Taxi Driver Online

Captain Cab writes:



The whole tone of your posts is one of making concessions for extremism in that their actions can be justified in some way because of British foreign policy. It's just one big apology.

Now I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse but harping on about foreign policy does nothing to confront the real issue, of Islam being an intrinsically evil religion which is the basic premise to my posts. And you just skipped right over Winston Churchill’s quote which summed up everything I believe quite nicely.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

– Sir Winston Churchill
British Conservative politician and statesman of the United Kingdom

And once again: the simple truth is CC, and I have said this many times before, you cannot debate with someone of religious faith because they do not require a shred of evidence for what they believe, and that's what makes the fanatics of these faiths so dangerous. Everything they do is revealed to them by God, through some Cleric or their reading and interpretation of some Bronze Age book.




I would agree with you wholeheartedly but fortunately, we don’t live in Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan. And I think it is true to say that life is a lot cheaper in these countries and it probably has more to do with poor health care, sanitation, working conditions and diet rather than the barrel of a gun. Oh and It was bad before we got there so we can't accept all the blame.



I am saying nothing of the sort and the only reason you seem to coming up with this nonsense is to avoid the basic premise of my post which is, once again, that Islam is an intrinsically evil religion.



I know exactly what you are saying and I agree with that part of your argument and I have already said, repeatedly, we should pull our troops out and put Tony Blair on trial for War Crimes.



Showing allegiance to your country by swearing an oath to the flag before that of your faith or facing deportation as a consequence for anyone holding extremist's views, is not a **** solution to this problem by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply a means by which we can weed the extremists out.

Interesting choice of words. Final solution being more commonly associated with The Third Reich.
They didn't need proof for what they believed either BTW, although that didn't stop them manufacturing it anyway.

You are quite correct, but for the most part, political theory is either proven or disproved over the course of time and it evolves, which is not the case with the word of God.

Didn't the average **** zealot believe that his Fuhrer was infallible and do unspeakable things in his name?

It makes no difference if it's in the name of God, Allah, Christ or a small moustached nutjob in a Berlin bunker, some people will always be capable of committing barbarous acts in the name of something or someone they believe in.
Even if you could wipe out all religion, there will always be someone who can influence these people enough to do their evil bidding.

So you see Islam as a force for good unlike fascism, which you think should be opposed at every opportunity as a force for evil?

And you do, in fact, put religion into the same category as political theory, but have contradictory ways of dealing with their extremes. Whereas you would oppose fascism vociferously in all its guises, you think that a radical religion should be tolerated.

Gusmac, you are more confused than Scooby-doo but you are entitled to your opinion.

the simple truth is CC, and I have said this many times before, you cannot debate with someone of religious faith because they do not require a shred of evidence for what they believe,