Infractions and bannings



I have just received my 3rd infraction notice, (yeh yeh, "only 3"" thats an outrage" I hear some of you shout). I accepted the first two, I was pushing on Thomas a bit hard. This third one however I do object to.

In my 'conversation' with the muslim apologists that would have Islams history rewritten as entirely peaceable I have sought to state historical truths in the context of removing the question of religion and focussing on the actual events regardless of religious motivation. Thus a battle becomes a battle and not a holy war. In this vein I replied to a post that one method to get wives to sustain a polygamous society was the murder of neighbouring tribes and the capture of the women. This is an historical fact. This is how it was. Yet to suggest the warlord Muhammad was doing the same, though he himself is said to have had several wives by this method, is deemed unnaceptable. I object to this and see it only as a censorship that gives carte blanche to muslim apologists to go unchallanged in promoting their false history.

It seems it is ok for muslims here to openly support and act as apologists for suicide bombers yet to make a comment on the historical truths of Muhammads rise to power is unnaceptable. This is censorship.

I realise I can be agressive, controversial and blunt but this is a valid method of stimulating debate and I have over my time here stimulated a lot of debate. And it is not like I do not get it returned by muslim gang here. I feel let down that I am being told to censor the historical truth.

I will be gone in a few days, so it does not matter much to me except as a matter of respect. To allow muslim apologists to attempt to pervert history, as part of an ongoing political campaign, on this site is shameful.

I've just got back so I'll need to take a moment to look into this - but something else worth considering is that without any means of social security, women would often be married into polygamy in order to have direct access to support via a breadwinner. Otherwise, women, children, and the elderly could have limit or no support for themselves - marriage was a simple way in which to bring entire families under protection for this purpose.

Also, you can see from your post above that while being aggressive, brutal and blunt can stimulate debate, it's also important to remember to draw a line. You state Mohammed above as a Warlord which is pretty insensitive.

Bottom line is that no one here is looking to rewrite history, but as ever I want to see people considerate and civil to one another to a basic degree.

In the meantime, will see if I can find the post in question.
Hi Brian, trust you had a wonderful holiday :)

A half hour after I wrote this post I wanted to remove it but I was too late. My opinion is that there are a few people here that try to promote a dishonest agenda in saying Islam is something other than it can be demonstrably proven to be. I view Islam quite apart from other major religions and believe it to be a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion. And I believe this is why it was 'invented' by the warlord Muhammad. I cannot and will not refrain from calling him that because as a matter of historical fact that is precisely what he was. I am not into chamberlainesque appeasement over such a profound issue. I am not anti-muslim but I am anti-Islam, there is a big difference. I think that within the bounds of rational human discourse, not irrational xenophobia, I am entitled to hold and promote that opinion and if it is not welcome here then it is a sorry day for this site.

That said of late my posts have had a tendency to remain rather too aggressive. It is something I am trying to address. I myself am a bit tired of it.

That said of late my posts have had a tendency to remain rather too aggressive. It is something I am trying to address. I myself am a bit tired of it.

Glad to hear it. :)

As for the issue of liking versus disliking Islam - neither is a prerequisite for this site. :)

However, it would be nice to try and have more focused and meaty discussions around the issues, rather than any quick quips which may be read - whether intended or not - as directed at specific persons in order to offend.

totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion
Heh, now it is hard to count those which can't be accused of having a history of this to some degree. Then again, similar said about many secular idealisms, though some of course would be happy to call themselves such openly. :)
Indeed, be careful, or everyone will want one. :)

@ Tao

It seems it is ok for muslims here to openly support and act as apologists for suicide bombers
Who here supports suicide bombers?
Ok I have a question in reference to the topic of infractions, thought I would daisy chain it to this topic, instead of kinda duplicating....

When you have been awarded an infraction.... It says.... Post: PRIVATE. then the date, when it expires the reason and who gave you it.

Now with good rep and bad rep it is also the same layout... But a link to the post you are being given the good/bad reputation for.... Soooooo, Why can you not see the post where someone has given you an infraction? So you know what it was for? Perhaps protest it.... But mainly for me to cherish it lol....

Code: I support the bombers.
Post infractions are usually removed from public view, so you wouldn't be able to view any such messages anyway.

However, as some may have noticed, I've not been using the infraction system of late - it's just too cold, impersonal, and unforgiving for a site like this, which seems to run better on a quiet word via PM, rather than card waving.