks Jews and/or Israel. Some people like myself challenge you on that. Purely because it's slimy and so transparent what you are doing - not because of any strongly held ideological viewpoint, such as Zionism, or pro-Westernism.

Maxflinn, you cut a particularly pathetic figure.

roc_ who believes little old me is an anti-Semite ideologue made it about Jews. His new found love for Saudi Arabia and particular hatred of the Shia is about that.
So, again, please explain to everyone the motivation that drove you to write each of these statements (which are a very small selection of similar), and why should someone on reading such statements not suspect antisemitism in their author?

And likewise, quote me in full to back up your spurious assertions and attacks. (In this regard I say that I have only ever brought relevant facts to the table that challenged the extreme demonising of Saudi Arabia - demonised obviously because the hated and abhorred US have actually made tangible diplomatic breakthroughs that have resulted in observable reforms there... and the complete white-washing of Iran and the Shia - white-washed obviously because they are declared deadly enemies of the US and Israel. - I have no love for Saudi Arabia or hatred of Iran and the Shia religion. I have never said that. Rather my issue is with the foregoing extreme demonising and whitewashing that so obviously springs from an ideological impetus, and is encouraged by certain agendas. Of course when I challenge that ideological consensus, then you cast me into the "agin' us" camp with your usual ridiculous attributions of what my opinion must be.)
Fuck you Jew
Nice.


(I'm not Jewish, btw.)
 

maxflinn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
4,667
Likes
5,363
Points
263
#32
It was Myles who made that remark, roc_, yet you multi-quote a batch of posts together with his the last one.

Why not just quote the offending post?
 
OP
OP
SwordOfStCatherine
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
7,505
Likes
8,832
Points
313
#33
Nice.


(I'm not Jewish, btw.)
You saying that you are not Jewish is like me saying that I don't have Ulster Presbyterian roots. A Gael or Ulster Scot or even someone Anglo-Irish like you is simply unimaginable. Your several "shame on you" posts to Maxflynn and Rashers prove what I say.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
895
Likes
103
Points
43
Location
Faoi scáth a chéile
#34
... Your several "shame on you" posts to Maxflynn and Rashers prove what I say.
When I have in the past pointed out exactly what is pathological, hateful, ignorant, myopic, soul-destroying, in the advocacy and representations of those two posters, and yourself for that matter, certainly did not need a Jewish person to see it. In fact, as an Irishman, born and bred, and knowing my compatriots as well as I do, probably helps me to see it even better than a Jew. Btw I never used that trite phrase, "shame on you" or anything near it. I only ever highlighted certain pertinent facts.
 

maxflinn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
4,667
Likes
5,363
Points
263
#35
I don't believe he is Jewish. For some reason I simply cannot imagine though his whole forum existence is based on trying to defend the crimes of Israel and the Israeli-dictated US foreign policy that has led to the deaths of millions of innocent non-Jews.

In his mind anyone who doesn't also support these heinous crimes is morally wrong and an abominable person. I think he really believes that, yet he thinks that he's got the moral high ground even as he spreads the Zionist lies and propaganda designed to culminate in the destruction of Iran which would most likely involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands more innocent non-Jews.

I genuinely find him a fascinating character.
 
OP
OP
SwordOfStCatherine
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
7,505
Likes
8,832
Points
313
#36
When I have in the past pointed out exactly what is pathological, hateful, ignorant, myopic, soul-destroying, in the advocacy and representations of those two posters, and yourself for that matter, certainly did not need a Jewish person to see it. In fact, as an Irishman, born and bred, and knowing my compatriots as well as I do, probably helps me to see it even better than a Jew. Btw I never used that trite phrase, "shame on you" or anything near it. I only ever highlighted certain pertinent facts.
You are an Irishman but you are also a Jew. No goy looks upon the ranting of Caroline Glick the same way you do unless they are some "Christian Zionist".

Whatever about myself Max and Rashers are part of the cream of Gaelic lads, both highly intelligent and grounded with a very strong sense of justice.
 
Top Bottom