Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

Does anybody live in Sweden?? Im curious about why its attacked by so much of the right wing?

They are one of the European countries most tolerant of refugees, so are targeted to prove that doing so doesn't work.

 

[SestoScudo]

They are one of the European countries most tolerant of refugees, so are targeted to prove that doing so doesn't work.

Oh okay thanks just wondering about it. So much stuff about Sweden from No go zones to the rape capital of Europe.

It just made me wonder why Sweden is attacked by such things for nothing.

 

[Scaff]

Oh okay thanks just wondering about it. So much stuff about Sweden from No go zones to the rape capital of Europe.

It just made me wonder why Sweden is attacked by such things for nothing.

Ah yes, those two.

The no-go areas are about as accurate as Fox news claim that the whole of Birmingham in the UK was a no-go area for non-Muslims (which was odd to consider when I sat in a bar in Birmingham a few days later with a beer or six). Now it is true that some of the areas migrants have moved to are areas of high social deprivation, however that was the case for many of these areas historically (and before the current wave of immigrants arrived). A related claim is that Sweden was never violet before, something shown to be untrue with a quick google of the great Scandinavian biker war.

The latter is ever easier to explain, Sweden records sexual assault claims and charges in a different manner to almost any pother country, in that it counts every individual attack independently. So if someone was sexually assaulted 10 times in one night that would be ten offenses, not one as many other countries do.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh okay thanks just wondering about it. So much stuff about Sweden from No go zones to the rape capital of Europe.

It just made me wonder why Sweden is attacked by such things for nothing.

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Are you saying that having no-go zones and being the rape capital of Europe is nothing?

 

[SestoScudo]

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Are you saying that having no-go zones and being the rape capital of Europe is nothing?

Did you understand what I said I dont get why Swden is accused of those things.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Did you understand what I said I dont get why Swden is accused of those things.

That's not what you said, but if it's what you intended to say it makes much more sense now.

 

[TexRex]

That's not what you said

*cough*

So much stuff about Sweden from No go zones to the rape capital of Europe.

It just made me wonder why Sweden is attacked by such things for nothing.

I read "so much stuff" as the accusations and "made me wonder why" as being unaware of the reasoning for them. Put those two together and you get:

I dont get why Swden is accused of those things.

 

[Johnnypenso]

*cough*


I read "so much stuff" as the accusations and "made me wonder why" as being unaware of the reasoning for them. Put those two together and you get:

Congratulations, when is your next show in Vegas?

 

[TexRex]

Congratulations, when is your next show in Vegas?

Is that you conceding that there's no other logical interpretation of what was said? Seems an awful pissy retort if not.

 

[Scaff]

*cough*


I read "so much stuff" as the accusations and "made me wonder why" as being unaware of the reasoning for them. Put those two together and you get:

Exactly as I read it, which was the reading I took when I replied to it.

 

[TexRex]

Exactly as I read it, which was the reading I took when I replied to it.

Try as I have, I...I just can't come up with an alternate interpretation, logical or otherwise.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is that you conceding that there's no other logical interpretation of what was said? Seems an awful pissy retort if not.

One man's pissy is another man's humour.

 

[TexRex]

One man's pissy is another man's humour.

Ah.

 

[Mr Tree]

One man's pissy is another man's humour.

Sorry mate that's not how it looks like from an outsiders perspective

It looked like you where to proud to admit you misread the post. It's that or you wanted to act like he was a regressive lefty while he clearly wasn't

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sorry mate that's not how it looks like from an outsiders perspective

It looked like you where to proud to admit you misread the post. It's that or you wanted to act like he was a regressive lefty while he clearly wasn't

Yes, that's why I phrased it as a question because I was proud to misread the post.

 

[Mr Tree]

Yes, that's why I phrased it as a question because I was proud to misread the post.

I think you accidently misread my post.

Please read it again

I haven't stated at all that you where proud to misread the post.

Edit: I'm biased making the claim someone can't admit a mistake. I have that feeling about people quite often and I can admit being guitly of it myself.

 

[UKMikey]

In this example published by Reuters last month it seems that the Muslims are the ones being suppressed. Perhaps theocracies' marriage of church and state is the problem rather than one particular religion?

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/india-modi-culture/

 

[TexRex]

a regressive lefty

I'm actually aggressively malevous (ambimaldextrous, if you will), but I don't see what my handedness has to do with this topic.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Accept what? That they lied or that you posted it as if it came from Pew when it didn't?

That they lied, and you corrected it

Which doesn't explain why you cherry picked from it.

Why remove part of what he said, a part that has massive context and is also incredibly inaccurate?

Hmm? I didn't cherry pick anything
I showed what the media quoted him as saying what he got banned from, and his defence. Just like when people quote Merkel or Wulff's "Islam belongs to Germany" without quoting everything they say.

Well actually you will be able to, as its a temporary ban. I'm not aware that a temporary Facebook ban removes teh ability of people to communicate via other outlets or mediums?


As they are perfectly entitled to do so, and once again its a temporary ban, a fact you also feel happy to ignore.

A temporary ban for having an opinion....that's pretty murky.

Facebook have also suspended someone for reporting a threat of violence:

http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/facebook-torpedoes-blogger-for-reporting-he-was-threatened/

And in doing so conflated a rather reasonable statement with the far-rights rhetoric, which was what was actually being discussed.

So that would actually be two separate examples of you cherry-picking from the same source, its almost as if you wanted to make it look worse than it actually is (and for the record I can give you plenty of example of similar happening to left leaning groups on Facebook, a number of anti-Britain First groups had the same thing happen).

That's 76% of the population agreeing about a religion that has in the past tried repeatedly to conquer Europe, doesn't belong to their country. I never said all 76% believe that we are under threat of conquest....but to suggest that a sizeable portion of them doesn't hold that view? I'm not so sure.

That's interesting. By that measure do we count the contribution and of muslim society to the development of the West as still being important or do we go with your honorary doctor's view that such involvement has only ever meant one thing?

His claims are ludicrous and take little or no account of historical fact.

You take it as however you want. You can take the view that Islam has only contributed positively, negatively or somewhere in the middle. My quote was talking about the results of demographic shifts.

Private bodies are free to do what they want, you seem to have no issue with right leaning outlets displaying both bias and presenting outright lies as if they are fact, pretty much dismissing it out of hand.

If Facebook's stance disturbs you, I assume the tack taken by Fox news must have you reaching for pitchforks (who after all almost never allow a dissenting voice to counter an argument and have presented some rather clear ******** as if it were gospel - remember all of Birmingham is a no-go zone, policed by Jihadis).

In comparison a 30 day ban for using bollocks to try and score ideological points seems rather minor (not that a Christian apologist would ever do such a thing, not a chance that this could be an interfaith pissing contest at all).

One's a social media platform, the other is a "news" outlet.

We've seen how people holding certain views are already being banned from entry to this country after having interviews like this:

Border Force Officer: What is the reason for you visiting the UK today?

Bodi: The European Reunion Conference.

BFO: When and where is this conference?

Bodi: Tomorrow, but I don’t know exactly where. I only know it’s in London.

BFO: The conference you’re going to this weekend. How many people will be there?

Bodi: I don’t know.

BFO: Why don’t know know where it is?

Bodi: Probably because of this reason, a safety reason. The people attending will have registered and they will probably hear about the location tomorrow.

BFO: The conference this weekend- what is its aim?

Bodi: It is a gathering. We come from all over Europe to speak to the UK guys. The UK movement is fresh, maybe half a year old.

BFO: Why is it all a big secret?

Bodi: The anti far right (note: Bodi claims he used the term “Antifa” not “anti far right”) are very aggressive and they may cause problems if they know where it is in advance.

BFO: What is the aim of the conference?

Bodi: The aim of the conference is to bring patriots together. We are not chauvinists or nationalists, this old fashioned stuff.

BFO: When you have the conference what is the message to the people who aren’t patriots?

Bodi: We are united.

BFO: What about people who aren’t British or Hungarian for example?

Bodi: Security. I would like for illegal immigration to stop.

BFO: What about a refugee claiming asylum?

Bodi: It depends on the circumstances if someone is coming to claim asylum.

BFO: There are people coming in illegally, why is that a threat?

Bodi: They can do what they want. Crimes maybe. They can stay as long as they want. In Hungary in 2015 all the apples and grapes were eaten by illegal immigrants. This was before the fence was put up.

BFO: How do you know it was illegal immigrants?

Bodi: The police know but they don’t have any names or identities because they are here illegally.

BFO: So what is the main viewpoint of GI, that anyone can legally migrate into a European country?

Bodi: Yes anyone can legally come.

BFO: Your speech indicates that you wish to stop further Islamisation, can you explain this?

Bodi: They may want to aggresively push there (sp) ideologies.

BFO: Why is it specifically Islamisation?

Bodi: Now the illegal crowd have come from Islamic countries. I am not against Islam. I am against Islamisation. Any kind of aggressive spreading of beliefs is not ok. We want to invite an Imam to discuss this with us in Budapest.

BFO: So is it specifically Islamic immigrants you don’t like?

Bodi: No any illegal immigrants. The majority of illegal immigrants into Europe recently have been of the Islamic faith.

BFO: The GI group in Britain, do they have links to other groups?

Bodi: No they are an independent movement.

....yet someone who says they've "been trained to kill" by ISIS as a child soldier is allowed in, and when caught in school donating to ISIS is allowed to remain. And what happened with that second guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_Green_bombing

 

[Scaff]

That they lied

Excellent, and so back to my original question.

What end result do you think they were attempting to achieve with such a lie?

Hmm? I didn't cherry pick anything
I showed what the media quoted him as saying what he got banned from, and his defence. Just like when people quote Merkel or Wulff's "Islam belongs to Germany" without quoting everything they say.

If by not quoting everything that someone says you remove context, then you are cherry picking.

You picked only the part of the quote that suited your aim, and ignored the part that didn't. Its quite literally a text book example of cherry picking!

A temporary ban for having an opinion....that's pretty murky.

Are you able to show that the reason the ban was given was for having an opinion? as far as I can remember it was for breaking the sites community standards (you know the bit you ignored when you cherry picked).

Facebook have also suspended someone for reporting a threat of violence:

http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/facebook-torpedoes-blogger-for-reporting-he-was-threatened/
http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/facebook-torpedoes-blogger-for-reporting-he-was-threatened/

http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/facebook-torpedoes-blogger-for-reporting-he-was-threatened/
Stupid (if true - the source you use is not exactly without bias), but once again its a private organisation and they are free to do so.

That's 76% of the population agreeing about a religion that has in the past tried repeatedly to conquer Europe, doesn't belong to their country. I never said all 76% believe that we are under threat of conquest....but to suggest that a sizeable portion of them doesn't hold that view? I'm not so sure.

You did however attempt to conflate the two (otherwise you would not have used the survey question and result in the way you did - it would have no relevance). I do find it interesting however that you seem to present a one way view of the past conflicts between the two religions in this way. Have Christian European nations never done the same? As the history of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, etc. from around the year 600 paints quite a different picture (and please check your dates before saying the first crusade was a defensive invasion - that ones been tried and debunked many times before).

You take it as however you want. You can take the view that Islam has only contributed positively, negatively or somewhere in the middle. My quote was talking about the results of demographic shifts.

I take it as its written, it was a blanket statement, if it was supposed to contain a more subtle distinction then the author did a poor job of attempting to communicate such.

One's a social media platform, the other is a "news" outlet.

Both are private bodies, but your pattern of avoidance is starting to become rather clear.

We've seen how people holding certain views are already being banned from entry to this country after having interviews like this:

Border Force Officer: What is the reason for you visiting the UK today?

Bodi: The European Reunion Conference.

BFO: When and where is this conference?

Bodi: Tomorrow, but I don’t know exactly where. I only know it’s in London.

BFO: The conference you’re going to this weekend. How many people will be there?

Bodi: I don’t know.

BFO: Why don’t know know where it is?

Bodi: Probably because of this reason, a safety reason. The people attending will have registered and they will probably hear about the location tomorrow.

BFO: The conference this weekend- what is its aim?

Bodi: It is a gathering. We come from all over Europe to speak to the UK guys. The UK movement is fresh, maybe half a year old.

BFO: Why is it all a big secret?

Bodi: The anti far right (note: Bodi claims he used the term “Antifa” not “anti far right”) are very aggressive and they may cause problems if they know where it is in advance.

BFO: What is the aim of the conference?

Bodi: The aim of the conference is to bring patriots together. We are not chauvinists or nationalists, this old fashioned stuff.

BFO: When you have the conference what is the message to the people who aren’t patriots?

Bodi: We are united.

BFO: What about people who aren’t British or Hungarian for example?

Bodi: Security. I would like for illegal immigration to stop.

BFO: What about a refugee claiming asylum?

Bodi: It depends on the circumstances if someone is coming to claim asylum.

BFO: There are people coming in illegally, why is that a threat?

Bodi: They can do what they want. Crimes maybe. They can stay as long as they want. In Hungary in 2015 all the apples and grapes were eaten by illegal immigrants. This was before the fence was put up.

BFO: How do you know it was illegal immigrants?

Bodi: The police know but they don’t have any names or identities because they are here illegally.

BFO: So what is the main viewpoint of GI, that anyone can legally migrate into a European country?

Bodi: Yes anyone can legally come.

BFO: Your speech indicates that you wish to stop further Islamisation, can you explain this?

Bodi: They may want to aggresively push there (sp) ideologies.

BFO: Why is it specifically Islamisation?

Bodi: Now the illegal crowd have come from Islamic countries. I am not against Islam. I am against Islamisation. Any kind of aggressive spreading of beliefs is not ok. We want to invite an Imam to discuss this with us in Budapest.

BFO: So is it specifically Islamic immigrants you don’t like?

Bodi: No any illegal immigrants. The majority of illegal immigrants into Europe recently have been of the Islamic faith.

BFO: The GI group in Britain, do they have links to other groups?

Bodi: No they are an independent movement.

....yet someone who says they've "been trained to kill" by ISIS as a child soldier is allowed in, and when caught in school donating to ISIS is allowed to remain. And what happened with that second guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_Green_bombing

Did you actually just make up a conversation and throw in a strawman at the same time!

 

[Imari]

I used "subsume" since that is its history (eg Egypt), much like Christianity subsumed much of Europe centuries ago.

And Africa. And America. And Oceania. Pretty much everywhere except Asia, and it had a red hot go at that as well but didn't catch on.

That's 76% of the population agreeing about a religion that has in the past tried repeatedly to conquer Europe, doesn't belong to their country.

Sorry, were we talking about Islam or Christianity here?

You take it as however you want. You can take the view that Islam has only contributed positively, negatively or somewhere in the middle.

How about this: without Islam, science as we know it would not exist.

Given that scientific advances are the basis of a huge proportion of our modern society, I'd say that Islam has had an overwhelmingly positive contribution. Without it you'd be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning and dung for dinner.

 

[mustafur]

And without Christianity we probably wouldn't need the Islamic golden age.

 

[yas]

I'd put scientific advances on proper society structure and interests at the time and not solely on its religion.

 

[Imari]

I'd put scientific advances on proper society structure and interests at the time and not solely on its religion.

Quite, although remember that it's only relatively recently that societal structure, governance and religion haven't been different facets of the same thing. Even the scientific revolution had a pretty strong fight to separate itself from the religious principles of the age sometimes, and that was hundreds of years after the Islamic golden age.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Excellent, and so back to my original question.

What end result do you think they were attempting to achieve with such a lie?

Errr....the same as everyone else when they lie?

You're making this out to be that only the Gatestone Institute lies when I've already said this isn't limited to one side of the political spectrum....

If by not quoting everything that someone says you remove context, then you are cherry picking.

You picked only the part of the quote that suited your aim, and ignored the part that didn't. Its quite literally a text book example of cherry picking!

But I provided the full quote and the discussion behind it in the link

Are you able to show that the reason the ban was given was for having an opinion? as far as I can remember it was for breaking the sites community standards (you know the bit you ignored when you cherry picked).

He posted an opinion. He got banned for said opinion. The "community standards" are set out then to, de facto, police opinions

Stupid (if true - the source you use is not exactly without bias), but once again its a private organisation and they are free to do so.

I know they are a private organisation, but they are the biggest social media platform. What if Twitter follows suit? Then government policy?

You did however attempt to conflate the two (otherwise you would not have used the survey question and result in the way you did - it would have no relevance). I do find it interesting however that you seem to present a one way view of the past conflicts between the two religions in this way. Have Christian European nations never done the same? As the history of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, etc. from around the year 600 paints quite a different picture (and please check your dates before saying the first crusade was a defensive invasion - that ones been tried and debunked many times before).

But is there a Christian European effort to do the same to the Mid East currently?

Whereas if we compare that to:
- What's said by the multitude of Islamic terrorist organisations
- Heads of Islamic states like Erdogan's messages
- The history of the founder of Islam

Both are private bodies, but your pattern of avoidance is starting to become rather clear.

In this internet age do I have to spell out the differences?

Did you actually just make up a conversation and throw in a strawman at the same time!

Err that's showing precedent. It's not a strawman - it's showing what the possible conclusion is as I've highlighted in previous posts (i.e. it becoming government policy)

And Africa. And America. And Oceania. Pretty much everywhere except Asia, and it had a red hot go at that as well but didn't catch on.

Asia didn't? Christianity got a foothold in many states there, just not as widespread.

The whole point is religion, or ideas can spread like wildfire.

Take Belgium as an example (taken as an example of the root of Islam in politics - I don't actually agree that it will be the first Islamic state in Europe):

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12203/belgium-islamic-state

Sorry, were we talking about Islam or Christianity here?

Both did in the past, only one is currently it seems.

How about this: without Islam, science as we know it would not exist.

Given that scientific advances are the basis of a huge proportion of our modern society, I'd say that Islam has had an overwhelmingly positive contribution. Without it you'd be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning and dung for dinner.

I dunno, I mean you'd have to say that none of the prominent European scientists would have materialised without Islam and....that's a pretty bold statement.

 

[Scaff]

Errr....the same as everyone else when they lie?

You're making this out to be that only the Gatestone Institute lies when I've already said this isn't limited to one side of the political spectrum....

No I'm not making it out to be on only one side at all, we are however speaking about a specific article from a specific source you used, as such 'they do it as well' isn't an answer. However lets come back to Gatestone in a while.

But I provided the full quote and the discussion behind it in the link

Your post here, at GT Planet was cherry-picked.

You posted this part of the quote here:

"In this sense, Islam is not part of German history, but the defense against Islam!"

The actual full quote is:

"Islam always plays only one role in the 1700-year-old history of the Christian Occident: the role of the sword of Damocles which hung above us, the threat of barbarism against which one needed to unite and fight, In this sense, Islam is not part of German history, but the defense against Islam!"

You omitted context, that's cherry picking.

He posted an opinion. He got banned for said opinion. The "community standards" are set out then to, de facto, police opinions

Do they do the same for all opinions? No, so he wasn't banned for posting an opinion, he was posted for posting one that broke the community standards. If you can't understand the difference between the two then quite frankly your being deliberately obtuse.

I know they are a private organisation, but they are the biggest social media platform.

Doesn't matter its still a private organisation.

What if Twitter follows suit?

Doesn't matter it still a private body

Then government policy?

Not a private body, now it matters. Can you see the difference?

But is there a Christian European effort to do the same to the Mid East currently?

Did you miss the last few decades?

He's a highlight from George Bush
'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

That however does miss a key detail you need to prove, which is what Middle Eastern country has invaded Europe of late? Your not conflating refugees from countries the west has bombed, carried out military action in or de-stabilized with an invasion have you?

Whereas if we compare that to:
- What's said by the multitude of Islamic terrorist organisations

Do they speak for all Muslims?

- Heads of Islamic states like Erdogan's messages

See George above.

- The history of the founder of Islam

Are you aware of the history of the Holy Roman Church? It would certainly seem not.

In this internet age do I have to spell out the differences?

They are both private bodies, the difference between one posting news and the other allowing social commentary to be posted in this day and age is minimal to say the least.

Err that's showing precedent. It's not a strawman - it's showing what the possible conclusion is as I've highlighted in previous posts (i.e. it becoming government policy)

Nope, its a made up conversation and an out of context comparison. Its fantasy and the strawman, now with a slippery slope thrown in for good measure.

Take Belgium as an example (taken as an example of the root of Islam in politics - I don't actually agree that it will be the first Islamic state in Europe):

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12203/belgium-islamic-state

You didn't bother to fact check that one either did you.

Oh dear.

Good example in your post of a gish gallop however, we could hold a spot the logical fallacy with it.

 

[Mr Tree]

Errr....the same as everyone else when they lie?

You're making this out to be that only the Gatestone Institute lies when I've already said this isn't limited to one side of the political spectrum....



But I provided the full quote and the discussion behind it in the link


He posted an opinion. He got banned for said opinion. The "community standards" are set out then to, de facto, police opinions


I know they are a private organisation, but they are the biggest social media platform. What if Twitter follows suit? Then government policy?


But is there a Christian European effort to do the same to the Mid East currently?

Whereas if we compare that to:
- What's said by the multitude of Islamic terrorist organisations
- Heads of Islamic states like Erdogan's messages
- The history of the founder of Islam


In this internet age do I have to spell out the differences?


Err that's showing precedent. It's not a strawman - it's showing what the possible conclusion is as I've highlighted in previous posts (i.e. it becoming government policy)

Asia didn't? Christianity got a foothold in many states there, just not as widespread.

The whole point is religion, or ideas can spread like wildfire.

Take Belgium as an example (taken as an example of the root of Islam in politics - I don't actually agree that it will be the first Islamic state in Europe):

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12203/belgium-islamic-state


Both did in the past, only one is currently it seems.


I dunno, I mean you'd have to say that none of the prominent European scientists would have materialised without Islam and....that's a pretty bold statement.

I'm just replying to the belgian part of your post. I'm a flemish belgian, and the article you qouted is unnuanced at best, deliberatly misleading at worst.

There currently is a party running for election in the city elections. They did say they want to make belgium a sharia state while not breaking the constitution. (Don't see how that's possible but anyhow)

The segregation on the bus is said to be a measure against harrasment, but not a single belgian believes this. And there is public outrage about pretty much anything this party proposes, they currently can't get descent numbers unless they cleverly conveye their message something one of our rightwing parties succeeded at. (Acting moderate while being rather readical)

Molenbeek does have it's issues but it's not as grave as we should bomb it and.neither is it this single european jihadist hub.
You might not be avle to read the article from 'de morgen' but it clearly stated we found out a lot of those orginisations where found due to belgium waking up after 22march and they are combating this wahabi/salafist narrative. So it's less of a concern to me as it shows we are able to find the people who intend harm.

Also on flemish side a lot of parties want to ban the party ISLAM as they seemingly do not accept universal rights such as equality between male and female.

And to be honnest it's quite insulting to hear people who know jack about belgium to refer to arricles that say belgium needs to wake up against radical islam not knowing the efforts taken against it.

Or as some idiot (that got a lot of voted from even.bigger idiots) once said 'Brussels is a hellhole' yeah that was an accurate statement said no one ever....

Not that you don't have the right to but it does show only bias is important and facts apparently arent.

 

[yas]

I wouldn't go as far as calling Brussels a hellhole. I actually quite liked it a few years ago, but after my last visit last year I am not coming back - I don't see it as a very pleasant place anymore. In high contrast with the rest of the country.

 

[Mr Tree]

I wouldn't go as far as calling Brussels a hellhole. I actually quite liked it a few years ago, but after my last visit last year I am not coming back - I don't see it as a very pleasant place anymore. In high contrast with the rest of the country.

What had happened?
And what was in high contrast to the rest of the country?

Brussels is a strange place

 

[Scaff]

I'm just replying to the belgian part of your post. I'm a flemish belgian, and the article you qouted is unnuanced at best, deliberatly misleading at worst.

There currently is a party running for election in the city elections. They did say they want to make belgium a sharia state while not breaking the constitution. (Don't see how that's possible but anyhow)

The segregation on the bus is said to be a measure against harrasment, but not a single belgian believes this. And there is public outrage about pretty much anything this party proposes, they currently can't get descent numbers unless they cleverly conveye their message something one of our rightwing parties succeeded at. (Acting moderate while being rather readical)

Molenbeek does have it's issues but it's not as grave as we should bomb it and.neither is it this single european jihadist hub.
You might not be avle to read the article from 'de morgen' but it clearly stated we found out a lot of those orginisations where found due to belgium waking up after 22march and they are combating this wahabi/salafist narrative. So it's less of a concern to me as it shows we are able to find the people who intend harm.

Also on flemish side a lot of parties want to ban the party ISLAM as they seemingly do not accept universal rights such as equality between male and female.

And to be honnest it's quite insulting to hear people who know jack about belgium to refer to arricles that say belgium needs to wake up against radical islam not knowing the efforts taken against it.

Or as some idiot (that got a lot of voted from even.bigger idiots) once said 'Brussels is a hellhole' yeah that was an accurate statement said no one ever....

Not that you don't have the right to but it does show only bias is important and facts apparently arent.

I had to use google translate on the articles in question and was able to gather the same basic understanding, that they are a fringe political outfit with contradictory claims about policy and aims (bonkers, but not exactly unique), which the Gatestone article exaggerate to a massive degree. Its good to have it confirmed however, so many thanks.

what is surprising however is that having already been shown that a Gatestone source was nonsense, @HenrySwanson then went and did the same by again failing to bother to check a different Gatestone article!