It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Interview at Didsbury Mosque (Salman Adebi's) - Muslims Lie, Smirk and Laugh

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

That's a straw-man, if you lived here you would understand the rhetoric of it. There was heated discussion. The MAIN reason was for anti-islamophobia.




The motion from Liberal backbencher Nathalie Des Rosiers called on the legislature to "stand against all forms of hatred, hostility, prejudice, racism and intolerance," rebuke a "growing tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric and sentiments" and condemn all forms of Islamophobia


ETA: THEY even called it the anti-islamophobia law. Plastered all over the news.
edit on 7-6-2017 by knowledgehunter0986 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: SprocketUK


Where did I say it was ok for people to drink and drive?


And where exactly did I say terrorism was the same thing?

Like you've accused me of 3 times now?



Here, you attempted to draw an equivalence with this reply, that or it was a brain fart.

What's wrong with them? They may be a bit embarrassing and lack class, but hell, they aren't going around running people over and stabbing random strangers because they don't have the right imaginary friend in the sky.


Keep religion out of society altogether, especially the sort that tries to impose its rules on other


Actually the statistics for road accidents involving drunk drivers is staggering.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Also, your link says that this is a motion, not a bill or a law - therefore this does not specifically address the legality or illegality of discrimination against Muslims only.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Hazardous1408

That's a straw-man, if you lived here you would understand the rhetoric of it. There was heated discussion. The MAIN reason was for anti-islamophobia.




The motion from Liberal backbencher Nathalie Des Rosiers called on the legislature to "stand against all forms of hatred, hostility, prejudice, racism and intolerance," rebuke a "growing tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric and sentiments" and condemn all forms of Islamophobia.


No you said it's the "epitome of special treatment" for Islam.

I've now proven the motion is against "all religious descrimination"...

Your only fall back to not researching this in depth is that "it's been all over the news"... lol...
Because they're so honest.

The "main reason" was because a mosque had been shot up and 6 people killed in a terror attack against Muslims.


You can't argue the facts.

Even your quote says this...

stand against all forms of hatred



So, again, not a strawman, what is this special treatment you said is occuring?



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

My initial point was they are getting special treatment. I already admitted that I didn't know the details and it was something along those lines.

Are you disagreeing that this isn't special treatment?
edit on 7-6-2017 by knowledgehunter0986 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

I didn't draw equivalence that's your terrible reading comprehension.

I was countering this... "they aren't going around running people over"...

I never once equated terrorism and drink driving.
I never once justified terrorism.
I do not support ISIS.

Everything you've said is ad hominem BS.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: kaylaluv

My initial point was they are getting special treatment. I already admitted that I didn't know the details and it was something along those lines.

Are you disagreeing that this isn't special treatment?


I think it was based on recent events against Muslims/mosques, so I think it was originally meant to address those events but added in the part about all religious discrimination to be fair.

So no, I don't think this particular motion is special treatment in favor of Muslims and against other religions.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Look, I'm not even going to continue debating this with you. I live here and know what's going on here. You can straw man all you want.

Even some Muslims in the community condemn this law.


And no the main reason was not becauss a mosque got shot up. Lol you accuse me of listening to the news, but get that tid-bit from the news?

I repeat - even some Muslims condemn the law saying they didn't need special treatment.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Of course you don't Kayla. I never really expected you to.

It's fine, I know what I know and I'm fine with that.


edit on 7-6-2017 by knowledgehunter0986 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Look, I'm not even going to continue debating this with you. I live here and know what's going on here. You can straw man all you want.

Even some Muslims in the community condemn this law.


And no the main reason was not becauss a mosque got shot up. Lol you accuse me of listening to the news, but get that tid-bit from the news?

I repeat - even some Muslims condemn the law saying they didn't need special treatment.



A strawman is where someone makes up an argument the opposing debater never made...

You said this is "special treatment" for Islam...
I didn't invent that argument out of thin air.
It's not a strawman to ask you to clarify what that means in the case of a motion that condemns "all religious discrimination"...


I also don't care where you live, you're spouting bullsh*t.

Fact: the motion is targets "all religious discrimination"...
Fact: that is the opposite of special treatment...
Fact: I'm asking rhetorically hoping you would concede you made a mistake by not "looking in depth" at the situation, because I knew you'd only dig your heels deeper and try everything under the sun to deny what is in the motion itself.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Did it ever occur to you that maybe that had to include that into the law so it didn't seem they were pandering to the Muslims?

Only for everytime they step into the TV to talk, they only ever talk about anti-islamophobia.

When they were debating on live TV, you only ever heard anti-islamophobia from their mouths.

Even when the conservatives mention them pandering to the Muslims, they don't even bother to refute it like you are here, by pointing out "all discrimination blah blah" and instead go back to their anti-islamophobia rhetoric?

Just ignore all the protests the day after.

Just ignore the protests from the Muslims themselves.

I say straw-man, becuase your nit picking a few parts from the law and basing your argument on that, without having full context.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986


...without having full context...


Context doesn't get more "full" than the words "all religious discrimination"...

It's fine, I have the motions words, and you have your fictional opinion.

It's all good.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

So in reading a little more about this motion, I see that some are fearful that they won't be allowed to publicly criticize Islam. I find that a little ironic when there was a video on this thread about a non-Muslim man outraged that he got a leaflet at a Mosque which criticized the Western lifestyle.

Maybe we should not allow anybody to criticize anybody. Or, we could let anyone criticize anyone, as long as laws are followed.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: SprocketUK

I didn't draw equivalence that's your terrible reading comprehension.

I was countering this... "they aren't going around running people over"...

I never once equated terrorism and drink driving.
I never once justified terrorism.
I do not support ISIS.

Everything you've said is ad hominem BS.



oh, why contract the statement there? Why not They aren't going?
No reason at all unless you are trying to draw a false equivalence between murder and drink driving.

Hoist by your own petard there Einstein.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv



 Or, we could let anyone criticize anyone


I always said freedom of speech should be absolute.

When you start to let different circumstances and situations dictate free speech, that's when lines become blurry and bias/prejudice can come into play.

Also - hello authoritarianism.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilverOwls
a reply to: and14263


Every nation has a tommy robinson. They want to segregate populations. Take people from their homes. Confiscate property and deport them.

Is it possible to deal with Muslim terrorists without idolising a tommy robinson? The day we admire a tommy robinson is a bad day for all. Today is that day. A bad day for ATS and the people promoting him


People like you are half the problem.
Socially engineered and unable to think for yourself without the PC state giving you a narrative to spin.
I will take Tommy Robinson any day of the week over weak Jellyfish like you that sound like you have Stockholm syndrome.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

I tend to agree. As long as you aren't inciting violence, criticize all you want.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Very torn over Robinson. He's definitely a troll and goes out of his way to antagonise people, he also callously exploits tragedies to further his own political agenda and his videos contain endless spin and conjecture. But, he also quite often says things that are true. Regardless, he should be given the freedom to say what he wants without the police coming down on him the way they have and without being attacked in the street.

Saw the video where he confronted the paedos and I couldn't fault him for it but have seen others where it's blatant bulls**t.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Is this the new thing here, propping up people like Robinson? Using another extreme as a solution. That's feeding right in the the control grids hands, exactly what is warranted.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilverOwls
a reply to: and14263


I watched the video one of you posted this week and searched up your new hero. We have them in Canada too. Here they're a dirty secret we aren't proud of.

Isolating groups causes segregation. Deporting people requires segregation. It demands confiscating property. They can't take homes or businesses with them. Your laws aren't good enough for the tommy Robinsons or you wouldn't be spotlighting him. Don't you have sense to see what Britain would be when laws are for some and not for others?

ATS is crazy. Heroworshipping these men and proud to. Let us kick in the Mosques. Deport the smirking Fv*k*rs. We can share their cars and take their houses. I want a house with a massive minaret on the roof.

Put a flag on it. Muslims go home!
this is by far the best TRUTH ive read on this site ever.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join