Atheistforums.com

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/07/18/half-of-worlds-muslims-are-inbred-due-to-generations-of-incest/

QuoteHere’s an explanation for Islamic terrorism that’s never proffered:

Insanity and Stupidity

A never-spoken-about problem with Muslims is their inbreeding as a result of their long and deeply-ingrained practice of marrying first cousins â€" a practice that has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses.

More than 7 years ago, the UK’s environment minister Phil Woolas had sounded the alarm about this “very sensitive” issue that is “rarely debated”. Referring to the culture of arranged marriages between cousins in the Muslim immigrant community, Woolas said: “If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there’ll be a genetic problem.”

Woolas, whose views are supported by medical experts, said most cases occur in immigrant families from rural Pakistan, where up to half of all marriages involve first cousins. Woolas said: “If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the . . . Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it’s caused by first cousin marriage.”

The problem is made worse by generational inbreeding. As Woolas put it, “Many of the parents themselves and many of the public spokespeople are themselves products of first cousin marriages.” That would explain why research for BBC2’s Newsnight in November 2005 showed that British Pakistanis accounted for 3.4% of all births but 30% of all British children with recessive genetic disorders.

Indeed, an entry in Wikipedia confirms that “Cousin marriages in Muslim majority countries are often preferred and even encouraged in some regions,” and points to the fact that prophet Muhammad himself had married cousins.

But the problem isn’t exclusive to Pakistani Muslims as Woolas seems to imply, but is pandemic among Muslims across the world.

According to Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who has done extensive research into Muslim inbreeding, close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred:

70% of Pakistanis are inbred.
67% of Saudi Arabians are inbred.
64% of those living in Jordan and Kuwait are inbred.
63% of Sudanese are inbred.
60% of Iraqis are inbred.
54% of Muslims in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are inbred.
25-30% of those in Turkey are inbred.
In England, at least 55% of Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins.
In Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%.
Sennels points out that cousin marriage was sanctioned by Muhammad and has been going on now for 50 generations (1,400 years) in the Muslim world. This practice of inbreeding will never go away in the Muslim world since Muhammad is the ultimate example and authority on all matters, including marriage.

Sennels warns that massive inbreeding in Muslim culture may well have done virtually irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool, including extensive damage to Muslims’ intelligence, sanity, and health. (Similar effects were seen in the Pharaonic dynasties in ancient Egypt and in the British royal family, where inbreeding was the norm for a significant period of time.)

Below are the consequences of inbreeding:

1. Birth and birth defects:

100% increase in the risk of stillbirths.
50% increase in the risk that the child dies during labor.
The risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy is 18 times higher.
The risk of death due to malformations is 10 times higher.
2. Physical and mental retardation and illnesses:

The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of mental and physical retardation and schizophrenic illness.
The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of schizophrenic illness, i.e., insanity.
Social abilities develop much slower in inbred babies. An academic paper published in the Indian National Science Academy found that “the onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies.”
Research shows that if one’s parents are cousins, intelligence goes down 10-16 IQ points. The risk of having an IQ lower than 70, the official demarcation for being classified as “retarded,” increases by 400% among children of cousin marriages.
All of which would explain the following phenomena among Muslims (Source: Nicolai Sennels):

1 out of every 3 Somalis are mentally ill.
More than 40% of the patients in Denmark‘s biggest ward for clinically insane criminals have an immigrant (i.e., Muslim) background.
One-third of all handicapped people in Copenhagen have a “foreign” (i.e., Muslim) background.
In Denmark, psychologist Sennels’ native country, “non-Western” immigrants (who are mainly Muslim) are more than 300% more likely to fail the intelligence test required for entrance into the Danish army.
In Denmark, Muslim children are grossly overrepresented among children with special needs. One-third of the budget for Danish schools is consumed by special education.
64% of school children with Arabic parents in Denmark are still illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system. The immigrant drop-out rate in Danish high schools is twice that of the native-born.
The U.S. is not immune. According to Sennels, “One study based on 300,000 Americans shows that the majority of Muslims in the USA have a lower income, are less educated, and have worse jobs than the population as a whole.”
Muslims’ average lower IQ means a lowered ability to enjoy and produce knowledge and abstract thinking, which would explain why:

The Arab world translates just 330 books every year, about 20% of what Greece alone does. In the last 1,200 years years of Islam, just 100,000 books have been translated into Arabic, about what Spain does in a single year.
7 out of 10 Turks have never even read a book.
Only 9 Muslims had ever won the Nobel Prize, and 5 of those 9 were for the “Peace Prize.”
According to Nature magazine, Muslim countries produce just 10% of the world average when it comes to scientific research (measured by articles per million inhabitants).
Sennels concludes:

The troubling reality being referred to is the widespread practice of Muslim inbreeding and the birth defects and social ills that it spawns.

The tragic effect of the Left’s control of the boundaries of debate is that any discussion about vital issues such as these marks an individual as an “Islamophobe” and a “racist.”

A person who dares to point at the pathology of inbreeding in the Muslim community is accused of whipping up hatred against Muslim people.

But all of this could not be further from the truth. To fight against inbreeding anywhere is to defend humanity and to defend innocent babies from birth defects….

Let us keep in mind that Muslims are the first â€" though maybe not the biggest â€" victims of Islam….

In fact, it is the Left’s callous silence on this issue (and on so many others) that exposes who is truly “anti-Muslim.”

Yeah we can all feel better about things now. Islam isn't just anti the west, it is also populated with mentally unstable people with low IQs. I know I feel better.

It certainly fucks up my opinion  that education can lessen the effects of radical religion. When the IQ cannot climb a ladder high enough to reach stupid, no amount of education is going to help.

Quote from: aitm on December 26, 2015, 09:07:10 PM
It certainly fucks up my opinion  that education can lessen the effects of radical religion. When the IQ cannot climb a ladder high enough to reach stupid, no amount of education is going to help.

Exactly. And over time without radical change it will get worse.

Walking into a micro-aggression zone ;-)  Also I am doubting these stats ... Bell Curve?  How systematic over how large a population was this research?

Based on the definition of average, half of the adult population shouldn't be citizens, in any culture.

Also IQ is a disputed measurement.  Most Americans wouldn't pass the IQ test of 1916.  What about EQ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

By in-bred are we talking mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome etc?  Certainly since 90% of all crimes are by males the cause must be the Y-chromosome ;-)

Dictatorship by MENSA would exclude most politicians, and all present R Presidential candidates (including Carson, who would appear to be an idiot savant).

While I am skeptical about some of the numbers it also doesn't overly surprise me that inbreeding is common. That said there are some statistics and statements in here that just blatantly wrong that could have been left out to make the article seem more credible.

Quotea practice that has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses.

This one is just blatantly wrong. The books where incest are prohibited and described (Leviticus and Deuteronomy) do not prohibit having sexual relationships with your wife's daughter for example. Nor are your nieces or mother's brother's wife off limits. The majority of incest that is prohibited is prohibitions on who the wife can sleep with and not the man. It doesn't change the accuracy of the article but it does make it's credibility dip a little... which is a shame because this is the first line people are going to see and makes everything afterwards more likely to be questioned.

Quote70% of Pakistanis are inbred.
67% of Saudi Arabians are inbred.
64% of those living in Jordan and Kuwait are inbred.
63% of Sudanese are inbred.
60% of Iraqis are inbred.
54% of Muslims in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are inbred.
25-30% of those in Turkey are inbred.
In England, at least 55% of Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins.
In Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%.

8 pages in on google and I still haven't found a proper-news outlet that covers this issue; only sites that advertise as right-wing tabloid and "Islam is coming for us" doomsday pages. While I certainly feel the percentages are likely pretty high (especially in countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia)... I am a bit hesitant to take one professor's word as truth. Likely he is on the right track but over-exaggerated a fair bit.

QuoteSennels warns that massive inbreeding in Muslim culture may well have done virtually irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool, including extensive damage to Muslims’ intelligence, sanity, and health. (Similar effects were seen in the Pharaonic dynasties in ancient Egypt and in the British royal family, where inbreeding was the norm for a significant period of time.)

Biologically I highly doubt that... since inbreeding was far more common amongst Europeans and Americans than just the British royal family... or royal families in general... and we have turned out fine. Likewise it implies that Muslims are an ethnic group and not an ideological group... there is a (relatively) large genetic variance between a Somali Muslim and a Turkish Muslim... a Saudi and an Indonesian... a Palestinian and a Anglo convert.

I do not buy that the gene pool has been fubar-'d and this point strikes me as a bit underhanded.

Quote7 out of 10 Turks have never even read a book.

QuoteLiteracy rate, youth female (% of females ages 15-24) in Turkey was 98.41 as of 2012. Its highest value over the past 37 years was 98.41 in 2012, while its lowest value was 68.25 in 1975.

Those two seem to contradict each other.

QuoteThe Arab world translates just 330 books every year, about 20% of what Greece alone does. In the last 1,200 years years of Islam, just 100,000 books have been translated into Arabic, about what Spain does in a single year.

While this is (as far as I know without researching it myself) true... the civilized Arab world does publish a fair amount of books, particularly Egypt and Lebanon. And we have to consider the cultural differences in places like Iraq, Pakistan, large parts of Turkey, Africa and so on... that these are predominately pastoral and farming communities and not white collar countries. Any farming community is going to have low literacy and low publishing; if you look at rural states in the US or countries in Latin America that are still heavily reliant on small businesses and farming you will find similar numbers in literacy and publishing.

So this one while true is misleading.

QuoteIn fact, it is the Left’s callous silence on this issue (and on so many others) that exposes who is truly “anti-Muslim.”

This seems to be a new issue amongst both left and right, just recently brought out by the professor's statements, so I feel this is a bit of an underhanded attempt to politicize something that isn't an issue on either ideologies radar. And as a "leftist" I would say it's a quite interesting topic but one that needs more research rather than knee-jerk "AHA! This proves it!" responses. It's a problem endemic more to agrarian life rather than Muslim life... but I would say it is definitely exasperated by Islam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/8544359/Hay-Festival-2011-Professor-risks-political-storm-over-Muslim-inbreeding.html

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam

Quote from: stromboli on December 26, 2015, 09:59:56 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/8544359/Hay-Festival-2011-Professor-risks-political-storm-over-Muslim-inbreeding.html

A. That is a right- wing rag...

B. Only saying the same thing as above; that the professor has said these things and not the actual proof.

Also talks about how inbred Irish are compared to the English... doesn't seem to be a huge problem there though. Think the guy might have an Anglo- centric viewpoint, like the Brits who argue the Irish are less human and more Neanderthal than other humans?

Also in Arabic societies .. the idea that 1000 Arab families would give out this kind of personal information ... is implausible.  And I have every reason to believe in those families polygyndry and polyandry would be common (aka near incest).  One would have to do a paternity test on all the children.

In actual valid IQ studies vs inheritance ... inheritance between parents and children has been shown to happen ... but that doesn't mean that two smart parents produce smart children, or even one smart parent and one dump parent produce smart children.  Just that the rate is elevated.  The odds of being smart are around 5% ... the odds to two smart parents is around 0.25%.  So the odds of smart children, from inheritability, is already small to begin with.  If we consider inheritability of 50% per child ... then the odds of two smart parents producing two smart children is around 25% ... and such a family will represent about 0.06% of the population.  Basically swamped by the effects of a family with both parents having graduate degrees, producing two children who both complete graduate degrees.  Of course the odds of getting a graduate degree is dependent on many factors other than inheritance of genes.

There is no actual scientific evidence that there is any inheritability effect on the average IQ in one population vs the IQ in another population.  The idea of an average IQ of a population is specious anyway.  Inheritability only moves in direct biological families, and only partially.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 26, 2015, 10:12:25 PM
A. That is a right- wing rag...

B. Only saying the same thing as above; that the professor has said these things and not the actual proof.

Also talks about how inbred Irish are compared to the English... doesn't seem to be a huge problem there though. Think the guy might have an Anglo- centric viewpoint, like the Brits who argue the Irish are less human and more Neanderthal than other humans?

It is unfortunate that like with The Bell Curve ... one has to take into account the political backgrounds of the investigators and their sponsors.  There are other forms of pseudoscience than The Creation Museum.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam

QuoteIn Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations, and according to professor Anne-Marie Nybo Andersen from South Danish University, the current rate is 70%,[5] one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among non-consanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of pre-reproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.

A BBC report discussed Pakistanis in the United Kingdom, 55% of whom marry a first cousin. Given the high rate of such marriages, many children come from repeat generations of first-cousin marriages. The report states that these children are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability.[6]

The BBC also states that Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce "just under a third" of all British children with genetic illnesses. Published studies show that mean perinatal mortality in the Pakistani community of 15.7 per thousand significantly exceeds that in the indigenous population and all other ethnic groups in Britain. Congenital anomalies account for 41 percent of all British Pakistani infant deaths.[7][8][9][10]

Worldwide, it has been estimated that almost half of all Muslims are inbred:

QuoteA rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called "consanguinity") and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent.[11]

Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen.[12][13]

[/b]

Fair enough. Like I said I didn't doubt the numbers were high, nor does that invalidate the other points ( or validate his).

I would say that all Presidential elections in the US ... prove that all Americans are idiots since at least 1960.  Good thing the Chinese are going to deal with this problem.  Don't know if it is because of in-breeding ... maybe just ur-under-menschen.

The in-breeding aspect ... if that is bad ... means that all the monarchies need to be eliminated ... including GB.  But I am not sure in-breeding is bad.  Maybe we should castrate based on the tendency toward flatulence ... if we can develop a rigorous test for that.

QuoteA never-spoken-about problem with Muslims is their inbreeding as a result of their long and deeply-ingrained practice of marrying first cousins â€" a practice that has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses.

I don't necessarily agree with this, since royal families in particular are infamous, and to my knowledge it wasn't actually against the law in Europe until about 200 years ago.

Needless to say, wow. It shouldn't be legal to be married to your cousin anywhere as far as I'm concerned.

This is not okay at all, and we cannot afford to be quiet about this kind of thing out of concern for the sensitivities of others. At this point any refusal to recognize this problem because people like to twist this kind of thing into something bigoted is completely absurd. This is too fucked up.

Its taboo for extremely good reasons, the cost to human welfare is immeasurable.

Perhaps a contribution to the educational efforts of UNESCO would help.

The Koran clearly gives permission for both incest and marrying young girls. I believe Mohammed had an 8 or 9 year old wife. This is the same question I pose to Mormons about their racist or polygamous past-

QuoteIf in fact the doctrine and practices of your supposedly inspired leaders can clearly be shown to be wrong, damaging, unhealthy or outdated by later knowledge, how can you believe that leadership or following leadership exhibiting uninspired or wrong behavior can possibly be considered as from god? Either god is wrong (gasp!) or else it was stuff made up by humans claiming divine leadership and your god doesn't actually exist.

*First thing, the low IQ and terrorism.

Terrorism is an act of highly planned-organised violence; killing and harming people in highly vigilant and protected societies and any terrorist organisation needs capable, intelligent people to train and direct them in secret, maintain an organisation with all members and its needs:

-research, gaining information of any kind; careful planning, game theory in general
-extreme vigilance and resourcefullness in individual and group scale; harmony, team work
-financial support (highly likely they need to commit other big scale crimes like any kind of trafficking (from human to drugs, weapons, chemicals...etc. AGAIN, this only adds to the needed vigilance and attention to the work executed and planning)
-other ways of financial support also come from possible interaction with other world powers; states, allies; AGAIN skills of bargaining in big scale, being capable of seeing moves ahead, planning, political game theory
-technical, weaponry (which includes making bombs by themselves, communication and usage of technology)
-interacting with civilians, survival under cover and extreme pressure (this is very important, fundamentalists are not type of people who can live in the open. They take attention to themselves and they need to act in certain professional excruciating manners; requires many skills and high resourcefullness, disguise in every scale)


All these things -I am sure we can add more- require ABOVE AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE, not genetic stupidity. Illegal organisations of any kind, esp. a one that survived this long, needs to operate under extreme circumstances to commit mass murder in the open -that is the whole point- while every armed authority, power zone is hyper vigilant against them NEEDS to act very precisely, in  calculated, planned intelligent moves. No room for a mistake. So, if you are a low IQ member of the said community, you are highly likely to be left behind and infact not taken in to consideration, because you are a liability and a dangerous burden, doesn't matter how much willing you are. Suicide bombers do not need to be low IQ people as kamikaze fighters were not. Same idea. Blind loyalty is enough. Comes easily with human nature, without any extra element.

So as a conclusion, whatever the average IQ of the general muslim population of the world is, the stupid ones are needed to be left behind. 9/11 is not a job for morons, neither mass shootings and bombing in hyper vigilant society capitals with high technology survelliance and alarmed military protection.

If they mean, the low IQ as in the acceptance of the act of terrorism AS MASS MURDER, that is even more stupid, because that is equivelant to say something like "there is a universal morality and comes to good, clever people from god"... LOL 


**Secondly, the article jumps from the muslims living in Europe -which they can track and also makes sense as much as the idea goes, because they are a minority- to the exact genealogy of muslim population in certain countries in the Middle East, while those countries cannot keep track at its own population, let alone their genealogy.

Take Pakistan. Guys, Pakistan's population is 182 millions. It's not a village that people would need to look for their cousins first to get married asap. For a population of 182 million to be 70 % inbred by incest or first cousins, you need this to be a RULE, not some tradition allows you to do that. Muhammed is not as effective as you people think. Westerners do this mistake a lot. Get your head out of the social media muslim propaganda. It's not valid sample. Ther eis no standard to religions. Esp. one that its population is measured in billions.



***Thirdly, the article perfectly fails the obvious reasons and causes underlying the Islamic -or any kind of- terrorism. Islamic terrorism is not different than any other, it is consisted of organised groups of people who refuse to obey the authority of the other cultures that defined it as opposite and attached to the same Abrahamic tradition WHICH are defined as the world powers. They are NOT extra violent and murderous than other people. They are violently killing, because mass murder is the only thing that threatens order and that is the basic definition of terrorism.

Like IRA in England in the past or PKK today in Turkiye. There is no such thing is peaceful protest. Civilisation has always been like this. We just define the act according to our situation. There is a power and the side happy with that power, there is a side that it is NOt and it strikes back. They are organised and striking back. They are not different than the US and Allies' army invading here and there. They just don't/can't hide their atrocities.



**** Also another red flag (funny one) in the article is the statement of amount of books translated into Arabic. Only 12-13 % of the muslim population of the world is Arabic. What is the influence of the translated Western books into Arabic have an effect on general IQ of muslims ffs. It's the typical American aspect of  Muslims=Arabs=Terrorists. Actually this gives a very good information about the scope of the so called reseacrh and the frame of mind of the people who made the interpretion and put this together. Especially, considering a very big majority American audience of this media  has no idea who is arab who is persian or who is turkish and what language they speak.

About 7 out 10 Turks has not a read a book, (source, method?) that I would agree in general. But the question is which books? I am sure it will surprise you, but there is a written culture of its own in here good or bad. If they are being accused of not reading certain books of western tradition, may be westerners first should consider not impose their own culture down to another and accept the people of that culture 'failed and dumb' just because they do not want to adopt to their own.

And Nobel Prize winners? Give me a break. We are talking about a region that people cannot find a place to live without getting killed that is under some sort of turmoil in modern period forever, has gone through countless invasions and mess, BUT they have the least nobel prizes JUST because they are genetically stupid. PFFFT. My ass.

Nobel prize winning is not determined by the general IQ of a population. It's determined by a written culture, the long coming scientific tradition, resources...etc.

Let me remind you that Europe gave itself one to maintaining its economic integrity to an OK standard, to a black man for being elected as the president of the United States; winning a political game in the right time-right place and to a very bad Turkish writer for saying the lines "a million and a half Armenians were killed in Ottoman Empire." And failed to give a lot of people who actually deserved it since the begining of the 20th century. Start with Levitt and go on many other people who didn't fit the race, nation or gender bill to be considered. It's practically a more sophisticated Eurovision, with lack of bad music and better award options. Some time in the past may be it had some real value and I am sure Alfred Nobel didn't imagine this. Well, sad.


*****The funny thing is, this article reveals the problematic understanding of the IQ concept more than its so called aim of explainning an aspect of Islamic terrorism, the IQ industry as what it has become and the Western identity it was built on.

What is this objective (!) IQ test -beyond the ironic stupidity of trying to quantify intelligence- that Western people gets high scores, but Africans and Middle Easterners fail? None. The IQ tests are converted to other languages from western standards which are designed for westerners. And don't give me the bullshit of math is universal. We are not mathematicians, test do not measure that. The IQ test math questions require a certain knowledge and thinking we learn in schools -which has been based on western curriculum since the standardisation period after French Revolution- and the rest is based on the tradition of written culture which is developed, standardised and measured by the Western culture(s). The spatial thinking, perception of shapes and puzzles... what we gain as a kid with education at home or in nursery; same source; same process. And with this overgrown, distorted industry, the consciousness of scoring high in an IQ tests PLAYS more role in to the result than the actual capacity of the individual. And it has become a harmful industry long ago. It's first about social conditioning and identity. It's a fucking social class.



The article is a typical West jerking West off bullshit. There are countless reasons, causes for motivation for these people and hundreds of WHITE EUROPEAN BORN people (yeah a group usually skipped by our western friends) to join these terrorist groups to create violence and mass murder. Low IQ is the least of them, as well as the general psycopathy and mental illness. A literaly stupid person or a psychopath, or a mentally ill person is harmful, a liability to any terrorist organisation in our time of  high surveillance technology and resources states and governments have. Stupid is for the obvious reasons, psychopaths for being uncontrollable and also not being able adopt into a team work. Mentally ill is not reliable and highly the least adjustable people. Opposite of the profile of soldiers these groups need.

Terrorists are ordinary, healthy, possibly intelligent to highly intelligent people who want to fuck up with the city hall. Simple as this. They perfectly know what they are doing. Otherwise they wouldn't succeed, adapt and regroup and accomplish storm attacks. And the point of capitalist-political net the human civilisation arrived is a heaven for them to thrive and nurture themselves as its very traits are also their beloved mother. And they have a function. They provide profit and benefit. So this is not going to end as long as the circumstances that created them are still present. It will get handed to some other ideology and outlive Islam.

If they keep official records of marriages in Muslim countries, it should be easy enough to determine the level of inbreeding.  And no Muslim would be expected to answer the question, "Do you engage in incest?"  The word "incest" in the title seems superfluous and inflammatory to the discussion.  It should be in the public record.  If you marry 1st cousins, you are inbreeding by definition.

The second claim that seems to have come under fire in this thread, is whether or not inbreeding actually does cause genetic abnormalities.  I don't know if the taboo on incest is based on actual data, or religious indoctrination that instigated a questionable belief that "science has data" showing inbreeding results in a negative.  What I have been told, correctly or incorrectly, is that the effects of inbreeding are not immediate.  The first prince who married his sister may not have spawned a nit wit, but that generation by generation, the effects of inbreeding are cumulative, and result in unpredictable genetic variations. 

Of course most random genetic variations are unhealthy, just as most rolls of the dice produce a loser.  But short term, say during a few thousand years of evolution, the unhealthy variations become more observable and exist individually among the greater population.  If they are passed on throughout the entire population, it may not bode well for the longevity of the species.  I don't know that Muslim inbreeding results in the strangeness of Islamic society.  It could, but it seems like over the last 1000 thousand years, it would likely cause some sort of genetic chaos within the community.  At any rate, linking inbreeding to terrorism seems like a long reach, but to be fair to the study, I don't think it was making that claim.  It was just a study of the presence of inbreeding in Muslim society, which of course, is going to offend some sensitivities in a diverse group of people.

QuoteAll these things -I am sure we can add more- require ABOVE AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE, not genetic stupidity.

maybe at the top. Blowing yourself up and shooting people does not really require much intelligence let alone above average. Even your basic moron can throw a coat on, walk around a square and bush a "forever" button.

Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2015, 09:33:20 PM
Certainly since 90% of all crimes are by males the cause must be the Y-chromosome ;-)

Another micro-aggression here.  How dare you suggest that there's a difference between men and women :-)

One cold not help noticing that the planners, movers and shakers never blow themselves up.

They tend to "delegate" the privilege of martirdom operations to the more deserving Muslims with lesser mental capacity, but more fervour and gullibility for the celestial brothel of Allah.

That's the problem. It's more complicated than just keeping a marriage record.

But it doesn't end with that. Taking numbers and records and adding it to each other and making lists is not making a research. These are different groups of people with different cultures. Not oranges and apples.

Any group of researchers aiming to make a research of the sort are responsible for knowing the variety of marriage practices, how they change according to the regional religious culture, customs...etc. Does anyone have any idea how long that would take? That's why all these researches that come up with the title "insert numeric value here % of muslims are this and that" is highly likely to be bogus and it is fair to look for any agenda behind it.

Besides what is the scientific explanation behind the relation of low IQ and highly organised terrorist groups -one turned into a fucking state- to begin with?


OK. Let's give an example. Male psychopathic serial killers are by far the larger majority group among serial killers. They have common traits like abuse in childhood, absence of father figure, some evidence of military service and previous criminal arrests. These are all familiar an 'expected' traits with a lots of other differences. (The 'serial killers tend to have high IQ' idea is a pure myth as probbaly you know) And their IQ scores are various from low to borderline and high. Now, here comes the bomb. A large number of them were electricians. The statistic was so high it actually was defined as 'surprising' by the researchers in the field.

What does that tell us? That electricians with male gender are highly likley to torture, rape, chop and kill muiltiple people? Bullshit. Something is happening there they don't understand right now.

However, if someone gives me that information the first thing I would think is that electricians are in a group of profession who interacts many different people in their private spaces like home and also work, they interact with a lot of people from different groups, they travel short distances constantly and that the circumstances; daily way of practices of their work might -just might- somehow open a door to develop an idea to why a very large group of these men are electricians. Applying real life situtaions and people in.

This is what these researches seem to lack. They lack relations, real life, many other variables, circumstances these people live in...but they are just numbers added to each other according to some expectations. Kuran says it is OK to marry your cousins is not an explanation. Christianity says, no.  A certain sub culture of USA always gets bashed about this. How many inbred groups are there in the US? Why are they doing it?

50 percent is half. Half of the leaders planning the use and movement of the half that is less intelligent and more controllable. I don't find that to be implausible. There is also the literacy aspect:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=39

versus the Islamic countries that are ranked low in literacy
https://nosharia.wordpress.com/list-of-muslim-majority-countries-with-sectstategovernment/

I have looked for sources of more information and apparently this is either a taboo topic or new enough that the only sources are either outright denial or right wing propaganda, so a clear picture isn't likely. I couldn't find much on Nicolai Sennels either, other than his study was done amongst prison populations, which I suspect would skew the results.

But you might note in a comparison with literacy/illiteracy, there are only 2-3 countries considered Islamic that rate high in literacy, and those are all small countries- Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan- which are both wealthy in terms of oil revenue. Most of the Islamic countries rate at the bottom or in bottom half.

The main reason I posted this was because I knew it would be controversial.   :72:

OH AND BTW:

I have also seen correlations between cousin marriage-consanguinity- and polygamous populations for similar situations and claims. Polygamy I know something about, and there are definitely tendencies to marry younger women/sisters/cousins among those groups. And there are polygamous groups that are multigenerational, like the FLDS. Any relatively closeted/separatist culture would be susceptible to incest issues.

Quote from: pr126 on December 27, 2015, 09:48:08 AM
One cold not help noticing that the planners, movers and shakers never blow themselves up.

They tend to "delegate" the privilege of martirdom operations to the more deserving Muslims with lesser mental capacity, but more fervour and gullibility for the celestial brothel of Allah.

Yes, exactly like any other army. there is a strict rank system. 

Do officers of highest ranks get killed in wars or invasions? No. Their job is to sit down under comfortable and cosy protection and decide where the soldiers should die or shouldn't depends how you look at it. 

What is the difference? One side has better uniforms and toys, is that it?


Also, why do you think suicide bombers have lower mental capacity? This is a very good example of how people look at terrorism, specifically islamic terrorism in general and how it doesn't match the reality.

Quote from: Jack89 on December 27, 2015, 09:39:58 AM
Another micro-aggression here.  How dare you suggest that there's a difference between men and women :-)

I married a woman, precisely because we are not the same.  Similar yes, but not the same ;-)

QuoteA never-spoken-about problem with Muslims is their inbreeding as a result of their long and deeply-ingrained practice of marrying first cousins â€" a practice that has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses.

Might have been prohibited, but let's not pretend like it doesn't happen. That's how European monarchies worked for like, ever. Charles II of Spain was so inbred that he had a jaw so deformed he could barely eat. And of course there was the Queen Victoria and the hemophilia fiasco. And these people were our world leaders.

First cousin marriages were actually pretty common in Christian cultures up until about a century ago. Charles Darwin married his first cousin, Albert Einstein married Elsa Einstein (maiden name), who was a first cousin through Albert's mother and a second cousin through his father.

I'm not saying Muslims don't possess a certain amount of inbreeding, but to act like everyone else is perfectly fine ignores small bush tribes in Australia and Africa, Appalachia, Amish communities, fundamentalist Mormon communities, etc.

Quote from: pr126 on December 27, 2015, 09:48:08 AM
One cold not help noticing that the planners, movers and shakers never blow themselves up.

They tend to "delegate" the privilege of martirdom operations to the more deserving Muslims with lesser mental capacity, but more fervour and gullibility for the celestial brothel of Allah.

Not that is makes it any better ... but it is well known that even Western security services prey on the mentally unstable, like Oswald et al.  And sometimes they are just blackmailing the potential suicide bomber (do this or your family gets it).  And some do it out of conviction too.

Aside from a bit of poorly substantiated anthropology ... this kind of thing attracts the Stormfront sympathizers ... not saying Stromboli is one of those.  Bring on the eugenics and scientific racism and gas chambers!  Empirically though, it is clear that White/European folks ... are the most stupid, right?  Let us start there (sarc).

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 27, 2015, 10:17:30 AM
Yes, exactly like any other army. there is a strict rank system. 

Do officers of highest ranks get killed in wars or invasions? No. Their job is to sit down under comfortable and cosy protection and decide where the soldiers should die or shouldn't depends how you look at it. 

What is the difference? One side has better uniforms and toys, is that it?


Also, why do you think suicide bombers have lower mental capacity? This is a very good example of how people look at terrorism, specifically islamic terrorism in general and how it doesn't match the reality.

Those of us who have been in the military are well aware of the ranking structure of command. But note at least one crucial difference: the ranking is not done by religious agenda. And soldiers in Western armies are not as a whole conscripted currently. Some countries like Israel and Switzerland have periods of national service, but those countries both rank high in literacy and low in incestual relationships.

Countries where Islamic government- a caliphate, for example- would be far more likely to influence/recruit among the masses than a democracy. I posted a topic awhile ago about whether Islam lends itself to democracy, and the answer in my opinion was no, it does not.

Pretty sure you can bet that those who wind up dying by way of suicide bombing or other attacks aren't the clerics and the leaders, as PR already pointed out.

Quote from: stromboli on December 27, 2015, 10:12:06 AM
I have also seen correlations between cousin marriage-consanguinity- and polygamous populations for similar situations and claims. Polygamy I know something about, and there are definitely tendencies to marry younger women/sisters/cousins among those groups. And there are polygamous groups that are multigenerational, like the FLDS. Any relatively closeted/separatist culture would be susceptible to incest issues.

I definitely agree with that.

However, in Islamic countries, unfortunately that draws up new problems, strom.

A lot of Islamic countries are under UN or Human Rights Watch scrutiny and while it is a very good thing, as they are imposed certain standards in marriage against problems like underage marriages, it also causes people -esp. in remore rural areas- to defy usual marriage customs which are the RECORD ONES and make up their own or just take up the religious without the lawful licence. This is not necessarily done for underage marriage but often it ends in there.

In some countries, like Turkiye, religious marriage has just been made legal before the lawful one -that means it has been prohibited nearly over 90 years and that is a form of oppression if you ask me- and for a long time a lot of people has married without licence.

There are also other groups in Anatolia and Middle Eastern reion which can correctly be defined as 'clans'. They are proper clans. They have completely different customs. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I can't imagine the vast remote areas.

Any reliable research would cover a little area, a specific sub culture.

Europeans don't lend themselves to democracy (see GB) ... and Americans are reverting to European form.  Guess they are defectives too.  Or should we systematically attack all the monarchies, starting with Saudi Arabia?  Or is that only because of the oil?  GB has less and less oil, so they aren't worth invading.  People should stop spouting political mythologies on an atheist web site ;-)

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 27, 2015, 10:30:37 AM
I definitely agree with that.

However, in Islamic countries, unfortunately that draws up new problems, strom.

A lot of Islamic countries are under UN or Human Rights Watch scrutiny and while it is a very good thing, as they are imposed certain standards in marriage against problems like underage marriages, it also causes people -esp. in remore rural areas- to defy usual marriage customs which are the RECORD ONES and make up their own or just take up the religious without the lawful licence. This is not necessarily done for underage marriage but often it ends in there.

In some countries, like Turkiye, religious marriage has just been made legal before the lawful one -that means it has been prohibited nearly over 90 years and that is a form of oppression if you ask me- and for a long time a lot of people has married without licence.

There are also other groups in Anatolia and Middle Eastern reion which can correctly be defined as 'clans'. They are proper clans. They have completely different customs. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I can't imagine the vast remote areas.

Any reliable research would cover a little area, a specific sub culture.

Honestly think any conclusion on this topic will be tentative at best because of the lack of correlation and objective studies, so discuss away.

But you made a good point. Just like polygamous groups, that are separatist and very suspicious of outside observation, it would be difficult to get an objective study of groups that are cloistered or suspicious of observation by scientists/social scientists. (Sorry, I'm in the "social science isn't real science" camp)

The red flag is that like IQ, there is an attempt to assign a single number or a few numbers (48% this and 52% that) to a diverse population.  Simple minds can only handle a few over-generalizations at a time ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on December 27, 2015, 10:36:21 AM
Europeans don't lend themselves to democracy (see GB) ... and Americans are reverting to European form.  Guess they are defectives too.  Or should we systematically attack all the monarchies, starting with Saudi Arabia?  Or is that only because of the oil?  GB has less and less oil, so they aren't worth invading.  People should stop spouting political mythologies on an atheist web site ;-)

And you keep making generalizations as though you are the final authority and we should accept your conclusion as fact, minus any supporting correlation/citation and links. I'd be happy to agree with you if you could show how you came by your reasoning. You might be the smartest guy in the room but without more supporting evidence, I for one tend to disregard your posts.

Quote from: stromboli on December 27, 2015, 10:45:06 AM
And you keep making generalizations as though you are the final authority and we should accept your conclusion as fact, minus any supporting correlation/citation and links. I'd be happy to agree with you if you could show how you came by your reasoning. You might be the smartest guy in the room but without more supporting evidence, I for one tend to disregard your posts.

My ideology isn't as good as X's ideology?  But of course I am not different from others, don't claim to be.  If your ideology is ... the US is a wonderful democracy (not an awful oligarchy) ... well you are free to think that.

So GB doesn't have a Queen and a House of Lords?  How much evidence do you need?  Empiricism deals with facts on the ground, not fancy reasoning.  The point of comparison (we are wonderful, they are awful) is implied.  Also that democracy is preferable.

Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2015, 11:44:04 PM
The in-breeding aspect ... if that is bad ... means that all the monarchies need to be eliminated ... including GB.

Yup. European monarchies right across the continent have been ridiculously inbred for hundreds of years.  I read an article a while back that said Jews have a shitload of inbreeding going on too, but I expect we have to call that 'racial purity' to escape the charge of being a card-carrying member of the Third Reich for suggesting the very notion.
I live in Cornwall - there's plenty of that shit going on here too, just like every other out-in-the-sticks place on the planet.  Fortunately I'm from further up the country so my eyes are relatively level.

It  ain't right, but I don't see it ending any time soon.  It's the one thing that seems common to those at the top of the heap and those at the bottom historically.

If the numbers don't add up to your favorite worldview then ditch the math. Hmmm, where have I seen this before...

Quote from: stromboli on December 27, 2015, 10:29:34 AM
Those of us who have been in the military are well aware of the ranking structure of command. But note at least one crucial difference: the ranking is not done by religious agenda.

What is the difference between the ideology served up -an ordinary job or for patriotism, choose one- to send people in uniform to kill and invade at the other side of the world to gain power, resources and money AND what ISIL is doing?

One is a religion called American capitalism -sugarcoated as 'patriotism', 'democracy' or a 'job', choose one according to your group- the other is a religion called Islam.

Same terrorism, different cultures.

To claim that USA has/had any secular agenda in any given time in its history is just ludicrous.

By the way, just to make it clear, I am using American capitalism as a religion for all its allies in any aspect, including the country I live in. Means it is as always. Don't come to me with 'you.say.bad.things.my.country.ooohuh'.

Yes, my ideology consists of democracy, rule of law, constitutional rights and secularism. Call me religious, yes, hilarious...that makes my day...

Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on December 27, 2015, 11:00:43 AM
Yup. European monarchies right across the continent have been ridiculously inbred for hundreds of years.  I read an article a while back that said Jews have a shitload of inbreeding going on too, but I expect we have to call that 'racial purity' to escape the charge of being a card-carrying member of the Third Reich for suggesting the very notion.
I live in Cornwall - there's plenty of that shit going on here too, just like every other out-in-the-sticks place on the planet.  Fortunately I'm from further up the country so my eyes are relatively level.

It  ain't right, but I don't see it ending any time soon.  It's the one thing that seems common to those at the top of the heap and those at the bottom historically.

But the subtext of this string is ... Cornishmen are religious fanatics desiring to conquer the world and oppress all the peoples.  Do you strap on shepherd pies that you threaten to explode?  Or is it blood pudding?

Yes, your ironic observation regarding racial purity is apt.  Jews who are not ... crossed with Gentiles ... are probably in-bred.  That is why there are no Jewish Nobel Prize winners, yes?  Just trying to breed the Quisach Shadarach ;-)

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 27, 2015, 11:04:46 AM
If the numbers don't add up to your favorite worldview then ditch the math. Hmmm, where have I seen this before...

Cherry picking statistics ... and mis-quantifying things ... is just as big a problem, as ignoring the math.  If I add up a handful of marbles, or measure by weight a quantity of flour ... the math works for me.  Now apply this to the unverified breeding habits of ME people ;-)

QuoteAlso, why do you think suicide bombers have lower mental capacity?

Believing in Allah's celestial brothel.
Believing that a god (Allah) rewards for mass murder.


Why Islam creates monsters  (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/nicolai-sennels-psychology-why-islam-creates-monsters)

Quote from: pr126 on December 27, 2015, 12:26:57 PM
Believing in Allah's celestial brothel.
Believing that a god (Allah) rewards for mass murder.

Why Islam creates monsters  (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/nicolai-sennels-psychology-why-islam-creates-monsters)

Have you ever thought that suicide bombing is functional and practical from crucial aspects for these groups and that is why actually it is done, but painted as a pure religious form of attack? (Translation: are you capable of simple analytical thinking?)

A suicide bomber doesn't get caught or get interrogated. So terrorist groups don't need to worry to train their soldiers to act like a wall under torture, something they cannot trust under any circumstances. Or worry they will bargain and compromise to save themselves under torture or join/start working for the other side under breakdown. No extra pressure, point of mistake, liability, extra waste of time and resource...etc. Because of the disguise -esp. white people and females- those people can get in anywhere and detonate themselves unexpectedly which is the aim to make the most damage.

It's not as simple as seeing horny monsters around, is it? Let's thank the spaghetti monster there are many people who don't think like you. Because othewise, we are fucked.

Quote from: pr126 on December 27, 2015, 12:26:57 PM
Believing in Allah's celestial brothel.
Believing that a god (Allah) rewards for mass murder.


Why Islam creates monsters  (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/nicolai-sennels-psychology-why-islam-creates-monsters)

Of course G-d rewards for mass murder ... ever hear of Noah?  G-d saved Noah, he didn't reward him.  Did G-d punish G-d?  Certainly G-d has rewarded many people, not just Muslims but Americans ... for mass murder.  The trick is, mass murders are only rewarded with success, when they do it for G-d ... obviously the Germans etc did it for other reasons, otherwise they would have been successful.  Circular reasoning is your friend ;-)

Baruch, you are doing it again. Stop liking my posts for just to heck of it please. I said please.

Quote from: pr126 on December 27, 2015, 12:26:57 PM
Believing in Allah's celestial brothel.
Believing that a god (Allah) rewards for mass murder.


Why Islam creates monsters  (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/nicolai-sennels-psychology-why-islam-creates-monsters)

From the article: "The cultural and psychological cocktail of anger, low self-esteem, victim mentality, a willingness to be blindly guided by outer authorities, and an aggressive and discriminatory view toward non-Muslims, forced upon Muslims through pain, intimidation and mind-numbing repetitions of the Quran’s almost countless verses promoting hate and violence against non-Muslims, is the reason why Islam creates monsters."

Adding to that the prevalence of inbreeding (marrying first cousins), and you get the picture we see today:an endless stream of suicide bombers.

But I still believe that the main enemy to the West is Saudi Arabia, with its billion petro-dollars and its funding of radical Islam across the Western world, that's where we should concentrate our efforts to defeat this enemy.

I once believe we should stop Iran to make a nuke at all cost. Now I'm inclined to believe that we should let Iran build its bomb, and then let Iran and Saudi Arabia go at each other's throat. I know that is very cynical on my part, but the Muslim world doesn't seem to have any redeeming quality.

drunkenshoe wrote

QuoteHave you ever thought that suicide bombing is functional and practical from crucial aspects for these groups and that is why actually it is done, but painted as a pure religious form of attack? (Translation: are you capable of simple analytical thinking?)

A suicide bomber doesn't get caught or get interrogated. So terrorist groups don't need to worry to train their soldiers to act like a wall under torture, something they cannot trust under any circumstances. Or worry they will bargain and compromise to save themselves under torture or join/start working for the other side under breakdown. No extra pressure, point of mistake, liability, extra waste of time and resource...etc. Because of the disguise -esp. white people and females- those people can get in anywhere and detonate themselves unexpectedly which is the aim to make the most damage.

It's not as simple as seeing horny monsters around, is it? Let's thank the spaghetti monster there are many people who don't think like you. Because othewise, we are fucked.

So what is the motivation, the reason for suicide bombing, the  mindless murder, slavery, extreme brutality, torture, and primitive savagery, subterfuge, lying, dissimulation, immense hatred for the "other" that SOME Muslims engage in?

Where do these ideas come from? Who do they emulate?

Why do they do it? What is the ultimate objective they want to achieve? 

I didn't know Muslims were from Alabama. *runs*

JosephPalazzo wrote:

QuoteI once believe we should stop Iran to make a nuke at all cost. Now I'm inclined to believe that we should let Iran build its bomb, and then let Iran and Saudi Arabia go at each other's throat. I know that is very cynical on my part, but the Muslim world doesn't seem to have any redeeming quality.

Unfortunately it won't stop there.

Since 1948 11 Million Muslims have been killed by... other Muslims.

Quote from: pr126 on December 27, 2015, 11:22:31 PM
So what is the motivation, the reason for suicide bombing, the  mindless murder, slavery, extreme brutality, torture, and primitive savagery, subterfuge, lying, dissimulation, immense hatred for the "other" that SOME Muslims engage in?

After the decades of long unstability, interventions, invasions, violence, stirring, the last invasion of Afghanistan and Irak; mass annihilation, atrocities, millions of civilians being killed like animals; more millions losing their land and home told these people that they are either going to organise and strike back with everything they have to everyone or perish. They have never been seen as humans by the opposite culture(s) that has constantly fucked them. Nobody respected their rights, their lives, lands, resources. They got nothing but destruction. Now, they are threatening OUR LIVES. EVERYONE. 

Humans created mass murder and atrocities, genocide several times over WITHOUT being threatened in any way, just in the last few decades, just to go on a richer and better life.

And you think that these specific groups need some EXTRA motivation or some holly manual to create mass murder people in every way possible?! 

Exactly how blind and brainwashed or flat out stupid a person needs to be to underestimate a deadly power threatening everyone in the world by defining them with full throttle conformist bullshit to self confirming masturbation?

:arrow: If you are evaluating real events around you with religious terms, you are thinking and seeing the world in religious terms and therefore you cannot think rationally and you fail to understand what is going on. There is no way around it. Because there is nothing -has never been- in this world without a real life function, something that was not born out from real life circumstances, just for the sake of some religion. You are seeing magic around making people commit violence and you don't understand human reality. Period.

And trying to explain islamic terrorism with literal religious notions from a fucked up book WHICH THE MAJORITY of the members of this religious system CANNOT EVEN READ is just stupid and making people stupid. Burying your head in the sand. You have more faith in Islam than its jihadists.

You and people like you dumbing down each other and as a whole the mass of people itself. Source is the toxic right wing western media. While western and other middle eastern people are masturbating with moronic conformist notions, meanwhile these fuckers ESCALATED TO OPEN MASS EXECUTION of people in a rock concert from hide and seek suicide bombing.

What did you see in Paris attacks, pr? Just curious. Do you get that it is a different attack than let's say what happened in Ankara or what happened before in Europe over a decade ago?

Let me guess, the usual boogiemen and monsters that popped out of the latest release of the Abrahamic fantasy series called Quran? Have a nice sleep.

I am relived to see that Islam has nothing to do with any of this.
As suspected, all these centuries, it was the White Man's doing all along.

Thanks for clearing it up.

Quote from: Baruch on December 27, 2015, 12:03:04 PM
But the subtext of this string is ... Cornishmen are religious fanatics desiring to conquer the world and oppress all the peoples.  Do you strap on shepherd pies that you threaten to explode?  Or is it blood pudding?

Yes, your ironic observation regarding racial purity is apt.  Jews who are not ... crossed with Gentiles ... are probably in-bred.  That is why there are no Jewish Nobel Prize winners, yes?  Just trying to breed the Quisach Shadarach ;-)

Nobody misses the point quite like you do.   :88:

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 28, 2015, 04:24:49 AM
After the decades of long unstability, interventions, invasions, violence, stirring, the last invasion of Afghanistan and Irak; mass annihilation, atrocities, millions of civilians being killed like animals; more millions losing their land and home told these people that they are either going to organise and strike back with everything they have to everyone or perish. They have never been seen as humans by the opposite culture(s) that has constantly fucked them. Nobody respected their rights, their lives, lands, resources. They got nothing but destruction. Now, they are threatening OUR LIVES. EVERYONE. 

Humans created mass murder and atrocities, genocide several times over WITHOUT being threatened in any way, just in the last few decades, just to go on a richer and better life.

And you think that these specific groups need some EXTRA motivation or some holly manual to create mass murder people in every way possible?! 

Exactly how blind and brainwashed or flat out stupid a person needs to be to underestimate a deadly power threatening everyone in the world by defining them with full throttle conformist bullshit to self confirming masturbation?

:arrow: If you are evaluating real events around you with religious terms, you are thinking and seeing the world in religious terms and therefore you cannot think rationally and you fail to understand what is going on. There is no way around it. Because there is nothing -has never been- in this world without a real life function, something that was not born out from real life circumstances, just for the sake of some religion. You are seeing magic around making people commit violence and you don't understand human reality. Period.

And trying to explain islamic terrorism with literal religious notions from a fucked up book WHICH THE MAJORITY of the members of this religious system CANNOT EVEN READ is just stupid and making people stupid. Burying your head in the sand. You have more faith in Islam than its jihadists.

You and people like you dumbing down each other and as a whole the mass of people itself. Source is the toxic right wing western media. While western and other middle eastern people are masturbating with moronic conformist notions, meanwhile these fuckers ESCALATED TO OPEN MASS EXECUTION of people in a rock concert from hide and seek suicide bombing.

What did you see in Paris attacks, pr? Just curious. Do you get that it is a different attack than let's say what happened in Ankara or what happened before in Europe over a decade ago?

Let me guess, the usual boogiemen and monsters that popped out of the latest release of the Abrahamic fantasy series called Quran? Have a nice sleep.

We have seen, again and again, insanely destructive violence and mass murder in response to something as simple as burning a Koran, or drawing pictures of Mohammed, or publishing/producing anything that paints Islam in a less then complementary light.

The Sunni/Shia conflict, which has been extremely bitter and heartbreaking, has been going on long before the US even existed. A few simple words can provoke a violent response.

A typical suicide bomber understands that in the context of their religion there is no greater honor then sacrificing themselves; at least, that is the lesson that has been hammered home. That's why people have claimed to see them wearing huge grins before they blow themselves up.

There is a lot more going on here then just resentment towards the west.

The Islamic apologists are back: it's not the religion, it's the West with its capitalism, colonialism and evil empire designs. Poor Muslim countries are just the victims... BAAAHHHAAAWWWAAAA...

Quote from: pr126 on December 28, 2015, 05:10:34 AM
I am relived to see that Islam has nothing to do with any of this.
As suspected, all these centuries, it was the White Man's doing all along.

Thanks for clearing it up.

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I said! You are brilliant!

Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on December 28, 2015, 05:56:19 AM
Nobody misses the point quite like you do.   :88:

The point that you brought up regarding an example of inbreeding .. that inbreeding is a bad thing ... and the OP cross-reference that inbreeding is why the ME folks don't produce Gandhi.  I drew a conclusion, with satire.

Or was the point what Pr126 is always paranoid about?

Or was the point Shoe's rationality about this?

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 28, 2015, 07:28:45 AM
The Islamic apologists are back: it's not the religion, it's the West with its capitalism, colonialism and evil empire designs. Poor Muslim countries are just the victims... BAAAHHHAAAWWWAAAA...

Good to see reading comprehension is still not a tool in your arsenal.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 28, 2015, 07:28:45 AM
The Islamic apologists are back: it's not the religion, it's the West with its capitalism, colonialism and evil empire designs. Poor Muslim countries are just the victims... BAAAHHHAAAWWWAAAA...

And of course the jealousie and envy because Islam is so successful and brilliant in everything, while the West has nothing to show for its existence for centuries.

If we were on a planet, with only Muslims, and no history of non-Muslims ... then we would find out what Muslims do when they aren't being raped by non-Muslims.  But I am not claiming that these controlled experiment Muslims would be any different ... we simply don't know.

Pr126 ... cause and effect ... if people are simply helpless automatons controlled by old books ... are you controlled by Darwin's Origin of Species?  Do you dress in Victorian clothes when nobody is looking (Muslims like their costumes too) and do you affect an English accent?

I am not sure anyone here is an Islamic apologist, let alone an Islamist apologist (they are different).  Nobody here approves of terrorism.  But not all of us approve of Western imperialism either.

Quote from: pr126 on December 28, 2015, 08:51:43 AM
And of course the jealousie and envy because Islam is so successful and brilliant in everything, while the West has nothing to show for its existence for centuries.

I know that human life, as a simple good, regardless of whether one's life is approved by one's contemporaries, is not a value for "some" people.  One has to be an NFL quarterback or a President to be a worthwhile person.  The Great Man theory (no great women to speak of).  But can we apply that to you?  What Nobel Prize have you won sir?  Or by osmosis because of secondary characteristics?

On the other hand, it is probably true, that the availability of life style information in the Third World ... as to how the First World lives (we all crowd into Buckingham Palace, right?) is a bad thing for the 1%.  Also that the Oliver Twists on the back streets of London should be aware of their betters, less they be jealous.  A French Revolution in many places, would be a bad thing.

What kind of a word is 'resentment' to use here?

This is the problem. The general understanding is SO simplistic, add that to not seeing these people as people; cannot simply imgaine HOW MUCH they have been radicalised just the last decade, let alone before that all you can come up with it is 'they smile before they blow themselves up'. Yes, they do.

It's simply striking back to an opposite dictating culture bent on literally annihilate them in a brutal way and everything they see as a threat.

It's just baffling how a specific people in the world gets classified as completely different when it is the same fucking thing everyone does. People get shocked when a woman is beaten violently for burning a Quran, no one bats an eye when 3 million civilians are killed like animals.

Resentment. FFS.

Quote from: Baruch on December 28, 2015, 09:00:26 AM
I know that human life, as a simple good, regardless of whether one's life is approved by one's contemporaries, is not a value for "some" people.  One has to be an NFL quarterback or a President to be a worthwhile person.  The Great Man theory (no great women to speak of).  But can we apply that to you?  What Nobel Prize have you won sir?  Or by osmosis because of secondary characteristics?

On the other hand, it is probably true, that the availability of life style information in the Third World ... as to how the First World lives (we all crowd into Buckingham Palace, right?) is a bad thing for the 1%.  Also that the Oliver Twists on the back streets of London should be aware of their betters, less they be jealous.  A French Revolution in many places, would be a bad thing.

Amazing posts Baruch.
Your thoughts are jumping around like water drops on a hot stove.

Quote from: pr126 on December 28, 2015, 08:51:43 AM
And of course the jealousie and envy because Islam is so successful and brilliant in everything, while the West has nothing to show for its existence for centuries.

It's not so much that they are jealous or envious, it's that their religion is superior, so we must be dumb... all that technology the West invented is just smoke and mirror...

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 28, 2015, 09:09:46 AM
It's not so much that they are jealous or envious, it's that their religion is superior, so we must be dumb... all that technology the West invented is just smoke and mirror...

Tweaking ... I suspect ... don't know ... that they view the material and technological aspects of the West as irrelevant.  They aren't thinking about it at all.  Same as a Western fundie would view things.  If you are going to spend eternity with Jeebus ... then your iPhone doesn't matter.

I'm saying that Islamic terrorism is underestimated by the West by meaningless notions to feed people bullshit, he calls me an apologist.

Yeah. You can't cure stupid.

Quote from: pr126 on December 28, 2015, 09:09:05 AM
Amazing posts Baruch.
Your thoughts are jumping around like water drops on a hot stove.

Yup.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 28, 2015, 09:51:38 AM
I'm saying that Islamic terrorism is underestimated by the West by meaningless notions to feed people bullshit, he calls me an apologist.

Yeah. You can't cure stupid.

Yup.

Quote from: Baruch on December 28, 2015, 08:43:52 AM
The point that you brought up regarding an example of inbreeding .. that inbreeding is a bad thing ... and the OP cross-reference that inbreeding is why the ME folks don't produce Gandhi.  I drew a conclusion, with satire.

Or was the point what Pr126 is always paranoid about?

Or was the point Shoe's rationality about this?

It's cool. I like surprises. :-)

Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on December 28, 2015, 11:35:29 AM
It's cool. I like surprises. :-)

I am a master of drawing inappropriate comparisons ... this is not always a good thing however ;-)  I thought the idea of shepherd pie terrorists was ... brilliant ;-))

this kinda feel like a cultural problem.
1) don't allow your daughter to go outside too much, at least without someone looking after her. Kick your son out so he learns the way of the world.
2) don't expect her to do some kind of job or learn how to live in the real world. force your son to get a job.
3) time for marriage. your son will bring his wife to your home and your daughter will marry some random guy you picked up (and hope to god that he doesn't beat her up) and has to live with him with his family (and his family hopefully won't treat her too bad) far away from you.

a good solution for this problem is search in your immediate family for a good boy with friendly family. atleast your daughter will not be mistreated. and little cultural and life changes will be needed. and of course religious changes.
atleast that is how it is in my area.

this could have been so much easier if the guy had to live with his bride family  :017:
at least he wouldn't be totally alien to the outside world.

rural area with poorer population also have a weird thing called marriage to Quran. don't know what that is though

Quote from: pr126 on December 27, 2015, 09:48:08 AM
One cold not help noticing that the planners, movers and shakers never blow themselves up.

They tend to "delegate" the privilege of martirdom operations to the more deserving Muslims with lesser mental capacity, but more fervour and gullibility for the celestial brothel of Allah.

so you think "planners, movers and shakers" are not real muslim or something?

Quote from: CloneKai on December 28, 2015, 02:44:12 PM
so you think "planners, movers and shakers" are not real muslim or something?

I presume that you are being sarcastic. OTOH, these "planners, movers and shakers" don't appreciate sarcasm, so watch out for your dear life...

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 28, 2015, 05:16:30 PM
I presume that you are being sarcastic. OTOH, these "planners, movers and shakers" don't appreciate sarcasm, so watch out for your dear life...

na, just curious what pr thought they believed in, especially since they aren't giving the ultimate sacrifice for all@h but making others do it.
as far as my knowledge goes, pr has yet to see the true path to all@h. so i should be safe.

Quote from: CloneKai on December 28, 2015, 07:50:40 PM
na, just curious what pr thought they believed in, especially since they aren't giving the ultimate sacrifice for all@h but making others do it.
as far as my knowledge goes, pr has yet to see the true path to all@h. so i should be safe.

As I recall- since you haven't been here long- PR either served or lived in the Middle East, so I'll give his viewpoints credence for that alone.

Quote from: stromboli on December 28, 2015, 08:03:04 PM
As I recall- since you haven't been here long- PR either served or lived in the Middle East, so I'll give his viewpoints credence for that alone.

technically, he served on the wrong side. so that might be a problem.
beside he hasn't answered yet that whether he thinks that the "planners, movers and shakers" are real muslim or not?

Quote from: CloneKai on December 28, 2015, 08:11:52 PM
technically, he served on the wrong side. so that might be a problem.
beside he hasn't answered yet that whether he thinks that the "planners, movers and shakers" are real muslim or not?

By "planners, movers and shakers" I meant the clergy, the mullahs or ayatollahs who incite the common folks to violence.
Reminding them of their duties to what Allah demands.
So they are very much Muslims, following the Quran, the Islamic war manual.
They are always delegating, never strapping the explosive vests on themselves.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Quote from: pr126 on December 28, 2015, 11:34:17 PM
By "planners, movers and shakers" I meant the clergy, the mullahs or ayatollahs who incite the common folks to violence.
Reminding them of their duties to what Allah demands.
So they are very much Muslims, following the Quran, the Islamic war manual.
They are always delegating, never strapping the explosive vests on themselves.

Hope this clears it up for you.

but martyrdom position is above their position, in the eyes of all@h, right?
so why don't they climb the !slamic ladder. why not strap on those things and ...
guaranteed 72 virgin goats and being near the famous pedophile  :c029:
nothing can top that

Quote from: CloneKai on December 28, 2015, 08:11:52 PM
technically, he served on the wrong side. so that might be a problem.

Hmmm, no.

I don't have any problem with the high inbreeding rates of the muslim minorities in European countries. Actually, later I remembered Fidel posted an article in the forum about this years ago. However the percentage was somewhere around 30 something % (35? 37?) in UK I guess, but my memory is not as 'retentive' as it used to be.

They are a closed society and a minority in an opposite culture where they are the lowest in the hierarchy, they do not adapt and refuse to adapt and it's unlikely that they will choose or chosen as a mate by someone from an opposite group.

My problem rises from the style how this article -and others like it) is 'assembled'. Because it is an 'assembled body of text' up to the level of copy pasting ideas of supposedly related issues.

-It opens with UK rates of inbreeding among the muslim population and then jumps to a resreach one man made on hundreds of millions of muslims with hundreds of different cultures and customs. thrown between how most Pakistanis are coming from rural areas. Pakistan is 796,095 km².

-Forget about the real scope of a reserach of this multitude and geographical scale, this is all supposed to be based on the correlation between low IQ and tendency to participate in terrorist activity.

-It's basic premise that this has been going on for 1400 years for 50 generations. Can you imagine someone trying to attempt to prove this with empric data?

-Then it jumps to Nobel Prize winners as a conclusion -lol- and book translations, reading habits... :lol:

-And ends with how noone talks about this because of the fear of being called an 'islamophobe'. Which is very doubtful. Inbreeding in every culture is one of the long coming main subjects of anthroplogy in many aspects.


Anyone who is familiar with reading real articles in social sciences -from anthropology to ethno-linguistcs- made about anything would recognise this designed structure of the text offering political, one side comments thrown between.

Social scientists -to define them in general- are as objective, emotionless, unbiased and uncaring as the scientists in other fields and most importantly they do not give a flying fuck who thinks what about them as it should be. They are not intersted in media either. Their job is far more difficult than the other kind, because their lab is the world and their material is human. They have their own scientific jargon and language, their researches are interdisciplinary to the point of a fish net and they do not make personal political comments of their results or look for media confirmation or feel the need.

Esp. fields like anthropology -the one we are dealing with this article and many others in the forum-  sociology, cultural history...etc. -and all its branches down from history- which particularly deal with taboos, absolute lows and extremes when its necessary. The first and absolute prinicple of anthropology is that is "there is NO good or bad culture, just human culture we must learn". That's science, not fairy tales to please crowds.

An anthropologist doesn't care -cannot afford to care- that the ritual rape of the teenager boys at a certain age by old men in a primitve tribe is defined as 'atrocity' half a globe up or  some  'psychopathic culture'. A socio-linguist doesn't give a flying fuck how obnoxious is SJWs and MRAs to each other or which one is 'right', but just studies the new form of language and social 'labels' they produced. Another one couldn't care less, how disturbing the incest breeding at a very young age. Their job is to study and map the human culture.

This is why we don't see scientific articles of this particular subjects in the media, but biased -for every 'side'- sensational piece of stories drawn up from comments on reseraches itself. And they are as problematic as other scientific reporting in other fields like evolutionary sciences or orthers. Just the problem of linguistics in this issue is a very big one, because for example socio-linguists have  as many words for 'dialect' as Eskimos have for snow; anthropologists have as many words for 'culture' and its components as many as Mexicans have for weed. And when it comes to reporting the results; this is often the usual picture. You all know the joke below and it is perfectly accurate for social sciences too, it is just unfortunately not a joke but reality most of the time.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/dc/50/20/dc5020293d3a32024b5aa2b17a8e9322.gif)

And this is just what's left of the blurred picture after taking out the bullshit about problems of:

-attempting to quantify intelligence and standardise it; using another culture's standards which is based on an already stanradised education
-the ugly reality that IQ testing is a profitable industry itself -behind its social and political indicators of a built world class and identities- different cultures and IQ tests,
-absolute acceptance of the correlation betyween low IQ and specific type of organised violence
-the low IQ being defined by undesired abnormality taken as the main abnormality of inbreeding -there are many of them are also physical and both
-accepting one aspect of the main tradition of many sub customs as an absolute rule,
-working from a premise that 'absolute rule' has been going on over for 1400 years
-the region being unstable for long time the considerable amount of population keeps moving around due to invasions, drought, famine or to be close basic services like hospitals and any other kind of aid

FFS, I am bored and this could go on.

QuoteEsp. fields like anthropology -the one we are dealing with this article and many others in the forum-  sociology, cultural history...etc. -and all its branches down from history- which particularly deal with taboos, absolute lows and extremes when its necessary. The first and absolute prinicple of anthropology is that is "there is NO good or bad culture, just human culture we must learn". That's science, not fairy tales to please crowds.

Shame Franz Boas and his anthropology stances are only taught in anthropology and not common class rooms.

Just from the observable evidence, i. e. condoning 1st cousin marriage for 1400 years, the higher rate of birth defects  including microcephalism in Islamic states and the dominating nature of the religion to be right no matter what, the practice has caused considerable damage and will compound and continue into the future.

Incest related inbreeding can be seen in many places- I grew up in a fairly isolated country town and there were some inbred people in the area, including people I went to school with. Places like the Ozarks and other fairly secluded places; everybody has seen Deliverance. The idea that centuries of inbreeding can lead to the claimed high number of incest inbreeding isn't illogical by any means.

I have not been able to find any studies I'd call objective to correlate/disprove the claim; the same problem you get with anything that criticizes monotheistic religions. The information is touted by right wing sources and objected to vehemently by Islamic sources. Sad, but based on available evidence I still think it is a legitimate claim.

Be warned: this video is nauseating and definitely NSFW.
[spoiler]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsrE-aNlSw0[/spoiler]
[mod]Spoiled[/mod] (Gerard)

Quote from: stromboli on December 29, 2015, 11:18:07 AM
Just from the observable evidence, i. e. condoning 1st cousin marriage for 1400 years, the higher rate of birth defects  including microcephalism in Islamic states and the dominating nature of the religion to be right no matter what, the practice has caused considerable damage and will compound and continue into the future.

Incest related inbreeding can be seen in many places- I grew up in a fairly isolated country town and there were some inbred people in the area, including people I went to school with. Places like the Ozarks and other fairly secluded places; everybody has seen Deliverance. The idea that centuries of inbreeding can lead to the claimed high number of incest inbreeding isn't illogical by any means.

I have not been able to find any studies I'd call objective to correlate/disprove the claim; the same problem you get with anything that criticizes monotheistic religions. The information is touted by right wing sources and objected to vehemently by Islamic sources. Sad, but based on available evidence I still think it is a legitimate claim.

Be warned: this video is nauseating and definitely NSFW.
[spoiler]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsrE-aNlSw0[/spoiler]
[mod]Spoiled[/mod] (Gerard)

I know that our Islam apologists don't have the courage to tell you this, as you are so popular on this forum, so I will speak in their honor: you're a racist... ;-)

I doubt incest is limited to rural areas.  But bestiality is easier in rural areas.  Britannica reported in my old set ... that it was like 10% of the rural US population had tried sex with animals at least once in their lives.  And I don't think they mean a dog humping your leg.

Quote from: stromboli on December 29, 2015, 11:18:07 AM
Just from the observable evidence, i. e. condoning 1st cousin marriage for 1400 years, the higher rate of birth defects  including microcephalism in Islamic states and the dominating nature of the religion to be right no matter what, the practice has caused considerable damage and will compound and continue into the future.

Incest related inbreeding can be seen in many places- I grew up in a fairly isolated country town and there were some inbred people in the area, including people I went to school with. Places like the Ozarks and other fairly secluded places; everybody has seen Deliverance. The idea that centuries of inbreeding can lead to the claimed high number of incest inbreeding isn't illogical by any means.

I have not been able to find any studies I'd call objective to correlate/disprove the claim; the same problem you get with anything that criticizes monotheistic religions. The information is touted by right wing sources and objected to vehemently by Islamic sources. Sad, but based on available evidence I still think it is a legitimate claim.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't think inbreeding among muslims is not a legitimate claim. I just find the percentages gross, research it offers undoble -it is TOO big. And if they have inbred for hundreds of years, the result would be so awful, it would be an old common knowledge, it would be something that has been in the open for a long time in this age of medicine AND we would already know it. It's talking about inbreeding for 1400 years, strom. This is not some several generations.

How do you think these people live? Or people anywhere in the Middle East live? 1400 years of non-stop dominant inbreeding and inbreeding -and they do not marry from ouside- to leave the greater part of the majority of every population literally stupid, but they have a civilisation going on. They have hospitals, factories, engineers. They are building roads and structures. The work force. They are actually doing much more. You realise that the article is drawing an impossible picture to do all these, right?

Also, Islamic cultures weren't always this way in history. They also had a bright period. It's just flat out stupid to take 1400 years of inbreeding as a rule.

This is what I am talking about all along. When people are thinking about muslims they do not even think about that they are ordinary people living normal lives, needing normal needs like they do. The group is so demonised and alienated from the world it is fucking crazy. It's like they live on the world, but not in it. There is an incredible underestimation of these people with their goods or bads, it's comical. It's like they do not exist on the same planet, breathe oxygen or food, need similar things with others, but just pop out from nowhere as some other species, noone knows how they live.

There is no genetic or some special, extra reason for Islamic terrorism. It's very simple. They have been killed and lived under threat for so long, they finally got organised better than before BECAUSE NOW the world is their oyster. They provide profit and benefit and being nurtured right and left. And people are looking for some sort of genetic stupidity to explain all this, inventing notions when everything needed is out there. Stupid. Irrational.

Do you really think you can find healthy information in this climate? About anything? On any religious group?

Honestly, I think the same things about the Christian lot and the Southern cultures in the US. Everything I read about them have the same language and jargon, demonisation, so obviously exagerated baseless categorisations from moronic nonexistent premises. It's disgusting.

We keep talking about religious extremism, but atheists started to prove that they can compete with religious people. I don't know, may be it is the internet culture and that because people have become social media intellectuals and cannot grow from there, all their opinions are shaped by the bullshit thrown at them. Add to that the fear, it is getting very dangerous.

People need to remember that scepticism doesn't stop after figuring out there is no magic man. Back to scepticism. They need to be sceptic about everything they are handed in this time. Every fucking thing.

Especially with something that plays into mainstream politics. While something claims to be scientific, if it carries political comments all over flashing on, that's the most dangerous red flag. That's my problem. Not which group has inbred the most.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 29, 2015, 01:20:24 PM
I know that our Islam apologists don't have the courage to tell you this, as you are so popular on this forum, so I will speak in their honor: you're a racist... ;-)

I'm popular? Boy, that's news. PS: Islam isn't a race. It's a religion. If they don't like discussing their religion on an atheist forum, oh well.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 29, 2015, 04:52:55 PM
I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't think inbreeding among muslims is not a legitimate claim. I just find the percentages gross, research it offers undoble -it is TOO big. And if they have inbred for hundreds of years, the result would be so awful, it would be an old common knowledge, it would be something that has been in the open for a long time in this age of medicine AND we would already know it. It's talking about inbreeding for 1400 years, strom. This is not some several generations.

How do you think these people live? Or people anywhere in the Middle East live? 1400 years of non-stop dominant inbreeding and inbreeding -and they do not marry from ouside- to leave the greater part of the majority of every population literally stupid, but they have a civilisation going on. They have hospitals, factories, engineers. They are building roads and structures. The work force. They are actually doing much more. You realise that the article is drawing an impossible picture to do all these, right?

Also, Islamic cultures weren't always this way in history. They also had a bright period. It's just flat out stupid to take 1400 years of inbreeding as a rule.

This is what I am talking about all along. When people are thinking about muslims they do not even think about that they are ordinary people living normal lives, needing normal needs like they do. The group is so demonised and alienated from the world it is fucking crazy. It's like they live on the world, but not in it. There is an incredible underestimation of these people with their goods or bads, it's comical. It's like they do not exist on the same planet, breathe oxygen or food, need similar things with others, but just pop out from nowhere as some other species, noone knows how they live.

There is no genetic or some special, extra reason for Islamic terrorism. It's very simple. They have been killed and lived under threat for so long, they finally got organised better than before BECAUSE NOW the world is their oyster. They provide profit and benefit and being nurtured right and left. And people are looking for some sort of genetic stupidity to explain all this, inventing notions when everything needed is out there. Stupid. Irrational.

Do you really think you can find healthy information in this climate? About anything? On any religious group?

Honestly, I think the same things about the Christian lot and the Southern cultures in the US. Everything I read about them have the same language and jargon, demonisation, so obviously exagerated baseless categorisations from moronic nonexistent premises. It's disgusting.

We keep talking about religious extremism, but atheists started to prove that they can compete with religious people. I don't know, may be it is the internet culture and that because people have become social media intellectuals and cannot grow from there, all their opinions are shaped by the bullshit thrown at them. Add to that the fear, it is getting very dangerous.

People need to remember that scepticism doesn't stop after figuring out there is no magic man. Back to scepticism. They need to be sceptic about everything they are handed in this time. Every fucking thing.

Especially with something that plays into mainstream politics. While something claims to be scientific, if it carries political comments all over flashing on, that's the most dangerous red flag. That's my problem. Not which group has inbred the most.

Actually not disagreeing with what you are saying because, as I mentioned earlier, I can't find what I would consider an objective source to verify any of it one way or another. Also you are right in doing any real surveys would be very difficult because of the insular nature of Islam. And it would be near impossible, short of testing every Muslim and tracing their genealogy, to determine what level of participation there has been over centuries. Nicolai Sennels study group was a prison population which in itself is suspect, because they may not be representative of a broad cross section.

That being said, there is still enough anecdotal evidence and the mere fact that the Koran does allow consanguination and has for 1400 years to make a general assumption there is a problem. The percentages we can debate infinitum, but as you yourself said, the likelihood is certainly there.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 29, 2015, 04:52:55 PM
I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't think inbreeding among muslims is not a legitimate claim. I just find the percentages gross, research it offers undoble -it is TOO big. And if they have inbred for hundreds of years, the result would be so awful, it would be an old common knowledge, it would be something that has been in the open for a long time in this age of medicine AND we would already know it. It's talking about inbreeding for 1400 years, strom. This is not some several generations.

How do you think these people live? Or people anywhere in the Middle East live? 1400 years of non-stop dominant inbreeding and inbreeding -and they do not marry from ouside- to leave the greater part of the majority of every population literally stupid, but they have a civilisation going on. They have hospitals, factories, engineers. They are building roads and structures. The work force. They are actually doing much more. You realise that the article is drawing an impossible picture to do all these, right?

All inbred people aren't going to have developmental problems, it just makes it far more likely.

It would seem 55% of UK Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins, so I don't think its all that difficult to believe.

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

Apparently it's also 13 times more likely they will have children with developmental issues or genetic disorders, and I'm assuming this includes the ones who don't make it to term.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Also, a broad view. Prevalence of close kin marriage by country.

(http://i.imgur.com/bT0UWbH.png)

Thanks a fucking bunch Mohammed you perverse warmongering pig. Just had to go and marry your cousins.

We are not discussing if there is inbreeding or not, we agree there is.

strom, I'll try to explain an aspect of Islam -in general- that might give a little light about how does any kind of prevalence would work about anything. (I'll try to offer a naked interpretation of the 'understanding' so I am not interested in verses or what they say and how good or bad it is.)

As you probably know, the structure of Kuran is different than Bible(s). Bible is mainly made of parables and it tells stories and offer characters in certain situations to give a message. Now, Kuran doesn't have that and instead, it is designed to work like a manual. As you would guess the most part it is about the family unit, 'affairs' between men and women and people.

The written style of the given 'information' is designed to be directly interpretated as "what to do when". And there is a hierarchy of any acts as in how they should be applied in certain situations and how do they function. Like ritual ablution for example. It's done 5 times a day before prayer -also there is gusül ablution after sexual intercourse; the usual bath-  and its basic function is to clean people up. 

But what will happen if there is no water for some legitimate reason? Then it offers another way in that situation. Prayer is also a physical a bit, but what will happen if you got crippled and cannot move. It offers another way of namaz...etc and so on. This doesn't end with personal rules. This is also with community as you'd expect. And most importantly it is on how to get married and with whom. And that has a hierarchy too.

Who should they get married and who they cannot get married in what circumstances. These are called Usül and Füru and according to that there is a 'tree' who you can wed and who you cannot. The logic is that it's a haram for a man to get married with women they are related to with blood and a marriage act and what is called milk bond in the Middle East.

Now as we know it is lawful to get married to cousins which is also a blood relative, but it is defined as mekruh which means something revolting and harmful to people, but not haram. "Mekruh is a concept in islam that it is an act defined as 'it is better not to do than to do' for the good individual and the community" Expression is important. Because I have seen countless cathecism -ithey are now online too- which explains the undesired consequences of inbreeding.

But what happens to this when it is not defined as flat out 'haram' and a no-no? Under many various different circumstances, people do automatically jump to it. Just because it is NOT haram and it is how they think. They are following a hierarchy to solve problems they face. But before what Muhammed and the book said, there are other important reasons.

-to keep the money and property in the family
-business
-blood vengeance (you'll think wtf what is the relations, well it s a huge issues in rural regions here between great many families. It doesn't have to be in a fatal level.)

With severe ignorance, it becomes very easy.

I also looked in what is surfaced in Turkiye and official statistcs reports of inbreeding in Turkiye is 22 % and 51,9 % in that is 1st cousin marriages. And it is openly defined as 'a bomb waiting to explode'.

I have to go, I'll look at some more if I find time.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 29, 2015, 01:20:24 PM
I know that our Islam apologists don't have the courage to tell you this, as you are so popular on this forum, so I will speak in their honor: you're a racist... ;-)

It's amusing how that people -despite their completely different world views- capable of having a conversation about something elicits such passive agressive responses from you. :lol:

stromboli is a popular member, because he is immune to a lot of bullshit, he is sincere and therefore treated differently. He is not treated differently, because he is popular. Nobody thinks he is racist. I do not and I'm certainly not the poster who would hold back anything she thinks regarding people's status in some public forum. He gets pissed off a lot at me I am sure -and I to him- I don't even think he likes me as a poster which is irrelevant, but he turns back and drops a line or acknowledge any opinion offered sincerely by anyone and willing to throw a rope to the other side. I don't know him in real life, but it seems he is a kind of man that can read past a lot of immediate reactions in people -life experience used in a consturctive way- and see beyond if something is offered. He doesn't feel vulnerable or weak while doing this or trying to look 'cool' to anyone. I believe, that is called character.

On the other hand, you wouldn't know if rational, critical thinking punched you in the face between your genocidal mumblings and crude understanding of everthing around you resulting from your fear and hatred, including the religious culture in the country you live. And the worst thing is, not because you can't, but because of your belligerent, willful ignorance and bigotry you cannot even get aware of, becuse it is warm and cosy. You remind me a certain class of highly educated, highly secular, wealthy white turks, lol.

So you get to be ignored in any real conversation -not that you are willing to have any - and feel the need to respond with passive agressive snarky remarks and stromboli gets to be respected and popular.

QuoteI know that our Islam apologists don't have the courage to tell you this, as you are so popular on this forum, so I will speak in their honor: you're a racist... ;-)

I think he was predominately aimed that at me since he has been saying the same thing for over a month in any thread regarding Islam... and since he consistently mistakes "xenophobic" for racist... neither of which I would accuse stromboli of anytime soon. There are only maybe two posters here I think it would accurately fit.

Of course he also put me on ignore about a month ago and has insisted on making underhanded swipes like that every couple of threads ever since. Because I guess it must take huge balls to put someone on your ignore list so they cant respond while continuing to talk shit about them for over a month.

I feel kinda bad for him :\.

Quote from: stromboli on December 29, 2015, 05:54:49 PM
I'm popular? Boy, that's news.

Your humility is charming. BTW,  I was just pulling your leg. No offense taken.

QuotePS: Islam isn't a race. It's a religion. If they don't like discussing their religion on an atheist forum, oh well.

Spot on. The general feeling from the Islam apologists is that Islam is too complex; we, simpletons, don't get it.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 30, 2015, 06:01:36 AM
I think he was predominately aimed that at me since he has been saying the same thing for over a month in any thread regarding Islam...

I got the same thing from him many times. He even tried to provoke me by implicating that I am a muslim. :lol: It's different for you and me of course, I live in a muslim country, so I am automatically the enemy.   

Quoteand since he consistently mistakes "xenophobic" for racist... There are only maybe two posters here I think it would accurately fit.

Agreed. They are also the only ones who keep using the word 'islamophobic' as much as the 'apologist', lol.

QuoteOf course he also put me on ignore about a month ago and has insisted on making underhanded swipes like that every couple of threads ever since. Because I guess it must take huge balls to put someone on your ignore list so they cant respond while continuing to talk shit about them for over a month.

Nobody actually puts anyone on ignore here, Shir. Trust me. I would know. :lol:

QuoteI feel kinda bad for him :\.

So do I, but he wouldn't get that and take it as the worst way possible, like a challenge or some sort of hatred he himself has. No sincerity.

Quote from: stromboli on December 29, 2015, 05:54:49 PM
I'm popular? Boy, that's news. PS: Islam isn't a race. It's a religion. If they don't like discussing their religion on an atheist forum, oh well.

I don't think any actual Muslims post here.  We do have occasional drive by Christians however.

In my case, y'all can say ...

anything negative about Israel, as long as it is factual

anything negative about a Jew, as long as it is factual

anything negative about Judaism, as long as it is factual

generally speaking, you won't get proselytism from me ... it is un-modest and un-Jewish.

anyone speaking in a skeptical but fact based way will not get any pushback from me

but we do put our opinions out there too ... at our own risk ... but don't take it personally

The only Jewish person I've had much to with was a Messianic Jew, which in my book doesn't count as Jewish. He was a smart guy but his brain was stuck in the same track as any other religious person. The sole difference was we agreed that the Rapture was BS.