Atheistforums.com

 Sweden on the Brink of CIVIL WAR, National Police Commissioner: “HELP US, HELP US!” (https://www.10news.one/sweden-on-the-brink-of-civil-war-national-police-chief-help-us-help-us/)

QuoteSweden is being torn to pieces by Muslim immigrants and refugees. Law enforcement is crying out for help, and it is only a question of time before the country will need military intervention from abroad in order to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.

10News Update

A leaked report concludes that the number of lawless areas (commonly referred to as, “no-go zones”) in Sweden now totals 61. That is up from 55 in just one year’s time. This increase includes, not only the total number, but also the geographical size of these areas.

Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, spoke on national television and pleaded for assistance: “Help us, help us!” he said while warning that Swedish police forces no longer can uphold the law and therefore must ask all good powers in the country to support them.

A research expert regarding destabilized countries and 2011 recipient of Sweden’s Order of the Seraphim medal, Johan Patrik Engellau, has been working with organizations like the UN and others that operate in crisis areas. He warns:

“I’m afraid it is the end for the well-organized, decent and egalitarian Sweden we have known so far. Personally, I would not be surprised if a form of civil war occurs. In some places, the civil war has probably already begun.”

10News recently reported how the Swedish state has lost large areas to armed, religious groups best described as Islamist militias. Police chief Lars Alversjø says that, “There is lawlessness in parts of Stockholm (Sweden’s capital) now.” He also observed how, “The legal system, which is a pillar in every democratic society, is collapsing in Sweden.” Per Magnus Ranstorp, a researcher into terrorism and radicalization at the Swedish National Defense College, notes: “In the worst areas extremists have taken over. The whole sense of justice and peace are threatened by the fact that the police is breaking down and it’s only getting worse. Sweden is in a disastrous situation.”

The Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen â€" abbreviated as Säpo), recently warned that the country is crawling with “thousands of Islamists” sharing Islamic State’s ideology. In many places, public servants (i.e., non-Islamic authorities) require police protection.

In related news: Sweden Changing: 150,000 Women Undergo FGM, Authorities Admit Large Areas UNDER ISLAMIST RULE

The word that Swedish authorities and media use for the country’s “no-go zones” is utenforskap. The word means something like “excluded area”. In these areas Swedish law has been replaced with a mixture of the law of the jungle and the Islamic legal code, sharia. Armed Muslim gangs and Islamic radicals are simply carving out big pieces of Sweden for themselves. The only reason why it has not evolved into large-scale armed conflictsâ€"in this formerly peaceful and safe countryâ€"probably relates to how Sweden’s feminist-liberal government is not putting up any real resistance against the Islamists.

Even if the Swedish feminist government chose to fight back tomorrow, Sweden has nothing close to the paramilitary capacity needed to reverse this situation. That 80 percent of the country’s law enforcement officers are considering quitting their jobs is a clear sign of a police force that is completely demoralized. The military in this traditionally pacifist country is cut down to almost nothing, and there is no money to fix it.

As Johan Patrik Engellau puts it: “The government does not seem to understand that it has lost control. There is a point where you can no longer stop a situation’s development. I do not know if Sweden has reached this point when it comes to [the consequences of] immigration, but I fear we are drawing close. If we right here and now take and clear and powerful action â€" including stopping immigration and the political promotion of multiculturalism â€" we might with some difficulty be able to save Sweden.”

The fact remains that Sweden’s political elite is nowhere near taking such decisive action, as it has not even started to openly speak out about these problems.

Therefore Sweden will very soon need help from abroad. Police chief Dan Eliasson’s prayer for help only included potential partners inside Sweden, but very soon the international community will have to intervene if a humanitarian catastrophe is to be avoided.

Funny how there are no links to the Swedish chief saying that, besides the one in article which doesn't link to that video. To call several other links in the article "questionable" is at best an understatement.

Of course, if you look at actual comments by Swedish police officers, there are certainly "vulnerable" zones that they despise the use of "no-go zone" name being used for, and that they do need increased resources and more cooperation with the government to address, and large sections of that do involve immigrant populations. However these "vulnerable" zones also include local criminal organizations and members and not just Muslims or even immigrants.

Pr, you are like the buzzfeed of bigotry. Just waiting on you to post a thread saying, "Scientist says this one little trick makes a Muslim an insta-radical! Liberals hate him! Click here for 21 ways to fear foreigners!".

What a steaming, fly-infested pile of sensationalistic, fear-mongering bullshit that article is. Only a blithering fool would give it credence. It even perpetuates the long-debunked myth of "no-go zones" that even Fox News had to retract.

Some more steaming, fly-infested pile of sensationalistic, fear-mongering bullshit.

If CNN doesn't report it, it didn't happen.


Sweden Changing: 150,000 Women Undergo FGM, Authorities Admit Large Areas UNDER ISLAMIST RULE (https://www.10news.one/sweden-changing-150000-women-undergo-fgm-authorities-admit-large-areas-under-islamist-rule/)

QuoteA new report provides disturbing insights regarding changes in the fabric of Swedish society that have followed an unprecedented influx of Muslim refugees and migrants.

The report is partly written by SVT, the Swedish state media, and concludes that at least 150,000 women in Sweden have experienced genital mutilation. This brutal procedure can involve partial or complete removal of the clitoris (i.e., clitoridectomy, clitorectomy or infibulation) plus excision of the labia as well. All too often, this operation is performed in less-than-sterile conditions and, just as frequently, without anesthesia.

Authorities are astonished by the high number of women and young girls who have been subjected to FGM. A report from 2015 concluded that “only” 38,000 women had experienced genital mutilation. This sharp increase most likely results from the determination of Swedish politicians to comply with the UN’s Refugee Convention and EU regulations on refugee quotas.

Sweden has a population of 10 million (five million women and girls).

Swedish tolerance and openness has been up for international debate since American President Donald J. Trump used the country as an example of how refugees and migration from Islamic countries corrodes the rule of law and contributes to the formation of Middle Eastern enclaves, even in strong civil societies like those of Northern Europe.

Big areas of Sweden are now under de facto Islamic rule. Stockholm, Sweden’s capital, is almost completely surrounded by areas (commonly called “no-go zones”) that are veritably ruled by Muslim gangs and Islamic sharia police. “There is lawlessness in parts of the Stockholm region now,” a nervous police chief, Lars Alvarsjø, said. “There are some areas where we seem to lose control.”

Lawless areas in Sweden are growing in size and number every year. From 2015 to 2017 they increased from 15 to 23. According to the Swedish authorities, “religious police have taken the role as law enforcement” in many areas now.

Lars Alversjø says that “the legal system, which is a pillar in every democratic society, is collapsing in Sweden.” Per Magnus Ranstorp, a researcher of terrorism and radicalization at the Swedish National Defense College, elaborates: “In the worst areas extremists have taken over. The whole sense of justice and peace are threatened by the fact that the police is breaking down and it’s only getting worse. Sweden is in a disastrous situation.”

In areas under Islamic rule within Sweden, human rights are rapidly deteriorating, especially for women. Female genital mutilation is just one horrific example of a general change in the Swedish society following the arrival of large numbers of Muslims refugees or migrants.

“In many areas, self-appointed sharia police threaten and harass women to follow Islamic law, Sharia. Threats and harassment can be the consequence if you are not married, if your legs are not covered or if you drink a glass of alcohol on your balcony. Neighbors, strangers, even children and adolescents, threaten women to follow Sharia. If the women do not comply, the sharia police increase their intimidations. A woman tells how a group of men climbed into her apartment by using the drainage pipe and confronted her in her own home because she refused to comply to their demands.”

Yup, another heaping helping of garbage. Throw it in the bin where it belongs.

That "news" site is psychotic.

It might be a fear mongering article, but you can't ignore the state of things across Europe caused by the mass immigration.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/06/economist-explains-20

QuoteTENSIONS were running high when your correspondent visited Sweden at the height of Europe’s migrant crisis, in late 2015. Although most Swedes happily accepted the 163,000 asylum-seekers who arrived in their country that year, others were far less welcoming. In Malmo, a heavily immigrant city in the south, one cashier in a local shop was particularly angry. “They are just here for welfare and benefits,” he said, before telling your correspondent to “get out”. Such language was once the preserve of politicians from the far-right Sweden Democrats party, which has capitalised on the crisis to boost its support. Since then the government has been trying to adapt the Swedish welfare state to suit the times: both to accommodate hundreds of thousands of refugees and to try to diminish such right-wing sentiment. What is changing?

Swedes are rightly proud of their welfare state. The “Scandinavian model” combines high taxes, collective bargaining and a fairly open economy. The result is excellent living standards, high wages and impressive rates of female labour-force participation (parental leave is generous for both sexes). Its reputation has leftist politicians elsewhere filled with envy: Bernie Sanders has cited Sweden, and its neighbour Denmark, as his ideal of “social democracy”. Yet the system has long been in need of reform. Like much of Europe, Sweden has an ageing workforce. Decades of under-construction has sent house prices soaring in Stockholm and other cities. High wages leave many unskilled workers, both Swedish and foreign-born, on the fringes of the labour market.


The first response by the centre-left coalition government to the overwhelming influx of refugees in 2015 was to close the border with Denmark. This was seen as an extreme measure: the deputy prime minister, Asa Romson, cried when announcing the move at a press conference. Since then it has also tried to tweak welfare spending. Previously, failed asylum-seekers received a monthly cash benefit of around 1,200 SEK ($140) and housing; this was scrapped last year. On May 31st the government voted to limit paid parental leave for immigrants: previously, refugees could claim the full amount of paid leave (480 days per child under the age of eight). Now they can only do so if the child is under one year old. For big families the benefits will be limited further.

These tweaks, however, do not tackle the biggest problem Sweden faces in integrating new arrivals: its rigid labour market. Many refugees do not have the skills or connections to enter the workforce. Sweden has one of the largest gaps in employment between native and foreign-born workers. This damages the welfare state not only because fewer foreign-born workers pay taxes, but also because some Swedes, like the cynical cashier in Malmo, resent their new neighbours and lose trust in the state. If Sweden is to remain exceptionalâ€"for its high living standards and generous attitude to people fleeing barrel bombsâ€"far bigger changes are needed.

The belief that having many people coming to a country will create jobs and help businesses thrive doesn't work when those migrants simply don't want to work or even integrate, and bleed money from the countries infrastructure and resources they have no intent on giving back to. And when its this many people, not just a small group, but millions of people, then it will have a negative impact.

And if they just keep coming, and coming, and coming, jobs won't be created for them, they will just end up fucking themselves over and the country they flock to.

Just understand the under-text ...

All Marxists everywhere, want all Capitalism dead, dead, dead.  They are willing to overturn society into chaos to achieve their evil ends (French revolution everywhere, and Robespierre in power everywhere).  Socialist are baby Marxists.  And their most specific goal is to destroy all English speaking countries (Five Eyes) as has been the plan for over 100 years now (because British Empire then, American Empire now).

Find all the Marxists.  Create a Gulag in Alaska/Canada .. and send them there.

Meanwhile back in Sweden, haven't heard from my Swedish contact in over a year (the blog we were both on is caput).  So I have no facts to share.  But it is possible that Sweden has been too boring a country, since Czar Peter kicked their asses as Poltava.  Maybe Russia should invade Sweden, as a return favor for the past invasion of Russia by Sweden, and Swedish support for Hitler too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25VVmCviVao

Quote from: Atheon on June 26, 2017, 05:55:20 AM
Yup, another heaping helping of garbage. Throw it in the bin where it belongs.

That "news" site is psychotic.

Where do you get your facts from?

Can we have an alt-facts subforum? "From pr126's sphincter" for a title?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 26, 2017, 10:51:46 AM
Can we have an alt-facts subforum? "From pr126's sphincter" for a title?

How about a alt-facts subforum? "From DNC sphincter" for a title?  Only fair if we also have the "From RNC sphincter" also ;-)

Some people try avoid reality at all cost. Too disturbing.

Quote from: pr126 on June 26, 2017, 01:34:39 PM
Some people try avoid reality at all cost. Too disturbing.

You fascists love that FUD, don't you.

(http://i.imgur.com/h0jFziM.jpg)

Quote from: pr126 on June 26, 2017, 01:34:39 PM
Some people try avoid reality at any cost...

I'm glad you said that with a sense of self-reflective irony and deprecating humour. That would be a really awkward thing for you to say seriously.

Quote from: pr126 on June 26, 2017, 01:34:39 PM
Some people try avoid reality at all cost. Too disturbing.

I don't blame them ... reality sucks ... particularly the humans!

Quote from: Shiranu on June 26, 2017, 04:40:59 PM
I'm glad you said that with a sense of self-reflective irony and deprecating humour. That would be a really awkward thing for you to say seriously.

All personality is a neurosis ... all facts are self delusive truthiness.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 26, 2017, 03:13:24 PM
You fascists love that FUD, don't you.

And all the commies suck Castro's ...

What pr, and Munch, has taught me...

If it bleeds, it leads... regardless of who's toes it steps on, who's loved ones it insults, who's culture it offends, who ideology it opposes, who have taken on some of the strongest political powers in world history, etc. etc. ... unless it's Islam, in which case literally ZERO professional reporters, who have been trained by society from the day they were born to think of news in a certain way and whom's job literally relies upon finding the most sensational and eye-catching article, will report on it and the only "news" that will are amateurs who don't post proper links, have no evidence for their claims and who wrap their "truth" in layer after layer of bigotry, hatred, fear mongering and alternative facts.

Yet it clearly must be a conspiracy that every single professional news reporter it's turning down the story of a life time, a story that a good article could have their name etched upon the Stanley Cup of Journalism until the end of time, that could win them award after award after award and could bring untold success to their network or paper rather than report on Islam. Literal "no-go zones" of radical foreigners who will rape and kill you, and yet people who intentionally go to shitholes like Kabul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Baghdad at extreme risk to themselves, yet they don't have the balls to go to these zones in Sweden and France. A library emptied and the books mass burned by the government of Germany to appease Muslims who were offended by it's texts, and yet not one professional journalist covered it, not one amateur photographer even managed to snag a picture of the event.

Let's pretend for a second that even a 1/5th of the shit you say makes sense or has validity, pr...  the scenarios that hide that validity are so unbelievably outlandish you have to be either an idiot, a hateful human being or a coward to believe them. I don't think you are an idiot, nor do I think you are hateful, but I certainly think you are a coward (and likely not of your own design but by concerted efforts by hateful men to further their own agendas and interests) for buying into this. And I certainly see the appeal, pr and M... I see where the fear you have is coming from, and why it is buyable. But it's bullshit. It's all bushit, and it's bad for you.


There are legitimate issues that need to be addressed within the Muslim community, but the way behave is exactly how people behaved towards violence in inner cities ("It's just their culture. They are lesser humans than us, so what can you expect? It would really just be best if we could get rid of them... but I'm not racist against black people, I just think we should have them be somewhere else, far away, where they cant interact with us... of course, you know how them black guys like white girls, so it will be hard to keep them away [shit my family actually says...]) or about violence and video games. It's sensationalist bullshit that takes a legitimate issue and ruins any credibility or ability to actually address it.

Opposing objectionable ideology is perfectly OK.  I oppose Nazis and Stalinists.  I don't care if their feeling are hurt, or if they think their free speech is infringed upon (it isn't, they just like to wine about it).

Quote from: Baruch on June 26, 2017, 11:08:31 PM
Opposing objectionable ideology is perfectly OK.  I oppose Nazis and Stalinists.  I don't care if their feeling are hurt, or if they think their free speech is infringed upon (it isn't, they just like to wine about it).

Are you a Naziphobe?

Shiranu wrote

QuoteLet's pretend for a second that even a 1/5th of the shit you say makes sense or has validity, pr...  the scenarios that hide that validity are so unbelievably outlandish you have to be either an idiot, a hateful human being or a coward to believe them. I don't think you are an idiot, nor do I think you are hateful, but I certainly think you are a coward (and likely not of your own design but by concerted efforts by hateful men to further their own agendas and interests) for buying into this. And I certainly see the appeal, pr and M... I see where the fear you have is coming from, and why it is buyable. But it's bullshit. It's all bushit, and it's bad for you.

What irrefutable evidence do you have that is proof that none of the things in the articles are true?

Personal [on site] observation? I don't think so.
Do you trust mainstream media implicitly?

I know that for you the "alternative media" - bolgs, Youtube etc. is beyond the pale, not worth to even to look at them.

So where do you get your reliable TRUTHS from?

Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2017, 01:08:22 AM
Are you a Naziphobe?

Depends. Does he irrationally believe that the Nazi's make up a quarter of the world's population and are out to subvert Western civilization, to the point that any day Western countries will go to civil war and that every level of government and society has been infected with a mental disease that makes them oblivious to it? Does he share article after article about stories that never happened to prove that Nazi's are the great satan and will soon bring about the end times?

If so, then Naziphobe might be accurate.

QuoteWhat irrefutable evidence do you have that is proof that none of the things in the articles are true?

Well, the several times I have proven that that things you said arent true, when I make multi-paragraph short essays proving while it's wrong, you get selective blindness and literally are like, "I don't see the post you are talking about" 3 posts later, so call me skeptical for wanting to repeat that process.

However, the "No-go zone" myth has been proven wrong time and time again to the point that, as previously mentioned, even FOX News, who never admit they are wrong, had to go back and say, "Yeah, we lied about that.".

You are asking me to prove there isn't a tea kettle floating in space. I've got better things to do with my life, like blow what little money I make on the current steam summer sale. It's YOUR job, proposing an extremely outlandish claim, to prove it true using reliable sources. You have as much credibility as a flat earther, a anti-vaxer, a global warming denier right now after how many either straight up lies you have posted or at best extremely twisted truths.

QuoteSo where do you get your reliable TRUTHS from?

Not from someone who chronically lies and posts false stories on a chat forum. Generally from actual professionals who actually have standards they have to uphold, and who are called on their shit when they don't, which unfortunately is a shrinking pool as news becomes more and more polarized on both sides. But organizations like Reuters, AP, BBC (which admittedly does have a slightly left leaning curve, at least by American standards), NPR tend to be good places to start for accurate information.

I'd like it if you put the shark back in the water after your done jumping it Shiranu. The only people I consider lesser a human being are murderers and child rapists, whereas the Islamic population, that being those that follow the cult of Islam en masse, are simply deeply indoctrinated fools who are right now at the same stages of mankind's growth that people in the west were hundreds of years ago when they were burning witches and killing people in holy wars in the name of God.

Maybe their catch up in time, but right now given how people in the west have long abandoned theocracy as law unlike Muslims from the middle east, it's for that very reason why we have those slums forming in places like Germany and Sweden, because these people don't won't to integrate with us, and even if they did, they came on in such high volume, their are no jobs, housing, and tax funds now go to them instead of the country it was made in for the people who made it.

The sad part is you somehow think all the violence and human suffering in this can be resolved simply by people all holding hands like one of those pictures of all nations being friends you see on kindergarten walls, this isn't about race, or creed, this is about their being to many fucking human beings forcing their way into a place their not even wishing to be a part of, and fucking it up for the people already there, like a blood clot.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2017, 01:34:06 AM
Well, the several times I have proven that that things you said arent true, when I make multi-paragraph short essays proving while it's wrong, you get selective blindness and literally are like, "I don't see the post you are talking about" 3 posts later, so call me skeptical for wanting to repeat that process.

However, the "No-go zone" myth has been proven wrong time and time again to the point that, as previously mentioned, even FOX News, who never admit they are wrong, had to go back and say, "Yeah, we lied about that.".

You are asking me to prove there isn't a tea kettle floating in space. I've got better things to do with my life, like blow what little money I make on the current steam summer sale. It's YOUR job, proposing an extremely outlandish claim, to prove it true using reliable sources. You have as much credibility as a flat earther, a anti-vaxer, a global warming denier right now after how many either straight up lies you have posted or at best extremely twisted truths.

Not from someone who chronically lies and posts false stories on a chat forum. Generally from actual professionals who actually have standards they have to uphold, and who are called on their shit when they don't, which unfortunately is a shrinking pool as news becomes more and more polarized on both sides. But organizations like Reuters, AP, BBC (which admittedly does have a slightly left leaning curve, at least by American standards), NPR tend to be good places to start for accurate information.

Komrade Lenin had a description for your kind.

Useful Idiots.

Ask your Muslim friends to explain Quran 5:51 to you.

Sweden needs to get its viking on

QuoteThe only people I consider lesser a human being are murderers and child rapists...

Just once I would love for yall to actually read what I said.

QuoteThe sad part is you somehow think all the violence and human suffering in this can be resolved simply by people all holding hands...

I literally don't even. You cant start a post complaining about something, then do the exact same thing to close your statement. I mean, you can, but it completely undercuts everything you have to say.

Quote... they came on in such high volume, their are no jobs, housing, and tax funds now go to them instead of the country it was made in for the people who made it.

And this is where something isn't clicking... I completely agree that this is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed. But lets address it rather than spread lie after lie about the situation, and acting like the problem is something completely unrelated, and in pr's case, something that cannot be resolved without the extermination of over a billion and a half people who cannot be reasoned with. With his logic, there is simply no other way; he insists they cannot be reasoned with, their ideology is incapable of being changed and they are all out to destroy our civilization, so what other solution does that leave? Just because he doesn't say it explicitly, doesn't mean he isn't saying it through lack of any other choice.

I've said this several times, and I'll say it again... I agree that there are legitimate problems within the Muslim community, both in the Western world and in the Middle East, that clash with Western ideals and norms, as well as basic human rights, that need to be addressed.. But what your side is offering is not a solution, it is muddying the waters with misinformation, lies and fear that make both sides incapable of cooperating. And in instances where they don't want to integrate not into our culture (which is such a ridiculous concept), but into one that has respect for basic human rights and the law, then by all means deport them. But the fundamental problem is that, again, your side is outright lying about what is happening and sparking up fear that all Muslims are potential terrorists, potential rapists, potential criminals and, as someone who's people went through that less than 100 years ago, I have zero tolerance and zero respect for that position.

Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2017, 01:58:01 AM
Komrade Lenin had a description for your kind.

Useful Idiots.

Ask your Muslim friends to explain Quran 5:51 to you.

Yeah, and normal human beings have a description for your kind.

Spineless coward and liar.

Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2017, 01:08:22 AM
Are you a Naziphobe?

Why yes, I hate it when aliens and Nazis do probe experiments on abductees, unless they are beautiful, sexy and know where to touch me ;-)  Some of those German girls I hear, know just how to beat you ...

Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2017, 01:29:17 AM
Depends. Does he irrationally believe that the Nazi's make up a quarter of the world's population and are out to subvert Western civilization, to the point that any day Western countries will go to civil war and that every level of government and society has been infected with a mental disease that makes them oblivious to it? Does he share article after article about stories that never happened to prove that Nazi's are the great satan and will soon bring about the end times?

If so, then Naziphobe might be accurate.

Sarah Palin is the real President, and Hitler's clone lives under the S Pole ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKPwtDjzJMI

Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2017, 02:56:00 AM
Just once I would love for yall to actually read what I said.

I literally don't even. You cant start a post complaining about something, then do the exact same thing to close your statement. I mean, you can, but it completely undercuts everything you have to say.

And this is where something isn't clicking... I completely agree that this is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed. But lets address it rather than spread lie after lie about the situation, and acting like the problem is something completely unrelated, and in pr's case, something that cannot be resolved without the extermination of over a billion and a half people who cannot be reasoned with. With his logic, there is simply no other way; he insists they cannot be reasoned with, their ideology is incapable of being changed and they are all out to destroy our civilization, so what other solution does that leave? Just because he doesn't say it explicitly, doesn't mean he isn't saying it through lack of any other choice.

I've said this several times, and I'll say it again... I agree that there are legitimate problems within the Muslim community, both in the Western world and in the Middle East, that clash with Western ideals and norms, as well as basic human rights, that need to be addressed.. But what your side is offering is not a solution, it is muddying the waters with misinformation, lies and fear that make both sides incapable of cooperating. And in instances where they don't want to integrate not into our culture (which is such a ridiculous concept), but into one that has respect for basic human rights and the law, then by all means deport them. But the fundamental problem is that, again, your side is outright lying about what is happening and sparking up fear that all Muslims are potential terrorists, potential rapists, potential criminals and, as someone who's people went through that less than 100 years ago, I have zero tolerance and zero respect for that position.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2017, 02:56:30 AM
Yeah, and normal human beings have a description for your kind.

Spineless coward and liar.

Well, it is your opinion. Please don't spread it about.


But does Quran 5:51 have a hint of bigotry and intolerance? Just a little? No?

iron Sky is an example storytelling ... the very basis of the human future are the ideas of idealism, but idealism is both light and dark ... we see this in the current campaign both for and against Donald Trump.  This is an intro that is based on plagiarizing the prologue to the Dune videos, narrated by Princess Irulan.  Remember if art isn't worth stealing, it isn't worth watching"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLaR_MrVNPM

The world of humans is made up of fictions, but some market better than others ...

Shiranu wrote

QuoteI agree that there are legitimate problems within the Muslim community, both in the Western world and in the Middle East, that clash with Western ideals and norms, as well as basic human rights, that need to be addressed

Except if someone dares to "address" it, you jump on them and tell them that they are bigoted racist hate mongers, and should not be such lying islamophobes.

Tell us how to address the problems without hurting yout feelings.

To hell with your feelings when the future of western civilisation is in danger.

Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2017, 05:21:41 AM
Shiranu wroteExcept if someone dares to "address" it, you jump on them and tell them that they are bigoted racist hate mongers, and should not be such lying islamophobes.

QED.

Once again, I offer you a win-win solution that you will turn down; stop being a liar, and stop ignoring when everyone calls you on it, and I will take seriously the actual issues you bring up. Because hidden under the layer of horse shit and lies you post, there are actual things that do need to be addressed, but I don't feel like digging through ten pounds of shit to get to it.

But of course, you will respond like you always do; keep your broken record looping while people post actual responses, and just talk in little sound bites that don't actually address what is being said to you.

To answer your question....

Quote“Oh you who be believe!  Do not take the Jews and the Christians as protecting allies!  Each of them are protecting allies within their own.  And the one amongst you who turns to them as protecting allies, then he is one of them.  And truly, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.”  [al-Quran, 5:51]

No, I do not particularly see anything bigoted or intolerant there. That seems like common sense in 600-something A.D. for a group that was being persecuted by the pagans to say.

No, it is not 600 something. The Quran is for all mankind, for all times.
Muslims are still following the same book. The immutable, unalterable ords of Allah.

Ask any muslim if the Quran is no longer valid. They can cherry pick. They can ignore any of it.

See quran 33:36
It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.

QED.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2017, 06:01:43 AM
QED.

When you are "learning" about Islam from a Muslim, always keep in mind that there is deception at work.

taqiyya  (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx)

Only gullible fools asking Muslims about Islam. Go to the Muslim texts to learn.
There are the tafsirs to explain them in detail.

Quote from: Baruch on June 26, 2017, 12:52:08 PM
How about a alt-facts subforum? "From DNC sphincter" for a title?  Only fair if we also have the "From RNC sphincter" also ;-)

I appreciate you going out of the way to avoid your usual selection bias.

Shiranu wrote:

QuoteOnce again, I offer you a win-win solution that you will turn down; stop being a liar, and stop ignoring when everyone calls you on it, and I will take seriously the actual issues you bring up. Because hidden under the layer of horse shit and lies you post, there are actual things that do need to be addressed, but I don't feel like digging through ten pounds of shit to get to it.

Thank you for your kind offer. I didn't turn it down. Simply ignored it.

Not everyone is "calling " me out on it. See the posts on this thread.
It is ALWAYS you and some fellow apologists. Gotta howl with the pack.

You don't feel like digging through 10 pounds of shit? Who is asking you to do it?
Nobody cares.

QuoteBut of course, you will respond like you always do; keep your broken record looping while people post actual responses, and just talk in little sound bites that don't actually address what is being said to you.

Ad hominem?

You took up the duty to be the resident Muslim apologist.
Try not to be so obvious. You wouldn't  do it for any other religion. Why this one?
Have you secretly joined the dark side?

Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2017, 02:56:00 AM


I've said this several times, and I'll say it again... I agree that there are legitimate problems within the Muslim community, both in the Western world and in the Middle East, that clash with Western ideals and norms, as well as basic human rights, that need to be addressed.. But what your side is offering is not a solution, it is muddying the waters with misinformation, lies and fear that make both sides incapable of cooperating. And in instances where they don't want to integrate not into our culture (which is such a ridiculous concept), but into one that has respect for basic human rights and the law, then by all means deport them. But the fundamental problem is that, again, your side is outright lying about what is happening and sparking up fear that all Muslims are potential terrorists, potential rapists, potential criminals and, as someone who's people went through that less than 100 years ago, I have zero tolerance and zero respect for that position.

The problem is hun, your not exactly presenting any solutions yourself, despite agreeing there is a problem. Instead you seem to just call our opinions all wrong and our sources as all Lies, that's quite an easy thing to do when not presenting any decent counter suggestions or solutions

Quote from: Munch on June 27, 2017, 09:18:06 AM
The problem is hun, your not exactly presenting any solutions yourself, despite agreeing there is a problem. Instead you seem to just call our opinions all wrong and our sources as all Lies, that's quite an easy thing to do when not presenting any decent counter suggestions or solutions

Already addressed. When you start approaching with factual stories, then we can have a conversation. I am trying to think of a good analogy, but it's a bit too early for that. It's like... a flat earther posting articles "proving" the earth is flat that also contains information about how the ecology is being damaged by global warming which elaborated by the flatness of the globe. There is certainly something factual in the post, but no one is going to talk about it because the key point of the article is simply false.

Quote... our sources as all Lies...

When you quote Brietbart articles, then yes, it's hard not to call them lies. It's like yall expect a different standard because you are atheists then we would hold literally any other group to.


The irony in pr's post above is that he is saying I wouldn't hold defending any other faith to the same standard (which I have, so that is yet another pile of b.s.) because I am hold him to the same standard I would hold anyone else here. If you are posting outright lies and hatred, you deserve to be called on it, pure and simple. The reason it's predominately Islam that I do that with is because that is what people predominately post misinformation about here.


Look, if someone wants to post an article about how Christians are, as a group, predominately child rapists (or child rapist supporters) [which incidentally, is how the RCC was portrayed for awhile which I opposed], then I will start attacking them with the same amount of effort. But you cant continually lie about one subject and then say, "Omg! How come you only call this subject out! FAVORITISM! APOLOGIST!". That's not me showing favoritism, that's literally only one subject being discussed. Should I start defending Christianity in threads that have nothing to do with Christianity nor any attacks on them? Judaism? Hinduism?

But no, all that will be responded with is patriotism and a broken record. So yall can either ignore me if you hate it so much, or put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Moderate' Muslims show their true colors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydcDbLktclQ

Don't bother, to Shiranu this is all the fake news of neo-Nazis and American Southern red-necks.

As I have agreed with Shiranu in the past, if your rhetoric was ... everyone is an individual, there are no sub-groups (stereotypes) or society (as per Thatcher) ... that we have to be non-ideological ... which is to say unbiased as having no opinion or preference at all like babes in the woods while bears are shitting all around us ... then he might receive your message better.  Unfortunately it wasn't possible in WW II, to just bomb Hitler and Himmler etc with pin point precision, so we could pretend that the German people who supported them, empowered them to be more than psychopaths in a padded cell, are innocent.

Quote from: SGOS on June 27, 2017, 08:30:13 AM
I appreciate you going out of the way to avoid your usual selection bias.

Someone here says ... I am the most unbiased here.  By selection bias do you mean .. that I don't accept D-party BS?  Have I have accepted R-party BS?  I am Independent.  But if I don't accept the D-party echo chamber, I am not of the R-party or vice versa.

Which basically sums up a matter of fact, even though moderate Muslims don't commit the same acts as extremist ones, they still believe the same things extremists do

Shiranu wrote that I am posting hatred. Really?

The Quran, hadiths, and sira contains more hatred, calls for war, racism that any of us here could muster.

Shiranu ignores all of it.

Also he ignores the 31 thousand documented jihad terror attacks world wide by Muslims since 9/11 which is a 16 year span. Not to mention the 270 million victims of Islam since 622 AD.

Whole civilisations eradicated by Islam. Millions enslaved by Islam. The list goes on.
None of this matters?





   

Quote from: Munch on June 27, 2017, 10:04:39 AM
Which basically sums up a matter of fact, even though moderate Muslims don't commit the same acts as extremist ones, they still believe the same things extremists do

They are not extremist. They are devout. Followers of Muhammad, and his Quran.
It is what Islam demands of them.

Quote from: Baruch on June 27, 2017, 09:51:53 AM
Someone here says ... I am the most unbiased here.  By selection bias do you mean .. that I don't accept D-party BS?  Have I have accepted R-party BS?  I am Independent.  But if I don't accept the D-party echo chamber, I am not of the R-party or vice versa.

That seems to be the sum of certain people political ideology here, the familiar message of "if your not with us your against us"

Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2017, 10:07:20 AM
They are not extremist. They are devout. Followers of Muhammad, and his Quran.
It is what Islam demands of them.

True, true, as someone said in the comments being that indoctrinated into a cause means they will be hunted down and maybe even killed unless they agree with said cults rules.

Quote from: Munch on June 27, 2017, 10:10:23 AM
True, true, as someone said in the comments being that indoctrinated into a cause means they will be hunted down and maybe even killed unless they agree with said cults rules.

The media and politicians calling it "radicalisation". Which is an euphemism for teaching the Quran.

Because no one must mention that Islam is the cause.
That would be islamophobic.

I find it curious that no one, I mean NO ONE will say that Islam is the root cause.  It is like a mental block.

Let's admit it. We are all scared of Islam. Politicians, the governments. Muslims know this.

But according to Shiranu, I am a coward and a liar.
So are all politicians, and the leaders of the "free" world, who haven't got the courage to name Islam for what it is.

Actually, There are a couple but they are on a hit list for extermination.
Wilders, Le Pen. They need permanent body guards.
Also on the list are the ex Muslims, who are shunned and marginalised.

Anyone who tells the truth about Islam is a marked person on a death list.

Truly, an ideology worth defending. Isn't it?

Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2017, 10:05:21 AM
Shiranu wrote that I am posting hatred. Really?

It's not binary, Herr Streicher. You post hatred, that's not even a question. Whether other people post hatred is a separate topic.

Reading matter for the terminally ignorant:

Is the Quran Hate Propaganda? (https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/quran-hate.aspx)

QuoteConsider the elements that define hate speech:

Drawing a distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it
Moral comparison based on this distinction
Devaluation or dehumanization of other groups and the personal superiority of one's own
The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership
A call to violence against members of other groups

Sadly, and despite the best intentions of many decent people who are Muslim, the Quran qualifies as hate speech on each count.

The holiest book of Islam (61% of which is about non-Muslims) draws the sharpest of distinctions between Muslims (the best of people, 3:110) and non-believers (the worst of creatures, 98:6).  Praise is lavished on the former while the latter is condemned with scorching generalization.

Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2017, 12:05:41 PM
Reading matter for the terminally ignorant: pr126 especially.

Why do I feel if we replace the word quran with the word bible this would be a more one sided discussion?

Quote from: Munch on June 27, 2017, 02:09:14 PM
Why do I feel if we replace the word quran with the word bible this would be a more one sided discussion?

Christians are part of the West, and the West must be destroyed.  Therefore the Christians must be destroyed ... so no point in supporting them.  Communists and Islamists are the two true religions ... save us all from Capitalism.

Quote from: pr126 on June 27, 2017, 10:05:21 AM
Shiranu wrote that I am posting hatred. Really?

The Quran, hadiths, and sira contains more hatred, calls for war, racism that any of us here could muster.

Shiranu ignores all of it.

Also he ignores the 31 thousand documented jihad terror attacks world wide by Muslims since 9/11 which is a 16 year span. Not to mention the 270 million victims of Islam since 622 AD.

Whole civilisations eradicated by Islam. Millions enslaved by Islam. The list goes on.
None of this matters?

Yes, as long as there is one good German who hid a Jew or a Gypsy, then the German people are innocent ;-)

Quote from: Munch on June 27, 2017, 10:10:23 AM
True, true, as someone said in the comments being that indoctrinated into a cause means they will be hunted down and maybe even killed unless they agree with said cults rules.

Nazis are particularly hard on Nazis who betray Hitler.

Quote from: Baruch on June 27, 2017, 09:50:11 AM
Don't bother, to Shiranu this is all the fake news of neo-Nazis and American Southern red-necks.

As I have agreed with Shiranu in the past, if your rhetoric was ... everyone is an individual, there are no sub-groups (stereotypes) or society (as per Thatcher) ... that we have to be non-ideological ... which is to say unbiased as having no opinion or preference at all like babes in the woods while bears are shitting all around us ... then he might receive your message better.  Unfortunately it wasn't possible in WW II, to just bomb Hitler and Himmler etc with pin point precision, so we could pretend that the German people who supported them, empowered them to be more than psychopaths in a padded cell, are innocent.

It isn't just Cultural Marxism, but Post-Modernism ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTxmKc80wUw

Baruch, you just quoted yourself there ^^

Quote from: Munch on June 27, 2017, 04:38:28 PM
Baruch, you just quoted yourself there ^^

Just trying to keep stuff together that goes together ... here is some more ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCfIuFmULkg

He explains in the early part, how AI is basically been derailed by post-modernist magical thinking ... something I didn't realize, though I have been criticizing AI for years.

Quote from: Munch on June 27, 2017, 02:09:14 PM
Why do I feel if we replace the word quran with the word bible this would be a more one sided discussion?

If y'all want to start posting similar things about Christianity and the violence it both commits and has committed with the same fear mongering and misinformation, I cannot speak for anyone else but I'll do my best to keep it at least one person short of one sided.

"Let's admit it. We are all scared of Islam. "

"But according to Shiranu, I am a coward and a liar. "

Thanks for taking just one sentence to prove both my points. Saved me some trouble.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2017, 06:37:48 PM
If y'all want to start posting similar things about Christianity and the violence it both commits and has committed with the same fear mongering and misinformation, I cannot speak for anyone else but I'll do my best to keep it at least one person short of one sided.

OK, let's see.
Muslims have perpetrated 31 thousands terrorist attacks in the last 16 years in the name of Allah / Muhammad / Islam.

(http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg)

Please list the number of terrorist attacks Christians have perpetrated in the last 16 years in the name of Christianity / Jesus.

Over to you.

 

Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2017, 01:08:52 AM

QuoteIf y'all want to start posting similar things about Christianity and the violence it both commits and has committed with the same fear mongering and misinformation...

OK, let's see.
Muslims have perpetrated 31 thousands terrorist attacks in the last 16 years in the name of Allah / Muhammad / Islam.

(http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg)

Please list the number of terrorist attacks Christians have perpetrated in the last 16 years in the name of Christianity / Jesus.

Over to you.
 

(http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Nigga_e17af4_5899207.jpg)



Let's talk about your favorite colour...

Mine's 6, what is yours?

Well, the Nazis who did the Holocaust were 97% Christian, and 51% of those were confessing Catholics.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 28, 2017, 07:58:38 AM
Well, the Nazis who did the Holocaust were 97% Christian, and 51% of those were confessing Catholics.

Yes, so people lead on by religious beliefs will kill in the name of said religion.

Such as Islam.

Quote from: Munch on June 28, 2017, 04:37:47 PM
Yes, so people lead on by religious beliefs will kill in the name of said religion.

Such as Islam.

But only Germans are bad people, and that was only before 1946 ... you can trust them now!

Quote from: Baruch on June 28, 2017, 07:38:10 PM
But only Germans are bad people, and that was only before 1946 ... you can trust them now!

I sleep with a german man, I've tasted the finest Bratwurst, i'm already converted.

Quote from: Munch on June 28, 2017, 08:00:30 PM
I sleep with a german man, I've tasted the finest Bratwurst, i'm already converted.

You little weinerschnitzle you!

Quote from: Munch on June 28, 2017, 04:37:47 PM
Yes, so people lead on by religious beliefs will kill in the name of said religion.

Such as Islam.

Except just like Islam, blaming the holocaust as violence instituted primarily by Christianity would be stupid and historically inaccurate.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 29, 2017, 02:56:01 AM
Except just like Islam, blaming the holocaust as violence instituted primarily by Christianity would be stupid and historically inaccurate.

So what your saying is, people who come from the middle east can be dangerous and pose a threat regardless if they believe in Islam or not? Interesting

Quote from: Munch on June 29, 2017, 03:38:26 AM
So what your saying is, people who come from the middle east can be dangerous and pose a threat regardless if they believe in Islam or not? Interesting

I'm not sure why that is surprising, since it's what I have said for years. It's worded in perhaps a leading way, and I don't know if it loses it's general gist because of that, but at it's core it's correct.

Let's dig deeper, cultural backgrounds that form around an ideology can impact on people's outlook. Is Islam the root cause of things like terror attacks on Europe from middle easterners, or is rather a part of something larger?

The history of christianity and moslems goes far back.  Moslems attacked North Africa and genocided the christians there.  They went into Spain and ruled over christians.  They attacked Eastern christian Europe and took Constantinople.  All on their own.  Without specific cause other than expanding their theism by the sword.

Now, I'm not christian, but fair is fair. 

When the christians got damn tired of the moslem attacks, they fought back.  The Crusades the Moslems screech about were a reaction to the Moslem attacks in SW and E Europe.  The Crusaders were no saints for sure.  It was a centuries-long bloody battle of religious nutso thugs on both sides.

The Moslem butchery across Northern Africa and into Spain and Eastern Europe is a far too often ignored part of world history.  And, BTW, do you know WHO Vlad Drucul earned his bloody reputation fighting?  Invading Moslems.

I think both sides are crazy lunatics.  But the Moslems started it.  That matters to me.

Quote...Is Islam the root cause of things like terror attacks on Europe from middle easterners, or is rather a part of something larger?

It is, imo, a catalyst and a tool to instigate and motivate terrorism, but ultimately the reason terror attacks happen on Europe, particularly France and England, are rooted in general, imo, much more in historical-political issues rather than religious issues. It's easy to think of Colonialism as "the past", but there are still hundreds of millions of people alive who can remember a time when Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. were colonies of France and Britain, many, many more who lived through Democratically elected, secular rulers being overthrown in Iran by England and the U.S. to protect oil interests, who lived under totalitarian regimes backed by the West in Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and so on.

To narrow it down to one cause is simply impossible, but I think these things have a much more pertinent impact on why we see terrorists from these countries attacking England and France in particular, because these terrorists were raised by parents, grandparents who lived in a time when their countries were direct territories of those two. And as for attacks on Germany, the U.S., and the E.U. ... practically every terrorist has lived themselves in a world that was directly hurt by these powers.

England and France today have a joking relationship of animosity between the two due to their hundreds of years of war and conflicting interests, but within just the last 100 years that joking, friendly rivalry was much more serious. Go back 200 years, and it was outright hostile. These things take time to lose their edge in the collective memory of a people, and we are at most only a generation removed from colonial-era oppression. We simply cannot expect them to have forgiven and forgotten already. It really fucking sucks that the sins of our fathers effect the world today, but that is simply the way the world works. The best we can do is combat the radicals in what ways we can while restoring cordial relationships with the overwhelming majority who may have cultural animosity towards us but not violent animosity towards us, and building up trust and respect between the two so that in a hundred years from now, their children and grandchildren will view us as a positive outside force rather than a negative. Unfortunately, that isn't the direction our politicians have wanted to take us in.

Will it be an easy direction to travel? No. But nothing this important ever is, but ultimately the resistance will come from a hateful minority, and we cannot punish the majority who at the end of the day just want to live their lives and put food on their families' plate. That is exactly what the radicals want, and to give in to fear and belief that they are all potential enemies, or fundamentally different human beings than us, means we have lost that war.

Nowhere in the Qu'ran (and I meant to retort to pr's remark about me not knowing about it by posting a picture of the one I keep at work, full of highlights and underlines, but the locker room is current inaccessible) does it tell Muslims specifically to pack themselves with explosives and set them off in the middle of a crowd. Like any other religion, it contradicts itself; sometimes it says it's permissible to kill in certain situations, other times it's not. It all depends on how the Qu'ran is interpreted. Unfortunately, a very literal and very radical interpretation is popular in certain cliques of the Middle East, and it's these cliques that are the most powerful (again to mention history, thanks to the backing of Western powers [although the Saudi kingdom, one of the largest proponents of violence, was already powerful in itself before Britain and the U.S.'s backing]) and export their ideology across the Islamic world.


Despite these powerful groups, terrorism against civilians is extremely unpopular within the Middle East, and those numbers have steadily been declining over the last couple of years. Unfortunately, yet again, it's a hateful minority that makes life terrible for the overwhelming majority, and it's something we have to look at and understand for what it is rather than taking the knee jerk reaction of thinking it is the norm.

Finally, terrorism in itself is a means to a goal and not a goal itself, and it's a means often employed by groups of a certain socio-economic class, or a group of a certain power, rather than a religious mandate. Terrorism is predominately a tool used by groups that have no actual chance of winning a traditional war against a power, and thus resort to tactics that destroy the enemies moral while preserving their numbers to the greatest extent; we saw it in Central and South America from drug cartels, we see it in India and Pakistan between Hindus and Muslims (which if one knows about the partition one knows that the violence is completely political in nature [and, unfortunately, yet again a product of British Empire influence]), we saw it in the American Revolution, in the French Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, the Balkans... shit, an entire World War, with over 16 million killed and god knows how many injured and displaced was sparked by the terrorism of 5 Serbians and a Bosniak seeking independence for their country in the only way they could see possible with no way to actually fight the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

This post is getting too long, but unfortunately it is a subject that cannot, despite what pr might try, to sum up in two or three sentences. To say that 7 run on paragraphs are a disservice to how deep of issue this really is is an understatement; a 7 page research paper would be too short to really do justice to all the causes that go into play on why terrorism in the Middle East is an issue we deal with today. This is not to say Islam does not play a role, but in the grand scheme of things it is nowhere near the most pertinent reason as to why the world is as it is.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 29, 2017, 04:40:24 AM
The history of christianity and moslems goes far back.  Moslems attacked North Africa and genocided the christians there.  They went into Spain and ruled over christians.  They attacked Eastern christian Europe and took Constantinople.  All on their own.  Without specific cause other than expanding their theism by the sword.

Now, I'm not christian, but fair is fair. 

When the christians got damn tired of the moslem attacks, they fought back.  The Crusades the Moslems screech about were a reaction to the Moslem attacks in SW and E Europe.  The Crusaders were no saints for sure.  It was a centuries-long bloody battle of religious nutso thugs on both sides.

The Moslem butchery across Northern Africa and into Spain and Eastern Europe is a far too often ignored part of world history.  And, BTW, do you know WHO Vlad Drucul earned his bloody reputation fighting?  Invading Moslems.

I think both sides are crazy lunatics.  But the Moslems started it.  That matters to me.

I get your point, and even liked the post, but I feel like we could therefor then say some really...weird... things about a whole host of countries that were previously annexed or attacked by empires of the past. You could say the Middle Eastern assault on Europe was then just born of revenge against the Greeks and Romans, thus Europeans, who had invaded and occupied the region for hundreds upon hundreds of years; ergo, Christians and Europeans started it.

I also don't think the Reconquista is all that ignored in world history. I remember learning about it in at least 6th grade if not earlier, and it's been mentioned ever since. Eastern Europe though I think is probably ignored, but I think that can be said about Eastern Europe in general rather than just that period (long term effect of Communism v. Capitalism maybe?).

I liked both of your previous posts on the subject.  It is a pleasure to reply to someone who thinks.

But it is a sort of curse to be both a political and world history major and minor.  I can't escape the overview.  And not being a member of any particular religious group, my world view is even farther outside of my particulars.

The Middle Eastern peoples were not divided artificially by Europeans at the time of the Moslem conquests.  And I doubt the Moslems had much concern or even knowledge over the ancient Alexandrian conquests through Persia to India. 

The Moslem conquest across Northern African Christian settlements there was not because the Greeks came through centuries before.  It was for Allah and conversion.  North African Christians who refused to convert was killed.  And there WERE bloody fights about it.  The North African Christians didn't just say "Oh sure, Allah, fine with us".  They died on fanatic Moslem swords.  As did the Christians in Spain and Eastern Europe. 

If the European Christians hadn't also been fighting the marauding Vikings, they might have put up a better struggle.  Indeed, it was the Moslem invasions at both ends of Europe and the Viking attacks that forced the Europeans to shift from minor Dukedoms to full nations.

You are on weak ground claiming the Moslems were angry at European Christians for the Alexandrian historical attacks (Alexander was not Greek, BTW).  The Greeks were more Asian than European anyway, Alexander was no different from the Persians, Babylonians, etc.  Just another conqueror marching through. 

The Romans never reached the true Middle East.  Israel was about as far as they got and their influence there never affected anyone Arabic.  And they were several centuries removed.

You need a better historical perspective.  The Moslems started the fight with they crazy Christians at swordpoint, and they screamed bloody murder when the invasions were turned against them.

I don't think much of either side, but I do care who starts fights and then complains about it feeling all aggrieved.

I won't necessarily respond to most of the above because I agree with most of it, the Roman/Greek remark was more a statement of you could take the argument there that they would see Europeans as an "other" who needed to be fought rather than a statement that I actually believe. My fault for not clarifying that.

QuoteYou need a better historical perspective.  The Moslems started the fight with they crazy Christians at swordpoint, and they screamed bloody murder when the invasions were turned against them.

I think the thing here is that can be said of many religions and cultures in general though; Christianity vs Pagans for awhile, Christianity vs Islam afterwards, Ashoka's Buddhism before his conversion to Jainism, various Animist groups in Africa... it always goes one of two ways; you either start the fight and complain when you don't get an absolute victory, or get an absolute victory. That, or you yourself convert to the religion or culture of the invaded (Mongols becoming Chinese, barbarians becoming Roman, etc.). Unless you completely wipe out your enemy, the aggressor always complains that it is the victim who is ruining things in one way or another, and vice versa the victim will complain (and then later become the aggressor).

QuoteI don't think much of either side, but I do care who starts fights and then complains about it feeling all aggrieved.

I get where you are coming from there, and again actually agree with it to an extent, but I think the problem lies in that both sides do the exact same thing. Muslims may have started the original fight, but I think the "war" between Christianity and Islam today arguably has little to do with the original conflicts and more to do with post-Colonial grievances, in which case they would be right in stating the Christians started it. There have been hundreds of years of relative peace (or at least ignoring each other) between the two since the Reconquista, and I think those conflicts need to be seen as completely separate events. The average, or even non-average, Arab has for all intents and purposes zero ties to the Iberian Muslim, and the modern American or British Christian who cries that Muslims started it (as an excuse for why they hate Islam and not from a strictly historical standpoint) has as well zero practical ties to the Eastern Europeans and Spaniards/Portuguese who fought the Muslims. Arguably less, given England's departure from Catholicism and America's mixed Protestant/Anglican heritage.

Of course I bring a bias into it, since I am a mutt of both sides; I have strong Catholic Italian and Greek heritage, but also Levant heritage, so I have cultural reasons to see both sides as having validity..

Quote from: Shiranu on June 29, 2017, 06:13:14 AM
I get where you are coming from there, and again actually agree with it to an extent, but I think the problem lies in that both sides do the exact same thing. Muslims may have started the original fight, but I think the "war" between Christianity and Islam today arguably has little to do with the original conflicts and more to do with post-Colonial grievances, in which case they would be right in stating the Christians started it. There have been hundreds of years of relative peace (or at least ignoring each other) between the two since the Reconquista, and I think those conflicts need to be seen as completely separate events. The average, or even non-average, Arab has for all intents and purposes zero ties to the Iberian Muslim, and the modern American or British Christian who cries that Muslims started it (as an excuse for why they hate Islam and not from a strictly historical standpoint) has as well zero practical ties to the Eastern Europeans and Spaniards/Portuguese who fought the Muslims. Arguably less, given England's departure from Catholicism and America's mixed Protestant/Anglican heritage.

Of course I bring a bias into it, since I am a mutt of both sides; I have strong Catholic Italian and Greek heritage, but also Levant heritage, so I have cultural reasons to see both sides as having validity..

Yet, didn't you start by blaming Christians for the fight?  I personally don't have a side here.  I can watch world history unfold with a sort of studied disinterest not particularly on anyone's side.  Religion?  Stupid.  Racism?  Stupid.  Ethnicity?  Stupid.

Was the division of the Middle East after WWI stupid?  Sure.  Was taking Middle East land to create Israel stupid?  Sure.  Most international political decisions are stupid.  They just deal with the messes of the day and let the future deal with it. 

But one that really gets in my craw is Muslims screaming at Europeans as "Crusaders".  Objectively and logically, that really sucks.  When that argument is dropped the future end of anger has a better chance to end there.

QuoteYet, didn't you start by blaming Christians for the fight?

For the current fight, yes. Though I use Christian in a more generic, "European" term and their political actions than a religious group (and same for when I use Muslim). Though let's be honest... European colonialism was done under the guise of Christianity very often, even if it was, much like the modern issue, a tool of propaganda for the real reasons rather than the reason for colonialism itself.


To properly clarify, I don't think there is any relevant "start" to something that has gone on for so long and has had such long periods of peace in between. Only if you are viewing it in a historical context can you really have any reason to bring up who started it.

QuoteBut one that really gets in my craw is Muslims screaming at Europeans as "Crusaders".  Objectively and logically, that really sucks.  When that argument is dropped the future end of anger has a better chance to end there.

I completely agree with that, which is why pr annoys me because he is the European equivalent. Both are using events they have zero historical or cultural tie (only Imperial ties to) to to justify their bigotry.


Unrelated note, but hurrah to English for to to to making grammatical sense.

Quote from: Munch on June 29, 2017, 04:12:05 AM
Let's dig deeper, cultural backgrounds that form around an ideology can impact on people's outlook. Is Islam the root cause of things like terror attacks on Europe from middle easterners, or is rather a part of something larger?

Muslim psychology is part of human psychology (unless you think Muslims are undermenschen.  Tom Holland, a British historian who did a recent great book on the birth of Islam (and the other related cultures at that time ... Persia, Byzantium) has made this very clear in a 2014 colloquium to the British Humanist Association.  Islam is fundamentally different, but still human.  The Quran is fundamentally different ... and how Muslims choose to interpret it ... is fundamentally different.  But what can anyone do about that?  European Communism was fundamentally different from what came before (though based on the French Revolution) and look what a mess that created, and is still creating thru socialism.

But don't ascribe anything to a single cause.  A mess is a mess ... and simple answers are bad answers.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 29, 2017, 02:56:01 AM
Except just like Islam, blaming the holocaust as violence instituted primarily by Christianity would be stupid and historically inaccurate.

Christianity was a co-conspirator ... if you mean HaShoah ... but there were other factors involved.  We aren't living in the Middle Ages anymore.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 29, 2017, 06:33:17 AM
For the current fight, yes. Though I use Christian in a more generic, "European" term and their political actions than a religious group (and same for when I use Muslim). Though let's be honest... European colonialism was done under the guise of Christianity very often, even if it was, much like the modern issue, a tool of propaganda for the real reasons rather than the reason for colonialism itself.


To properly clarify, I don't think there is any relevant "start" to something that has gone on for so long and has had such long periods of peace in between. Only if you are viewing it in a historical context can you really have any reason to bring up who started it.

See, this is where we disagree.  You are trying to relate the actions of history of a religion that started around 600 AD with a Europe that was in a deep Dark Age at the same time and thinking that it was influencing Islam at the same time. 

And them comparing that to the 1900s after a World War that had the (totally improper) division of the (by then) completely disorganized Middle East.  It wasn't Christianity that chopped up the disorganized Middle East into "nations"; it was political empires in Europe that were (in reality) no more Christian than I am, just political professionals. 

The whole modern use of religion on both sides of this debacle is a side event to equally idiotic Realpolitics. 

"Drums keep beating a rhythm to the brain..."  The reptilian territorial brain, that is.  I don't hear that drum beat.  And you are still hearing an echo of it.  1900s Europeans saw the world as a game of Risk.  You ever played that?

Quote from: Cavebear on June 29, 2017, 05:52:37 AM
I liked both of your previous posts on the subject.  It is a pleasure to reply to someone who thinks.

But it is a sort of curse to be both a political and world history major and minor.  I can't escape the overview.  And not being a member of any particular religious group, my world view is even farther outside of my particulars.

The Middle Eastern peoples were not divided artificially by Europeans at the time of the Moslem conquests.  And I doubt the Moslems had much concern or even knowledge over the ancient Alexandrian conquests through Persia to India. 

The Moslem conquest across Northern African Christian settlements there was not because the Greeks came through centuries before.  It was for Allah and conversion.  North African Christians who refused to convert was killed.  And there WERE bloody fights about it.  The North African Christians didn't just say "Oh sure, Allah, fine with us".  They died on fanatic Moslem swords.  As did the Christians in Spain and Eastern Europe. 

If the European Christians hadn't also been fighting the marauding Vikings, they might have put up a better struggle.  Indeed, it was the Moslem invasions at both ends of Europe and the Viking attacks that forced the Europeans to shift from minor Dukedoms to full nations.

You are on weak ground claiming the Moslems were angry at European Christians for the Alexandrian historical attacks (Alexander was not Greek, BTW).  The Greeks were more Asian than European anyway, Alexander was no different from the Persians, Babylonians, etc.  Just another conqueror marching through. 

The Romans never reached the true Middle East.  Israel was about as far as they got and their influence there never affected anyone Arabic.  And they were several centuries removed.

You need a better historical perspective.  The Moslems started the fight with they crazy Christians at swordpoint, and they screamed bloody murder when the invasions were turned against them.

I don't think much of either side, but I do care who starts fights and then complains about it feeling all aggrieved.

Vendetta is the oldest form of social justice.  And it never ends.  And Muslim rhetoric at present is like Western rhetoric ... it is deceptive and political.  Don't believe anything anyone says.  Erdogan is clearest in their intention, to resume Turkish conquest of E Europe.

There are reasons why the high tide of Western invasion ebbed, and so did the high tide of Arabic/Berber/Turkish invasion ebbed.  Difference in language, when you rule an empire.  Having many languages, particularly if they aren't in the same language family, makes administration a nightmare.  This is why the Austro-Hungarian Empire lasted for less than a century.  The languages in N Africa (Berber mostly) and in the N East (Aramaic and Aramaic mostly) were hard to deal with by Greek and Latin speaking people.  The people's involved were fundamentally different.  Similarly with the expansion first of Arabs, then Berbers, then Turks.  Turks have only been able to hold Turkey, because of all the ethnic cleansing and genocide they have done ... it was Greek and pre-Greek Anatolian when they got there.  E Europe and Spain of course have European-family languages that are different from Arabic and Berber.  But the Arabs were able to hold N Africa, precisely because Arabic and Berber are related ... but neither could hold Spain.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 29, 2017, 06:27:40 AM
Yet, didn't you start by blaming Christians for the fight?  I personally don't have a side here.  I can watch world history unfold with a sort of studied disinterest not particularly on anyone's side.  Religion?  Stupid.  Racism?  Stupid.  Ethnicity?  Stupid.

Was the division of the Middle East after WWI stupid?  Sure.  Was taking Middle East land to create Israel stupid?  Sure.  Most international political decisions are stupid.  They just deal with the messes of the day and let the future deal with it. 

But one that really gets in my craw is Muslims screaming at Europeans as "Crusaders".  Objectively and logically, that really sucks.  When that argument is dropped the future end of anger has a better chance to end there.

Muslims engage in stupid rhetoric too.  So don't let it bother you.  But also they have a much longer view of history than a baby American.  They really do butt hurt over stuff from 900 years ago.  And that is stupid too.

Baruch wrote

QuoteThey really do butt hurt over stuff from 900 years ago.  And that is stupid too.

1. It confirms their victim status. 2. Enforces the guilt complex for the Europeans.

History lessons keep quiet about that the crusaders were a response to a 400 year Muslim conquest, plunder and slave taking.

History also doesn’t mention the 14 century long Muslim conquests, massacres (270 million), eradicating civilisations, enslaving hundreds of millions.

And Islam haven’t finished yet. There is still more to take.

QuoteHistory lessons keep quiet about that the crusaders were a response to a 400 year Muslim conquest, plunder and slave taking.

My god, you really do try to manage compressing innumerable factors into one sentence so well, and to do their accuracy so poorly.

Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2017, 12:48:34 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4

Quote from: Shiranu on June 29, 2017, 02:56:01 AM
Except just like Islam, blaming the holocaust as violence instituted primarily by Christianity would be stupid and historically inaccurate.

The point is that Christians claim atheists do terrible things without acknowledging that Christians do so as well.

Quote from: pr126 on June 29, 2017, 08:24:07 AM
Baruch wrote1. It confirms their victim status. 2. Enforces the guilt complex for the Europeans.

History lessons keep quiet about that the crusaders were a response to a 400 year Muslim conquest, plunder and slave taking.

History also doesn’t mention the 14 century long Muslim conquests, massacres (270 million), eradicating civilisations, enslaving hundreds of millions.

And Islam haven’t finished yet. There is still more to take.

Indeed, Muslim by-the-sword conquests and massacres are not something the Muslims are prepared to understand yet.  It will take time for this newish religion to calm down.  But it is equally true that Christianity has had equally brutal times as it matured.

One great example is the Christian mob that attacked and flayed Hypatia in 415 AD, the Head of the Library of Alexandria and then destroyed the greatest collection of human knowledge of the time.  Hypatia was killed alive, and the head of the mob, Cyril, was made a Saint.

And without having to explain much, the Christians did the Inquisition.  Enough said about that? 

No religion fails to attack the adherents of the other religions.  We won't be free of that insanity until they all die out as flat-earthers have.  One day, religion will be considered as primitive and idiotic.  That day is not today, but it will come.

Cavebear wrote:

QuoteHypatia was killed alive

Indeed.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 29, 2017, 10:41:48 AM
One day, religion will be considered as primitive and idiotic.  That day is not today, but it will come.

I can see Christianity and Islam someday being considered as primitive and idiotic, but replaced by some New Age mumbo jumbo.

Quote from: SGOS on June 29, 2017, 03:36:05 PM
I can see Christianity and Islam someday being considered as primitive and idiotic, but replaced by some New Age mumbo jumbo.

I always think of the mutants worshipping the Omega bomb.

I wrote "Hypatia was killed alive" in an earlier post.  Well yes, it would be hard to be killed otherwise. 

My apologies, and a very big LOL at me...  Editing a post sometimes creates some odd sentences.  I think I went from "killed" to  "flayed alive" and contracted the thought. 

Quote from: Cavebear on July 03, 2017, 08:29:00 AM
I wrote "Hypatia was killed alive" in an earlier post.  Well yes, it would be hard to be killed otherwise. 

My apologies, and a very big LOL at me...  Editing a post sometimes creates some odd sentences.  I think I went from "killed" to  "flayed alive" and contracted the thought. 

That reminded me of that tabloid headline: "Diana was alive at least an hour before she died."

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 03, 2017, 08:51:04 AM
That reminded me of that tabloid headline: "Diana was alive at least an hour before she died."

Yes, and probably even minutes or seconds...  Or all her life depending on which direction of time you are looking.  And before anyone gets their hair all fuzzed up, it is the headline, not the event, that is humorous.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 03, 2017, 08:29:00 AM
Editing a post sometimes creates some odd sentences.

Yeah, I've done that a lot.