https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swJ10usbFw4
But but but Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance everybody knows that!
This is a setup! Lies! You filthy kuffar! May Allah curse you! Wait until I get my hands on you.
These are the lovely people Angela Merkel wants to welcome over in droves. Isn't Europe just blessed having her well meaning leadership
Only the other side's shit stinks. Jews aren't and can never be subhuman barbarians like Muslims who are violent, homophobic, and racist/bigoted. No one can. Muslims have a monopoly on all the sins of the world.
Here is a video on an EU worth watching. Germany and France the two countries decide everything and bully the other 26 EU members to comply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs9yDN9K7J0
Shiranu the SJW (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJW) rides again!
Yes, we know you love to stand up for the oppressed. The victims of injustice. I am sure they will be grateful to you.
I will ask you again. Would you be prepared to live among the 'believers' in a Muslim majority country as an atheist or a Jew, or a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or any damned belief system other than Muslim? Would you have the cojones?
Where would you be more likely attacked for your beliefs in Israel or in a Muslim country?
London this week:
(http://www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/killtheJewsUK1.jpg)
(http://images1.ynet.co.il/PicServer3/2013/10/27/4939799/49397979871183640360no.jpg)
It seems they will fit right in then.
Here's a list of Islamic terrorist attacks (The Left is free to compile their own list of Jewish attacks):
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Yes you would like that, to make a black and white issue with everyone forced to one side or another, because you feed on intolerance.
Your signature is the very image of pestilence, hunger, war and death, oh and don't you enjoy associating with that vision of yours.
meaning of Terrorism from oxforddictionaries.com
"The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"
Hmm
so Hamas attacks aren't terrorist? I mean they probably do authorize the rockets attacks. and who is the one to authorize violence and make them non terrorist attacks? What about ISIS, is that authorization power yet.
The word terrorist always made me confuse. anyone can call anyone terrorist (i believe saudia arab calls saudi atheist terrorist or something like that) and we have to believe the American government to identify who is the terrorist.
why can't the term non-state actors be used instead.
We have difficulty separating the individual from the group. An individual Jew or Muslim might be tolerant, because of their conscience. But anyone without a conscience, is a danger to themselves and society. So if the majority have no conscience (at least when talking to reporters) then whichever group member you are interviewing (Icelandic cod fishermen who hate British cod fishermen) is on average going to be a human stain on themselves and whatever group they belong to. There were a few sane Germans during the 1930s for example, but the majority were insane ... a passive-aggressive mix from Hell. Americans are a lot like that too. We tolerate evil in ourselves and in our community ... and from time to time (see KKK) go completely feral. It is possible to clinically observe this as an anthropologist, and not get overly entangled with the monkey vs monkey issues.
CloneKai ... rhetoric pollutes the dictionary. We use and misuse words like atheist and terrorist and fascist. So with Hamas, it depends on if you think they are the Palestinian government or not. Either they are a state terrorist organization or a non-state terrorist organization. Terrorism is what extreme politics brings about ... whether authorized or not. So I don't like the OED's definition. It completely ignores state terrorism like Stalin and Hitler. And yes, some people would call such perps patriots or freedom fighters, depending on their official state status.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 09:12:28 AM
meaning of Terrorism from oxforddictionaries.com
"The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"
Hmm
so Hamas attacks aren't terrorist? I mean they probably do authorize the rockets attacks. and who is the one to authorize violence and make them non terrorist attacks? What about ISIS, is that authorization power yet.
The word terrorist always made me confuse. anyone can call anyone terrorist (i believe saudia arab calls saudi atheist terrorist or something like that) and we have to believe the American government to identify who is the terrorist.
why can't the term non-state actors be used instead.
I think the word "terrorist" originally stems from the immediate goal of the act - to instill "terror" in the population with violent acts. I don't think it pertains to the authorization of a state or an organized group. A terrorist can act on his own,
sans sponsorship from a group.
As to Hamas, I see them as a group belonging to those who are resisting Israel in an armed struggle. Some of their acts can qualify as terrorist attacks, but on the whole, their stated goal is closer to a long drawn war. Perhaps "guerilla fighters", though not the same as those in Spain who fought Napoleon.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 18, 2015, 09:27:59 AM
I think the word "terrorist" originally stems from the immediate goal of the act - to instill "terror" in the population with violent acts. I don't think it pertains to the authorization of a state or an organized group. A terrorist can act on his own, sans sponsorship from a group.
As to Hamas, I see them as a group belonging to those who are resisting Israel in an armed struggle. Some of their acts can qualify as terrorist attacks, but on the whole, their stated goal is closer to a long drawn war. Perhaps "guerilla fighters", though not the same as those in Spain who fought Napoleon.
Well that does make sense.
why are Muslim most likely to do these kind of stuffs though? why aren't other groups causing huge number of terrorist attacks?
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 10:23:25 AM
Well that does make sense.
why are Muslim most likely to do these kind of stuffs though? why aren't other groups causing huge number of terrorist attacks?
Good questions, but that would require a lot of explanations, too long for a post on the internet as there are historical, socio-economic, geopolitical and certainly religious reasons in the case of Islamic terrorism.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 18, 2015, 10:39:26 AM
Good questions, but that would require a lot of explanations, too long for a post on the internet as there are historical, socio-economic, geopolitical and certainly religious reasons in the case of Islamic terrorism.
Then i suppose a solution would be even more complicated and difficult to achieve.
Do you think education, being economically stable (or atleast safe) and being exposed to other ideas might make muslim citizen of muslim majority countries less likely to cause terrorist acts and become less radical muslims.
Most Christians also think that people like us are going to burn in an eternal furnace, and in fact relish the prospect. There are also many Christians in the United States who would love nothing more than to kill all non-White people. The only thing preventing them from doing this is the fact that we have civilized laws in this country. For some reason, we on this forum seem to think this good enough to give them a free pass in most discussions. As I've said in the past, we are willing to separate individuals from the group if it's from any familiar Western group. But for some reason we're not willing to apply that same separation to Muslims. Again, I don't see a lot of out rage on this forum whenever a Hindu kills someone for having the temerity to wear leather.
Secretly a Warsie.
A simple explanation would be perhaps, that it is the will of Allah. It is written in the Quran, it is following the example of Muhammad, Q 33:21.
Why? because the goal, which is
world domination is the central command, the foundation of the [political] ideology.
The religion is the glue, the cohesive force that keeps it together.
It is based on that single idea which came from Muhammad. Later codified by successive khalifs.
The religion is based on war, conquest, plunder, slavery.
Also there are many safeguards built into the religion which is forbidding Muslims to change anything at all on pain of death.
That is why it has not been able to change.
Read this: There are 28 points. I list the first 5.
The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html)
Quote1. A standardized version of the idea-collection is written down. This is something basic to several religions and isn't an Islamic invention, but it is an important factor in the success of Islam.
Something only transmitted orally can change over time, but something written will be identical a thousand years from now, and with modern printing presses, can be reproduced in the millions, giving it an enormous advantage in spreading identical copies of the idea-collection.
2. The Quran includes instructions for its own spread. It tells believers they must spread Islam. It is their holy duty to bring Mohammad's warnings and Islamic law to every corner of the world. Read more about that.
3. The idea-collection includes instructions for its own preservation, protection, and replication fidelity. The Quran, the most important of the Islamic holy books, directly tells its followers that they can never change or modify or "modernize" any of the teachings within the idea-collection. It is perfect as it is. It is a capital sin to try to do so. This idea ensures the preservation of the whole collection.
These first three ideas are pretty standard for several successful religions. But now it gets interesting...
4. Islam commands its followers to create a government that supports it. This may be one of the most ingenious ideas in the whole collection. Islam is the only religion that uses it. Other groups of religious people have had political aspirations, but no other major religious group orders its followers â€" as a religious duty â€" to create a government that follows its own system of law.
Islam has a system of law, called Sharia, and all Muslims are obligated to continually strive to make their government â€" wherever they are â€" follow it. Because of some of the other ideas added to Islam, you will see that this political addition to the idea-collection has significant consequences. Not only is this perhaps Islam's most brilliant innovation, it is also the most terrifying to non-Muslims. Read more about the political nature of the core doctrines of Islam.
5. Permission to spread the religion by war. This is another brilliant innovation. Although some other religions have spread themselves using force, they had very little justification from their own religious doctrines to do so.
Not so with Islam. Expanding by conquest is very much accepted and encouraged by the idea-collection. Islamic teachings present it this way: The poor non-Muslims not living in an Islamic state need to be saved from the sin of following laws other than Allah's. If they won't voluntarily change their laws to Sharia, then it is the duty of Muslim warriors to insist. The world cannot be at peace until every government on earth follows the laws of Allah.
Mohammad's own experience showed the example â€" an example, says the Quran 91 times, that every Muslim should follow. At first, Mohammad tried to spread Islam by peaceful means. After thirteen years he had a paltry 150 converts.
But then he changed tactics and started using warfare, slaughter, executions, and assassination, and within ten years he converted tens of thousands, and after he died, they used the same tactics and converted millions. And by simple population increase, it is now over a billion.
The use of warfare combines synergistically and powerfully with the instruction to create an Islamic state. So Islam spread quickly as their armies got bigger. They conquered and set up Islamic states, most of which have lasted to this day, and the laws within an Islamic state make Islam very difficult to dislodge. The laws also make it very advantageous to convert to Islam.
This is one of the most effective methods ever invented for getting an idea-collection into huge numbers of minds. It's a method of control and indoctrination similar to those used successfully in communist and totalitarian states. But as you'll discover below, Islam makes unique use of the power of the law to enforce complete conversion to the religion.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 18, 2015, 10:50:52 AM
Most Christians also think that people like us are going to burn in an eternal furnace, and in fact relish the prospect. There are also many Christians in the United States who would love nothing more than to kill all non-White people. The only thing preventing them from doing this is the fact that we have civilized laws in this country. For some reason, we on this forum seem to think this good enough to give them a free pass in most discussions. As I've said in the past, we are willing to separate individuals from the group if it's from any familiar Western group. But for some reason we're not willing to apply that same separation to Muslims. Again, I don't see a lot of out rage on this forum whenever a Hindu kills someone for having the temerity to wear leather.
Secretly a Warsie.
Didn't hear about the Hindu thing but
Does community laws effect the way the citizens think? Would a Christian think it is right to kill somebody who insults Jesus?
Because many muslim do think it is right to shut someone up if they insult muhammad (don't know how many think it is right to kill though), and many muslim do live in a place where insulting muhammad is considered a serious offense.
to me it is more of a society thing, a muslim living in USA will be less likely agree to kill someone who insults muhammad as compared someone living in iran. Because society does shape our morals of right and wrong.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 11:04:08 AM
Didn't hear about the Hindu thing but
Does community laws effect the way the citizens think? Would a Christian think it is right to kill somebody who insults Jesus?
Because many muslim do think it is right to shut someone up if they insult muhammad (don't know how many think it is right to kill though), and many muslim do live in a place where insulting muhammad is considered a serious offense.
to me it is more of a society thing, a muslim living in USA will be less likely agree to kill someone who insults muhammad as compared someone living in iran. Because society does shape our morals of right and wrong.
Well, if it's the society that decides what parts of the religion are right and wrong, then why blame the religion?
I'm not saying that I don't think religion is the problem, but you seem to be holding two contradictory views here.
Secretly a Warsie.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 11:02:19 AM
A simple explanation would be perhaps, that it is the will of Allah. It is written in the Quran, it is following the example of Muhammad, Q 33:21.
Why? because the goal, which is world domination is the central command, the foundation of the ideology.
The religion is the glue, the cohesive force that keeps it going.
It is based on that single idea which came from Muhammad. Later codified by successive khalifs.
The religion is based on war, conquest, plunder, slavery.
Also there are many safeguards built into the religion which is forbidding Muslims to change anything at all on pain of death.
That is why it has not been able to change.
Read this: There are 28 points. I list the first 5.
The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html)
And how is this different from Christianity? After all, it wasn't that long ago that Christians en masse we're doing the exact same thing. The only thing that keeps Christians civil is secularism. If you don't believe me, just look at modern-day Uganda. So, other than the lack of secular thought, what is really the difference between Muslims and Christians? Because honestly, I've never been able to see much difference between Western Muslims in the United States and their Christian counterparts.
Secretly a Warsie.
The difference is minor. They [Chritians] don't kill you or trying to enslave you if you are practicing another religion. Not any more, anyway.
A small detail, I know, but it is a welcome difference nevertheless.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 18, 2015, 11:06:35 AM
Well, if it's the society that decides what parts of the religion are right and wrong, then why blame the religion?
I'm not saying that I don't think religion is the problem, but you seem to be holding two contradictory views here.
Secretly a Warsie.
my writing skills aren't really that good, so i apologize for that but could you please tell me the views you think i have
other than society affects the people too, i don't know which other views i gave.
Christards have been beheading unbelievers for at least a thousand years.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/62/c3/00/62c3003dba001740820929ca599d1d6f.jpg)
QuoteCharlemagne's Christian Frankish soldiers commit a mass execution of defiant pagan continental Saxons at Verden.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Srebrenica_massacre_memorial_gravestones_2009_1.jpg/1024px-Srebrenica_massacre_memorial_gravestones_2009_1.jpg)
1995 Srebrenica
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 18, 2015, 11:14:10 AM
And how is this different from Christianity? After all, it wasn't that long ago that Christians en masse we're doing the exact same thing. The only thing that keeps Christians civil is secularism. If you don't believe me, just look at modern-day Uganda. So, other than the lack of secular thought, what is really the difference between Muslims and Christians? Because honestly, I've never been able to see much difference between Western Muslims in the United States and their Christian counterparts.
Secretly a Warsie.
You've hit on an important point: Europe went through a horrifying 30 years war, also called the Religious Wars, the end result was secularism. The Islamic world never went through such transformation. And so to the vast majority of Muslims, the concept of secularism is anathema. It is something to worry, not in particular in the USA, but Europe with its growing Muslim population needs to be vigilant that it does not compromise its Western values - one of which is secularism - in regard to the thrust that Muslims will inevitably apply once in sufficient numbers the whole thing of Sharia law.
Quote from: Baruch on October 18, 2015, 09:13:43 AM
CloneKai ... rhetoric pollutes the dictionary. We use and misuse words like atheist and terrorist and fascist. So with Hamas, it depends on if you think they are the Palestinian government or not. Either they are a state terrorist organization or a non-state terrorist organization. Terrorism is what extreme politics brings about ... whether authorized or not. So I don't like the OED's definition. It completely ignores state terrorism like Stalin and Hitler. And yes, some people would call such perps patriots or freedom fighters, depending on their official state status.
how would you describe terrorism or state terrorism. and what do you mean by extreme politics?
In regards to Muslim immigrants to Europe I am mainly worried about the gays and women there. I know it sounds self serving to worry primarily about that, and it is in a way, but I'll be damned if European nations turn a blind eye to homophobic and sexist attacks in the name of "tolerance". We've already been through this shit, we don't need what use to be safe countries turn into closeted countries once again.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 18, 2015, 11:42:16 AM
You've hit on an important point: Europe went through a horrifying 30 years war, also called the Religious Wars, the end result was secularism. The Islamic world never went through such transformation. And so to the vast majority of Muslims, the concept of secularism is anathema. It is something to worry, not in particular in the USA, but Europe with its growing Muslim population needs to be vigilant that it does not compromise its Western values - one of which is secularism - in regard to the thrust that Muslims will inevitably apply once in sufficient numbers the whole thing of Sharia law.
Thank you for giving me a clear and concise answer to my question. [emoji4]
Secretly a Warsie.
jonb wrote:QuoteChristards have been beheading unbelievers for at least a thousand years
It is time they stopped then.
Oh and the Crusades and the Inquisition, the witch hunting is still in progress?
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 11:02:19 AM
A simple explanation would be perhaps, that it is the will of Allah. It is written in the Quran, it is following the example of Muhammad, Q 33:21.
Why? because the goal, which is world domination is the central command, the foundation of the [political] ideology.
The religion is the glue, the cohesive force that keeps it together.
It is based on that single idea which came from Muhammad. Later codified by successive khalifs.
The religion is based on war, conquest, plunder, slavery.
Also there are many safeguards built into the religion which is forbidding Muslims to change anything at all on pain of death.
That is why it has not been able to change.
Read this: There are 28 points. I list the first 5.
That was a long list but nothing really original to islam. I am sure no mythical god ever said "you can change my words whenever you feel like it".
didn't Christian and Jews also had their own government and laws. and didn't any religion spread by war.
so this doesn't exactly answer my question about terrorism.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 11:54:27 AM
Oh and the Crusades and the Inquisition, the witch hunting is still in progress?
Quote
'Baby Doe' Bella Bond 'murdered by mum's boyfriend because she was possessed by demons'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/baby-doe-bella-bond-murdered-6489895 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/baby-doe-bella-bond-murdered-6489895)
QuoteThat was a long list but nothing really original to islam. I am sure no mythical god ever said "you can change my words whenever you feel like it".
didn't Christian and Jews also had their own government and laws. and didn't any religion spread by war.
so this doesn't exactly answer my question about terrorism.
Sorry to disappoint. Try to do some research yourself if you are so interested.
Quote from: jonb on October 18, 2015, 12:11:57 PM
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/baby-doe-bella-bond-murdered-6489895 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/baby-doe-bella-bond-murdered-6489895)
That certainly tops the 27, 102 (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/) terror attacks since 9/11.
.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 12:14:05 PM
Sorry to disappoint. Try to do some research yourself if you are so interested.
I am more interested in yours opinion :shifty:
The problem is everyone comes up with different reasons. people who hate islam, people who hate muslim, people who just hate everyone else, people who loves others too much and then people who are actually sensible are lost somewhere in between. you know its quite confusing.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 12:20:19 PM
I am more interested in yours :shifty:
The problem is everyone comes up with different reasons. people who hate islam, people who hate muslim, people who just hate everyone else, people who loves others too much and then people who are actually sensible are lost somewhere in between. you know its quite confusing./quote]
Hating a hateful, supremacist, totalitarian fascist ideology is not wrong.
I studied Islam, its trilogy (quran, hadits, sirat rasool allah) the Sharia laws.
However, it does take a long time to read and understand the subject.
So I try to explain it in very simple terms if anyone would listen.
Also there should be a willingness to learn, but most people cannot be bothered.
All of it can be found on the Internet, at no charge. Go forth and read.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 12:27:58 PM
Hating a hateful, supremacist, totalitarian fascist ideology is not wrong.
i agree, though hate is kind of a strong word.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 12:27:58 PM
I studied Islam, its trilogy (quran, hadits, sirat rasool allah) the Sharia laws.
However, it does take a long time to read and understand the subject.
So I try to explain it in very simple terms if anyone would listen.
Also there should be a willingness to learn, but most people cannot be bothered.
All of it can be found on the Internet, at no charge. Go forth and read.
yeah but i was never taught this (at least the things you know). i have nearly what 8 years of islamic education (well what you will find in schools), and alot is not like the way you say it.
and about this Sharia, wasn't it created after muhammad. so why can't it be changed. the muslim believe all other god textbooks were adulterated by human, and only quran is safe from it. so doesn't that mean that sunnah is also not safe from adulteration, thus sunnah can be wrong, right?
Death to homosexual, to apostates and blasphamers are all in the sunnah only, right? thus these could be changed from within the islamic faith?
The thing is, the islam i was taught was barely any different from the Christianity many people in the west believe in. and yet the muslim still cause the most terrorist activities.
@ CloneKai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LGzrYUGXdI
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 12:18:16 PM
That certainly tops the 27, 102 (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/) terror attacks since 9/11.
.
How many Iraqis, Syrians have died through bombing by the Allies? Lowest estimate of 151,000 from Gulf war alone.
There is a war going on in which the Allies are bombing everyone, including christards and atheists, religion is being used by all players to justify their position.
I know people that come from traditionally Islamic cultures that are rejecting the religion, but this silly all those people are evil stuff is forcing them back into the arms of Imams who say do not associate with those people they are against all of us middle eastern and Indian sub continent people.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 11:52:58 AM
In regards to Muslim immigrants to Europe I am mainly worried about the gays and women there. I know it sounds self serving to worry primarily about that, and it is in a way, but I'll be damned if European nations turn a blind eye to homophobic and sexist attacks in the name of "tolerance". We've already been through this shit, we don't need what use to be safe countries turn into closeted countries once again.
Bringing this to the current page because...because.
What the fuck is Europe doing to protect gays and women?
Are we going to have another repeat of Rotherham where 1400 girls were raped while the authorities turned a blind eye to avoid being seen as "racist"? Will gays have to live in fear again? Why isn't there outrage against this? Why is no one assuring the LGBT community that their rights and lives will be protected?
I'm not against helping people in need of help. What I'm against is turning a blind eye to violence in the name of helping people.
QuoteIsis recruiters foiled as young Muslims find their British identity in football
A club in west London has diverted 10 teenagers away from the temptations of jihad by strengthening their sense of British identity through sport
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/dca1bf71652a47325a4b7e8660db211392af9f3c/0_218_5242_3146/master/5242.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=b5cda8ead82f6bb7ec271c446ad9e99d)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/06/isis-recruiters-foiled-youg-muslims-british-identity-football (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/06/isis-recruiters-foiled-youg-muslims-british-identity-football)
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 01:11:26 PM
Bringing this to the current page because...because.
What the fuck is Europe doing to protect gays and women?
Are we going to have another repeat of Rotherham where 1400 girls were raped while the authorities turned a blind eye to avoid being seen as "racist"? Will gays have to live in fear again? Why isn't there outrage against this? Why is no one assuring the LGBT community that their rights and lives will be protected?
I'm not against helping people in need of help. What I'm against is turning a blind eye to violence in the name of helping people.
How much of the child abuse going on in Britain is not about who the perpetrators might be, but to do with the class system that is not supposed to exist and those children being written off as 'worthless sluts'.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 12:52:46 PM
@ CloneKai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LGzrYUGXdI
I am just going to write my remarks about this video.
1) yes, many muslim believe church and state are supposed to be one, or they end up with the immoral western society, unfortunately they don't seems to know the benefit of it.
2) Freedom of expression looked pretty much okay in pakistan, before those danish cartoons came along, we could insult the president or any religious figures. no one really thought of insulting muhammad or islam directly though.
3) there were incidents taught to us, about the time muhammad was insulted and even had feces thrown at him, but apparently he forgave those people and even prayed for them. this is again taught as basic school curriculum. (everyone must learn it). So why are people who are screaming death to blasphemers more loud than the normal people.
4) no part of pakistan allows for stoning of adulterers, amputation of limbs or child-marriages (implementation of law is another thing)
i have yet to find a law about execution of apostate in pakistan. (again implementation of law is another thing)
5) Question about threat to the world? only nations this video talks about are either in direct confrontation with muslims in the muslim countries or are indirectly helping attacking the muslim countries.
6) don't like the pew research poll part. if these religious people believe God says that, obviously they are going to vote for what God said rather than what west likes everyone to believe. kinda like how huge portion of americans believe that earth is what 6000 years old, and how gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
How do you think Islamism can be defeated?
Quote from: jonb on October 18, 2015, 01:25:53 PM
How much of the child abuse going on in Britain is not about who the perpetrators might be, but to do with the class system that is not supposed to exist and those children being written off as 'worthless sluts'.
Nice way to dance away from my central question.
Obviously patriarchal bullshit comes into play, but I picked the Rotherham instance specifically because it was the cultural and religious identity of the perpetrators that made the authorities hesitate to act.
Once again, what is being done to assure the LGBT community and women of their safety? These people come from cultures that impose severe violence upon LGBT people and women. Something needs to be done to make sure these vulnerable populations are kept safe from violence.
QuoteHow do you think Islamism can be defeated?
Islam can only be defeated by a superior force. However, we are not prepared to do that.
In the end, it will be a Darwinian selection. The stronger will prevail. My money is on Islam.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 01:42:09 PM
Islam can only be defeated by a superior force. However, we are not prepared to do that.
In the end, it will be a Darwinian selection. The stronger will prevail. My money is on Islam.
force as in military force?
by killing people?
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 01:44:50 PM
force as in military force?
by killing people?
Simply calling out what a shit religion Islam is without people jumping in to say "but the Christians are doing bad things also!" would help. Yes, we know that. We already call them out. You don't see anyone jumping in on Christianity related threads whining about how bad the Muslims are as well.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 01:49:54 PM
Simply calling out what a shit religion Islam is without people jumping in to say "but the Christians are doing bad things also!" would help. Yes, we know that. We already call them out. You don't see anyone jumping in on Christianity related threads whining about how bad the Muslims are as well.
would that help?
Remember the youtube video "the truth of islam" or something like that
the result was pakistani government blocked youtube
it was blocked and still is.
it was great place to get different kind of ideas (and huge amount of videos on atheist and their ideas) and now nothing.
so that didn't help anyone other than conservative mullas and islamism probably
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 01:44:50 PM
force as in military force?
by killing people?
Well, what do you think?
Can you talk them out of it? Please can you stop the jihad, is bad for us?
Have a cup of tea with Abu Bakar Al Baghdadi have a nice little chat?
I am sure they will all pack up their toys and go home.
An other option is that we collectively get out the gene pool, and there will be nothing to worry about any more.
Is that better?
Islam does not negotiate, does not compromise.
It is a zero sum game. There can be only a winner or a loser.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 01:39:33 PM
Nice way to dance away from my central question.
Obviously patriarchal bullshit comes into play, but I picked the Rotherham instance specifically because it was the cultural and religious identity of the perpetrators that made the authorities hesitate to act.
Once again, what is being done to assure the LGBT community and women of their safety? These people come from cultures that impose severe violence upon LGBT people and women. Something needs to be done to make sure these vulnerable populations are kept safe from violence.
No it is not fucking dancing away from the question it is bloody well central to it, even though it is never pursued the excuse most often given across all those cases by police and social workers was that these men were those children's boyfriends and girls from that sort of background well. . . .
(http://unsigned-letters.com/Rochdale/Smith/cyril_smith.jpg)
Who protected the boys the MP for Rochdale used.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 01:55:17 PM
would that help?
Remember the youtube video "the truth of islam" or something like that
the result was pakistani government blocked youtube
it was blocked and still is.
it was great place to get different kind of ideas (and huge amount of videos on atheist and their ideas) and now nothing.
so that didn't help anyone other than conservative mullas and islamism probably
It was "the innocence of Muslims".
It's blocked, yes, but do you honestly think that everything is blocked? There are Saudi atheist forums out there. With technology these days it's impossible to block everything, unless you completely spurn the internet like the glorious DPRK has done. All I want to happen is the people who want to know more to get that information. Thanks to the internet it is happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvvQJ_zsL1U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60
I don't know about anyone else but i certainly don't feel empowered when i see Sam Harris talk. (and i am a liberal from muslim world).
It is always the same.
I remember when troubles kicked off in Northern Ireland the first homes burnt were not those of the strong protestants or the committed catholics, but as always mixed married families with connections to both sides.
Because people who want a fight like nice clean black an white lines without individuals that might find ways to live with each other.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 02:00:04 PM
Well, what do you think?
Can you talk them out of it? Please can you stop the jihad, is bad for us?
Have a cup of tea with Abu Bakar Al Baghdadi have a nice little chat?
I am sure they will all pack up their toys and go home.
An other option is that we collectively get out the gene pool, and there will be nothing to worry about any more.
Is that better?
Islam does not negotiate, does not compromise.
It is a zero sum game. There can be only a winner or a loser.
interesting
no i cant talk to people who are already established and can kill me anytime they want.
so i will have to die for islam to die.
hmm
well knowing that most of the poor country will probably not side with the west and then there is china, russia and maybe even india. so basically you believe that the entire world must be destroyed to destroy islam.
maybe it is better to let islam live for now, couple of million death is no problem and even the death of western principles isn't that bad. eventually the muslim will come into the 21st century even if it 3000 years from now.
Quote from: jonb on October 18, 2015, 02:02:10 PM
No it is not fucking dancing away from the question it is bloody well central to it, even though it is never pursued the excuse most often given across all those cases by police and social workers was that these men were those children's boyfriends and girls from that sort of background well. . . .
(http://unsigned-letters.com/Rochdale/Smith/cyril_smith.jpg)
Who protected the boys the MP for Rochdale used.
Once again, patriarchal bullshit does play into it. I never denied that. What I'm asking is what's being done to protect LGBT people and women from Muslims? And yes, I will flatly say Muslims. Islam is directly opposed to LGBT and women's rights. What steps are being taken to minimize violence against LGBT people?
QuoteWhat steps are being taken to minimize violence against LGBT people?
None.
CloneCai wrote: Quoteeventually the muslim will come into the 21st century even if it 3000 years from now.
By the way, 3000 years form now will be the 51st century. They will be still 3000 years behind.
If another 3000 years of the 7th century Islamic dark ages appeals to you, then good luck to to you and to planet Earth.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 02:05:19 PM
It was "the innocence of Muslims".
It's blocked, yes, but do you honestly think that everything is blocked? There are Saudi atheist forums out there. With technology these days it's impossible to block everything, unless you completely spurn the internet like the glorious DPRK has done. All I want to happen is the people who want to know more to get that information. Thanks to the internet it is happening.
for pakistan yes it is. saudis had money, they already had censorship programs established for these kind of things so they weren't that effected. they could just remove that video from their youtube, for pakistan entire youtube was and is blocked.
yes you can view youtube in pakistan as well, but it is difficult and quality goes down way too much and the buffering time and other websites gets knocked off too. my happy porn watching days almost ended. and i am one of those computer people who actually knows some serious stuffs about internet.
The problem is we lose alot. most people aren't that motivated to search for different ideas. imagine pr gives you a controversial video link. will you watch it, maybe. but what if it is 2 hours long, less chances you will watch it. now imagine you have to jump to different websites (like say a proxy site) and then access it. speed is slow quality is horrible. you see how much people will want to invest their time in a video that might be just useless.
so whether you like it or not the video "the innocence of Muslims" might have caused more damage than benefits. we lost great tool and what did you get, almost nothing. hell maybe even more bigotry against muslim.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 02:30:24 PM
CloneCai wrote:
By the way, 3000 years form now will be the 51st century. They will be still 3000 years behind.
If another 3000 years of the 7th century Islamic dark ages appeals to you, then good luck to to you and to planet Earth.
Hahahahaha
no i meant after the muslim kill everyone else.
and then they eventually progress. atleast the human species survived
better than your idea about making the entire planet uninhabitable.
:06:
CloneKai wroteQuotehell maybe even more bigotry against muslim.
If you want real bigotry then read the Quran. It is full of it.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 02:34:45 PM
CloneKai wroteIf you want real bigotry then read the Quran. It is full of it.
yeah i know it is.
i remember people saying that religions are used to control masses.
why can't the west to that with muslim world in a good way
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 02:14:48 PM
Once again, patriarchal bullshit does play into it. I never denied that. What I'm asking is what's being done to protect LGBT people and women from Muslims? And yes, I will flatly say Muslims. Islam is directly opposed to LGBT and women's rights. What steps are being taken to minimize violence against LGBT people?
If the children have no protection that does not matter, you only want to know about one community?
Yes lets all trot towards a world where we only look after our own and to hell with everyone else.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 02:31:02 PM
for pakistan yes it is. saudis had money, they already had censorship programs established for these kind of things so they weren't that effected. they could just remove that video from their youtube, for pakistan entire youtube was and is blocked.
yes you can view youtube in pakistan as well, but it is difficult and quality goes down way too much and the buffering time and other websites gets knocked off too. my happy porn watching days almost ended. and i am one of those computer people who actually knows some serious stuffs about internet.
The problem is we lose alot. most people aren't that motivated to search for different ideas. imagine pr gives you a controversial video link. will you watch it, maybe. but what if it is 2 hours long, less chances you will watch it. now imagine you have to jump to different websites (like say a proxy site) and then access it. speed is slow quality is horrible. you see how much people will want to invest their time in a video that might be just useless.
so whether you like it or not the video "the innocence of Muslims" might have caused more damage than benefits. we lost great tool and what did you get, almost nothing. hell maybe even more bigotry against muslim.
I didn't know you were actually Pakistani.
I will agree that the censorship is regrettable, but it doesn't have to be a video. Critical text is equally as important. Once again, it mainly applies to those who desire to know more. They will find a way. I mean, you're on an atheist forum. I'm sure your government wouldn't approve, but here you are.
Quote from: jonb on October 18, 2015, 02:39:51 PM
If the children have no protection that does not matter, you only want to know about one community?
Yes lets all trot towards a world where we only look after our own and to hell with everyone else.
Where did I say I don't care about children or other people? Of course I worry about children, but that's not what I'm currently asking about. Do I need to include everyone every time?
Fine: what's being done to protect people from potential violence? Are we to assume the migrants are all angels and the potential for violence isn't there?
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 02:45:03 PM
I didn't know you were actually Pakistani.
I will agree that the censorship is regrettable, but it doesn't have to be a video. Critical text is equally as important. Once again, it mainly applies to those who desire to know more. They will find a way. I mean, you're on an atheist forum. I'm sure your government wouldn't approve, but here you are.
I used to use vpn in a freaking tor network :33:
and right now i am in Germany so no problem.
But the problem is i am an atheist (i was an athiest even before i started searching for these kind of things online), what about liberal muslim. even they don't know the benefit of secular state, even though they see fat ass mullas using islam every freaking day.
yes text right now can get through, and everyone is probably waiting for ability to censor that to be made in the west and then sold to pakistanis as well.
yes, it depends on the person. but i think their must be enough motivation for them, and easier access will benefit us all.
what i am saying is talking shit about islam probably will not help instead create more devide and more chances of radical idiots.
I made one pakistani go through the yahoo comment section, you know to teach him that the entire government wasn't behind the video and there are actual people who hate islam and some for very credible reasons. he said he got into a flame war and eventually learned some good liberal stuffs.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 18, 2015, 11:54:06 AM
Thank you for giving me a clear and concise answer to my question. [emoji4]
Secretly a Warsie.
How about brief? Oh wait, 4 lines in a post must be right on the threshold of being "brief". :lol:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 18, 2015, 05:28:57 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swJ10usbFw4
(https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0005/98/1420142904886.jpg)
Quote from: mauricio on October 18, 2015, 03:13:51 PM
(https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0005/98/1420142904886.jpg)
Meh, Jew created Hollywood. They are the undisputed masters in film making. Now why don't the Muslims get their act together and make movies to make themselves look good... Oh wait:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1119922/British-students-turned-jihadi-fanatics-ISIS-recruitment-video.html
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 18, 2015, 03:22:09 PM
Meh, Jew created Hollywood. They are the undisputed masters in film making. Now why don't the Muslims get their act together and make movies to make themselves look good... Oh wait:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1119922/British-students-turned-jihadi-fanatics-ISIS-recruitment-video.html
hi
we do make shitty movies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuda_Kay_Liye
here i think it is called lolywood
:41:
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 02:56:01 PM
yes, it depends on the person. but i think their must be enough motivation for them, and easier access will benefit us all.
what i am saying is talking shit about islam probably will not help instead create more devide and more chances of radical idiots.
I like the approach of maajid nawaz, not ignoring the problematic verses in the quran and the hadith, but rather advocating for their reformation based on traditional islamic scholarship. He also uses a conciliatory tone and rhetoric that i think would be very helpful to reach people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkTAFpQTcJ4
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 02:56:01 PM
I used to use vpn in a freaking tor network :33:
and right now i am in Germany so no problem.
But the problem is i am an atheist (i was an athiest even before i started searching for these kind of things online), what about liberal muslim. even they don't know the benefit of secular state, even though they see fat ass mullas using islam every freaking day.
yes text right now can get through, and everyone is probably waiting for ability to censor that to be made in the west and then sold to pakistanis as well.
yes, it depends on the person. but i think their must be enough motivation for them, and easier access will benefit us all.
what i am saying is talking shit about islam probably will not help instead create more devide and more chances of radical idiots.
Easier access would be beneficial.
As per insulting Islam: yes, it causes radicals and moderates alike to be offended, but I would argue that it's a needed thing. Muslims, and others as well need to learn that being offended is the price of free speech. Hell, some Muslims already put out extremely offensive things, but can't take it when others offend. Being offended is part of how one learns. When you're offended you need to examine
why you're offended rather than shut it out. Does it hold to reason? Many people need to learn this rather than being needlessly offended.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 02:59:05 PM
I made one pakistani go through the yahoo comment section, you know to teach him that the entire government wasn't behind the video and there are actual people who hate islam and some for very credible reasons. he said he got into a flame war and eventually learned some good liberal stuffs.
That's pretty awesome.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 18, 2015, 03:22:09 PM
Meh, Jew created Hollywood. They are the undisputed masters in film making. Now why don't the Muslims get their act together and make movies to make themselves look good... Oh wait:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1119922/British-students-turned-jihadi-fanatics-ISIS-recruitment-video.html
"look around you when you are sitting in comfort and ask yourself is this how you want to die?"
yes.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQa9LaNUEAASs8S.jpg)
Now what?
Gotta love idealists falling into the sword for a worthless cause. I would like to see their face as they lie with broken bones and shards of metal on their meat and realize they were fucking useless.
Quote from: mauricio on October 18, 2015, 03:13:51 PM
(https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0005/98/1420142904886.jpg)
Go back to /pol/.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 09:12:28 AM
meaning of Terrorism from oxforddictionaries.com
"The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"
Hmm
so Hamas attacks aren't terrorist? I mean they probably do authorize the rockets attacks. and who is the one to authorize violence and make them non terrorist attacks? What about ISIS, is that authorization power yet.
The word terrorist always made me confuse. anyone can call anyone terrorist (i believe saudia arab calls saudi atheist terrorist or something like that) and we have to believe the American government to identify who is the terrorist.
why can't the term non-state actors be used instead.
The word 'terrorist' is just about always in the eye of the beholder--like beauty or cult. I would suggest that from prehistory one group has been terrorizing another group. We used terrorist tactics in the American Revolution--I would say that all warfare calls for the use of terror tactics. One side calls it terror tactics and the other side calls it warfare or justified violence. Likewise, what is beautiful? One person says that a person is beautiful, and another says they are ugly. And what is a cult? It is what a bigger religion calls a smaller religion. Terrorism is really a propaganda term used to make those who use those tactics seem like the bad guy. Even when both sides use those tactics.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 03:27:11 PM
Easier access would be beneficial.
As per insulting Islam: yes, it causes radicals and moderates alike to be offended, but I would argue that it's a needed thing. Muslims, and others as well need to learn that being offended is the price of free speech. Hell, some Muslims already put out extremely offensive things, but can't take it when others offend. Being offended is part of how one learns. When you're offended you need to examine why you're offended rather than shut it out. Does it hold to reason? Many people need to learn this rather than being needlessly offended.
That's pretty awesome.
Nice point but
most of the muslim don't see it.
if for example that video or picture or whatever is aired in muslim majority country in a periodic manner, they will no doubt get used to it.
but that is not what is happening, instead we hear something was said. people go batshit crazy, those people are condemned end of story.
and those who insult islam always comes from the west, the countries who are killing muslims all over the place. not from china or russia or japan or from africa.
so us vs them, good vs evil mantra stays alive
Obviously, you people cannot stop freedom of doing that in your place nor should you.
but there should be a way for these muslim to see you as you are, not as some evil force from hell, bend on destroying islam. And maybe they might get motivated to hear what you guys have to say.
so some people insult islam or muslim, great no problem. but some people must tell them why freedom of expression is such an important thing. and that too by not insulting them first, after all people don't normally listen after being insulted.
different ideas in pakistan are very rare. everyone seems to be talking the same shit, think doing the same thing.
This is in my opinion, the most important reason why muslim world produce so many terrorists. is because they never hear other people, they never see other people. so it is so easy to dehumanize people, so easy to believe in conspiracy theories.
wonder why pakistanis weren't condemning 9/11 or al quida in droves, because they believe america was behind it, so they could attack the muslim world.
who are terrorist attacks in pakistan
http://arynews.tv/en/raw-seen-behind-peshawar-air-base-attack-ary-website-poll/
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 18, 2015, 03:55:39 PM
The word 'terrorist' is just about always in the eye of the beholder--like beauty or cult. I would suggest that from prehistory one group has been terrorizing another group. We used terrorist tactics in the American Revolution--I would say that all warfare calls for the use of terror tactics. One side calls it terror tactics and the other side calls it warfare or justified violence. Likewise, what is beautiful? One person says that a person is beautiful, and another says they are ugly. And what is a cult? It is what a bigger religion calls a smaller religion. Terrorism is really a propaganda term used to make those who use those tactics seem like the bad guy. Even when both sides use those tactics.
kinda what i always thought.
QuoteI will ask you again. Would you be prepared to live among the 'believers' in a Muslim majority country as an atheist or a Jew, or a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or any damned belief system other than Muslim? Would you have the cojones?
Uh... yes. There are several Muslim countries I have considered moving to for my career.
Alexandria, Egypt is one destination. Places like Izmir and Istanbul are up there on places I would want to live. Pre-ISIS, Jordan seemed nice but unfortunately after we sufficiently destabilized the region enough that area is a bit more sketchy now. Morocco can be hit-or-miss for me.
But then I've also considered moving to Mexico or Brasil, which according to the Western Media means I will be tortured, decapitated and cut into 10 pieces and shipped to the different corners of the country.
On terrorism: it is a legitimate tactic. Every nation and hostile force uses terror as a weapon. If I was part of some rebel force I'd use terror tactics. What you want is your enemy to be afraid. I don't blame radical Muslims for terrorism, that's how war goes. I blame the west for failing to realize that we are at war, failing to see the enemy.
I honestly don't know what to do, but if we don't deal with it soon it will turn ugly. I'm talking full scale slaughter and genocide. Don't want that to happen? We need to wake up and deal with radical Muslims now.
Quote from: mauricio on October 18, 2015, 03:26:10 PM
I like the approach of maajid nawaz, not ignoring the problematic verses in the quran and the hadith, but rather advocating for their reformation based on traditional islamic scholarship. He also uses a conciliatory tone and rhetoric that i think would be very helpful to reach people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkTAFpQTcJ4
Yeah this is someone, muslim i know can listen to and ignite a debate or something.
though i could only watch 20 minutes of it, what he says in that time is indeed important.
my father was saying something like whenever Pakistani goes to the west, they fuck up horribly and make all pakistani look really horrible.
the horrible incident The Skeletal Atheist was talking about would have caused some serious reaction if it had occurred in Pakistan. i am surprised i didn't know of it.
Quote from: mauricio on October 18, 2015, 03:35:52 PM
"look around you when you are sitting in comfort and ask yourself is this how you want to die?"
yes.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQa9LaNUEAASs8S.jpg)
Now what?
Gotta love idealists falling into the sword for a worthless cause. I would like to see their face as they lie with broken bones and shards of metal on their meat and realize they were fucking useless.
The thing is that when you're dead, you don't know that you're dead. When a Muslim martyr dies, he's not going to say: "Oh wait, where are the 72 virgins? Fuck, I died for nothing."
When you think about it: the wealthy have it really good, not because they can't take it with them when they die, but had a great time while living.
:grin:
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 04:38:03 PM
On terrorism: it is a legitimate tactic. Every nation and hostile force uses terror as a weapon. If I was part of some rebel force I'd use terror tactics. What you want is your enemy to be afraid. I don't blame radical Muslims for terrorism, that's how war goes. I blame the west for failing to realize that we are at war, failing to see the enemy.
I honestly don't know what to do, but if we don't deal with it soon it will turn ugly. I'm talking full scale slaughter and genocide. Don't want that to happen? We need to wake up and deal with radical Muslims now.
Your owned by your fear aren't you?
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1158620/thumbs/o-MOSQUE-YORK-EDL-TEA-570.jpg?5)
Have a cup of tea.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 11:19:27 AM
The difference is minor. They [Chritians] don't kill you or trying to enslave you if you are practicing another religion. Not any more, anyway.
A small detail, I know, but it is a welcome difference nevertheless.
Not any more? Because there is progress, and the West is the vanguard of progress, and will never regress, because of Aristotle and teleology? There are Christians I know of (but not personally) that would regress in a heartbeat. It is all the false dichotomy that gets thrown about ... and how the good side always happens to be people we like ;-(
Pr126 ..."An other option is that we collectively get out the gene pool, and there will be nothing to worry about any more." Poor choice of words ... so we need to breed a billion Aryans to make sure the Chinese kiss our ass? What about the Indians? We need two billion Aryans then? Sorry, I simply don't worry about the "race" of any man my daughter dates ... I only care if he is a good man. And I don't worry if she will marry, or how many children she may have ... because I am not trying to prove what an Abraham or King Solomon I am.
PS - the Jews rule Hollywood ... is so marginal as far as reportable hate speech. I am ashamed anyone cross-referenced it here, even if it wasn't their own opinion. Jews rule NYC ... and we aren't giving it back! I could only hope I had a nose like in the racist illustration ;-)
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 11:51:04 AM
how would you describe terrorism or state terrorism. and what do you mean by extreme politics?
Terrorism is a political technique, like frying food instead of boiling it. Extreme politics extends beyond the low end of the violence spectrum (lying, defrauding and robbing) to the high end of the violence spectrum (assault, rape and murder). Serbian treatment of Croats and Bosnians just 20 years ago, shows that this isn't something impossible for Europeans to resort to, just because WW II was so awful. So the acts of the Serbs in that case, were state terrorism ... they were ordered to do so by the state ... it wasn't rogue bandits that did it. Now if we assume that ISIS isn't state supported, then its acts are non-state terrorism. One can argue if ISIS is state supported, but for example were all Sunni and Shia militias during US occupation of Iraq state supported or not? Some would accuse the Saudis of supporting the Sunni insurgency and the Iranians supporting the Shia insurgency. So perhaps really all we can distinguish is "state supported terrorism without plausible deniability" and "state supported terrorism with plausible deniability". Even George Washington engaged in terrorism, in the French & Indian War (both sides used Indians) and during the American War of Independence (both sides deliberately murdered civilians and prisoners of war).
Quote from: Baruch on October 18, 2015, 05:14:36 PM
Terrorism is a political technique, like frying food instead of boiling it. Extreme politics extends beyond the low end of the violence spectrum (lying, defrauding and robbing) to the high end of the violence spectrum (assault, rape and murder). Serbian treatment of Croats and Bosnians just 20 years ago, shows that this isn't something impossible for Europeans to resort to, just because WW II was so awful. So the acts of the Serbs in that case, were state terrorism ... they were ordered to do so by the state ... it wasn't rogue bandits that did it. Now if we assume that ISIS isn't state supported, then its acts are non-state terrorism. One can argue if ISIS is state supported, but for example were all Sunni and Shia militias during US occupation of Iraq state supported or not? Some would accuse the Saudis of supporting the Sunni insurgency and the Iranians supporting the Shia insurgency. So perhaps really all we can distinguish is "state supported terrorism without plausible deniability" and "state supported terrorism with plausible deniability". Even George Washington engaged in terrorism, in the French & Indian War (both sides used Indians) and during the American War of Independence (both sides deliberately murdered civilians and prisoners of war).
reasonable explanation.
thanks
QuoteThe difference is minor. They [Chritians] don't kill you or trying to enslave you if you are practicing another religion. Not any more, anyway.
In the West. Go to Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia and you will see the exact same shit you do in the Middle East, just with Jesus instead of Muhammad as the poster boy.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 03:46:17 PM
Go back to /pol/.
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2r2gk15MN1qi09cvo1_1280.jpg)
Secretly a Warsie.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 18, 2015, 05:35:33 PM
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2r2gk15MN1qi09cvo1_1280.jpg)
Secretly a Warsie.
While I missed where the burn was, +1 for Pokemon references.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 18, 2015, 05:19:09 PM
In the West. Go to Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia and you will see the exact same shit you do in the Middle East, just with Jesus instead of Muhammad as the poster boy.
>see the exact same shit
Nigga what the fuck are you talking about? show me this paramilitary christian sects destabilizing countries and taking cities and founding their christian utopia where they fucking enforce the bible as the rule of law in latin america?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 18, 2015, 05:35:33 PM
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2r2gk15MN1qi09cvo1_1280.jpg)
Secretly a Warsie.
Jokes on you I was only pretending to be retarded!
Quote from: jonb on October 18, 2015, 05:01:57 PM
Your owned by your fear aren't you?
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1158620/thumbs/o-MOSQUE-YORK-EDL-TEA-570.jpg?5)
Have a cup of tea.
I'm sorry that I'm worried about LGBT people and women. Maybe it's because we've had to deal with centuries of oppression and violence at the hands of one Abrahamic religion that I'm wary of another one taking place.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 12:49:01 PM
i agree, though hate is kind of a strong word.yeah but i was never taught this (at least the things you know). i have nearly what 8 years of islamic education (well what you will find in schools), and alot is not like the way you say it.
and about this Sharia, wasn't it created after muhammad. so why can't it be changed. the muslim believe all other god textbooks were adulterated by human, and only quran is safe from it. so doesn't that mean that sunnah is also not safe from adulteration, thus sunnah can be wrong, right?
Death to homosexual, to apostates and blasphamers are all in the sunnah only, right? thus these could be changed from within the islamic faith?
The thing is, the islam i was taught was barely any different from the Christianity many people in the west believe in. and yet the muslim still cause the most terrorist activities.
We are each taught culture by our parents, schools etc ... but it is very superficial, even up to 20 years old. If you really want to know things, even understand them, then a lifetime of learning is what is required. This is why literacy in some chosen language is so important. Both Medieval Jews and Medieval Muslims promoted literacy, but Medieval Christians did not. Of course with Jews and Muslims, they were primarily interested in you reading your scriptures for yourself. This is rather democratic. The danger to the state lies with how it is interpreted. Jews and Muslims wanted people to read for themselves, but control the interpretation. Christians wanted to cut it off at the source ... even the Medieval priests were mostly illiterate, they did liturgy from memory, often in a Latin they didn't understand. With modern times, the creation of printing destroyed the monopoly of learning by the clergy. In Islamic countries, a very different history occurred. You had the short period of Muhammad and Abu Bakr ... this was only 4 years total. Then you had the next three Caliphs, and civil war ... ending with the death of Ali. Aisha led one of those civil wars, but Ali spared her life. But with the conquests of Caliph Umar ... Islam developed a problem ... the center of Islam moved away from Mecca/Medinah to Syria and Iraq. In Syria the Arabs came under Byzantine influence, but in Iraq the Arabs came under Persian influence. The early period was settled by the Ummayads only 57 years after Abu Bakr. The Ummayads were able to form a stable empire, but based in Damascus, and under Byzantine influence. Problems persisted as the Islamic Empire continued to expand for another 89 years, until the Arabs clashed with the Chinese in Central Asia. Both regimes were shook to the core, and the Ummayads were replaced by the Iraqi Arab faction, the Abbasids, which created the new city of Baghdad. For the remaining centuries of stability, Islam came under Persian influence. Mecca/Medinah was all but forgotten, except for the Hajj ... and never became important again until the 20th century. Meanwhile a few Ummayads managed to create the first schism of territory ... by establishing their own caliphate in Iberia ... which continued to flourish and decline until 1492, the dawn of the modern period. This established a precedent that independent emirs and caliphs were possible. The remaining history of the Abbasid Caliphate is a story of gradual disintegration outside of Iraq, often under the ideology of Shiism or Ismailism or even Druze. When the Mongols came to Iraq in 1258, they ended the Abbasid Caliphate by genocide.
During all this time, there were several movements trying to deal with the challenges. When the Caliphate moved to Baghdad, they rapidly became more Persian, and this disturbed the imams and judges ... because they couldn't recognize Islam in Persian dress. Non-Arabic thinking and theology was introduced. The original reluctance to accept converts into Islam ... was reversed, because there was a need for more first tier citizens (those who could fight, dhimmis payed an extra tax in lieu of fighting) and the five simple affirmations were developed to allow easy entry into Islamic faith. Prior to that, you had to be adopted into an Arabic tribe! This brought many non-Arabs into Islam, which continues to a great extent today (otherwise the majority of Muslims wouldn't be Indic or Indonesian). This was very disturbing to orthodox Arabic muslims ... and this is what spurred the Hadith movement, and the development of Sharia (Arabic law). Over time, in many places, the Sunni movement was successful, just as rabbinic Judaism was among Jews.
The challenges of imperialism and the tragedies of political disintegration and genocide from Central Asia to Anatolia and Iraq ... hardened the Muslim culture and made it less open. The Salafists are developed from the Wahabists, and the Wahabists are developed from the most stringent Sharia faction after the Mongol genocide. The incursion of the Crusaders during this period was merely an annoyance, aside from the one attempt the Crusaders made to invade and destroy Mecca/Medinah. In other areas, such as Anatolia and India, Islam resumed territorial expansion. IMHO ... Salafists are synchronic ... all years are the same, and the year is that of the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols/Americans. So as their ancestors did, they have fallen back on puritanism, as a spiritual way of defeating in both mind and substance, anything that threatens them. Puritanism has happened in other cultures as well ... as xenophobia it happened in Europe in the 20th century.
Quote from: Baruch on October 18, 2015, 05:50:08 PM
We are each taught culture by our parents, schools etc ... but it is very superficial, even up to 20 years old. If you really want to know things, even understand them, then a lifetime of learning is what is required. This is why literacy in some chosen language is so important. Both Medieval Jews and Medieval Muslims promoted literacy, but Medieval Christians did not. Of course with Jews and Muslims, they were primarily interested in you reading your scriptures for yourself. This is rather democratic. The danger to the state lies with how it is interpreted. Jews and Muslims wanted people to read for themselves, but control the interpretation. Christians wanted to cut it off at the source ... even the Medieval priests were mostly illiterate, they did liturgy from memory, often in a Latin they didn't understand. With modern times, the creation of printing destroyed the monopoly of learning by the clergy. In Islamic countries, a very different history occurred. You had the short period of Muhammad and Abu Bakr ... this was only 4 years total. Then you had the next three Caliphs, and civil war ... ending with the death of Ali. Aisha led one of those civil wars, but Ali spared her life. But with the conquests of Caliph Umar ... Islam developed a problem ... the center of Islam moved away from Mecca/Medinah to Syria and Iraq. In Syria the Arabs came under Byzantine influence, but in Iraq the Arabs came under Persian influence. The early period was settled by the Ummayads only 57 years after Abu Bakr. The Ummayads were able to form a stable empire, but based in Damascus, and under Byzantine influence. Problems persisted as the Islamic Empire continued to expand for another 89 years, until the Arabs clashed with the Chinese in Central Asia. Both regimes were shook to the core, and the Ummayads were replaced by the Iraqi Arab faction, the Abbasids, which created the new city of Baghdad. For the remaining centuries of stability, Islam came under Persian influence. Mecca/Medinah was all but forgotten, except for the Hajj ... and never became important again until the 20th century. Meanwhile a few Ummayads managed to create the first schism of territory ... by establishing their own caliphate in Iberia ... which continued to flourish and decline until 1492, the dawn of the modern period. This established a precedent that independent emirs and caliphs were possible. The remaining history of the Abbasid Caliphate is a story of gradual disintegration outside of Iraq, often under the ideology of Shiism or Ismailism or even Druze. When the Mongols came to Iraq in 1258, they ended the Abbasid Caliphate by genocide.
During all this time, there were several movements trying to deal with the challenges. When the Caliphate moved to Baghdad, they rapidly became more Persian, and this disturbed the imams and judges ... because they couldn't recognize Islam in Persian dress. Non-Arabic thinking and theology was introduced. The original reluctance to accept converts into Islam ... was reversed, because there was a need for more first tier citizens (those who could fight, dhimmis payed an extra tax in lieu of fighting) and the five simple affirmations were developed to allow easy entry into Islamic faith. Prior to that, you had to be adopted into an Arabic tribe! This brought many non-Arabs into Islam, which continues to a great extent today (otherwise the majority of Muslims wouldn't be Indic or Indonesian). This was very disturbing to orthodox Arabic muslims ... and this is what spurred the Hadith movement, and the development of Sharia (Arabic law). Over time, in many places, the Sunni movement was successful, just as rabbinic Judaism was among Jews.
The challenges of imperialism and the tragedies of political disintegration and genocide from Central Asia to Anatolia and Iraq ... hardened the Muslim culture and made it less open. The Salafists are developed from the Wahabists, and the Wahabists are developed from the most stringent Sharia faction after the Mongol genocide. The incursion of the Crusaders during this period was merely an annoyance, aside from the one attempt the Crusaders made to invade and destroy Mecca/Medinah. In other areas, such as Anatolia and India, Islam resumed territorial expansion. IMHO ... Salafists are synchronic ... all years are the same, and the year is that of the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols/Americans. So as their ancestors did, they have fallen back on puritanism, as a spiritual way of defeating in both mind and substance, anything that threatens them. Puritanism has happened in other cultures as well ... as xenophobia it happened in Europe in the 20th century.
Who the fuck are you? What happened to the other Baruch with his incoherent ramblings? Fuck, are you on your meds or off? WTF.
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 01:42:09 PM
Islam can only be defeated by a superior force. However, we are not prepared to do that.
In the end, it will be a Darwinian selection. The stronger will prevail. My money is on Islam.
Your reliance of Social Darwinism ... which isn't about evolution at all, just class or cultural oppression no different from any other barbaric society ... is why your observations about actual Muslim threats, will be moot. If Jews are the master race, and the only point of being a master race, is to exterminate anyone who is Gentile ... then how would such a Jew be any different from a Nazi? The idea of turning every thing into a "class of civilizations" is just "apocalyptic" thinking ... which leads to unproductive over-reaction. Not that under-reaction is appropriate either ... but you seem like a Nordic Berzerker to me.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 18, 2015, 05:50:25 PM
Por que no te callas?
Secretly a Warsie.
(http://2static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Cis_b51cf4_5576210.gif)
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 02:36:47 PM
yeah i know it is.
i remember people saying that religions are used to control masses.
why can't the west to that with muslim world in a good way
The West isn't better than the East ... they have the same corruption, just a different culture. Of course freedom would be good for any culture ... but it is hard to get.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 04:38:03 PM
On terrorism: it is a legitimate tactic. Every nation and hostile force uses terror as a weapon. If I was part of some rebel force I'd use terror tactics. What you want is your enemy to be afraid. I don't blame radical Muslims for terrorism, that's how war goes. I blame the west for failing to realize that we are at war, failing to see the enemy.
I honestly don't know what to do, but if we don't deal with it soon it will turn ugly. I'm talking full scale slaughter and genocide. Don't want that to happen? We need to wake up and deal with radical Muslims now.
One of the things we could do as a nation is stop being such whussies! '9/11 really scared me--you too?' 'Yeah, I think of it every day!' Shit--9/11 pissed me off--did not make me frightened or scared. As a nation we give the 'terrorists' the reaction they are hoping for. Our media plays these incidents over and over, making the incident itself much more important and 'terrible'. Why not report it for what it is--violence. Those are violent incidents. And the 'terrorist' is really nothing more than a violent thug. But not according to our media. They are a 'terrorist' with an ideology; not a crime committed by a criminal. So, we, as a nation are scaring ourselves into defeating ourselves. I am disgusted.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 18, 2015, 05:55:38 PM
Who the fuck are you? What happened to the other Baruch with his incoherent ramblings? Fuck, are you on your meds or off? WTF.
Most people don't want long connected essays from me ... and for others the resulting enlightenment might make them shit their pants ;-) See, now I am back to normal ;-))
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 18, 2015, 06:13:21 PM
One of the things we could do as a nation is stop being such whussies! '9/11 really scared me--you too?' 'Yeah, I think of it every day!' Shit--9/11 pissed me off--did not make me frightened or scared. As a nation we give the 'terrorists' the reaction they are hoping for. Our media plays these incidents over and over, making the incident itself much more important and 'terrible'. Why not report it for what it is--violence. Those are violent incidents. And the 'terrorist' is really nothing more than a violent thug. But not according to our media. They are a 'terrorist' with an ideology; not a crime committed by a criminal. So, we, as a nation are scaring ourselves into defeating ourselves. I am disgusted.
Unfortunately both Blair and Bush Jr were irresponsible ... they have been successful in turning this into a very lucrative money maker for themselves and their friends. Totally horrible people ... they do it off the lives of both Nato troops and ME populations ... neither of which had any intention of harming the other. They have totally fulfilled this ...
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." -- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 05:49:02 PM
I'm sorry that I'm worried about LGBT people and women. Maybe it's because we've had to deal with centuries of oppression and violence at the hands of one Abrahamic religion that I'm wary of another one taking place.
Trouble is without context, or knowledge all you have is the fear. As a Londoner of a certain age I remember the bombing of Gay people, by a right ringer who hated gays and immigrants.
(https://newwaysministryblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/soho-nail-bomb1.jpg)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/332743.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/332743.stm)
So who do I and my gay mates fear?
I strongly object to religion and in many ways the Abrahamic religions seem to me the most detestable, but I am not in India so I might have a bias. However are we really talking about religion on this and similar threads or is it more just driven by fear of the other, these immigrants with their odd ways?
Now if we are going to divide the ground are you happy to be driven by your fear in to the arms of the people who exploded that bomb?
Half of America still thinks that FDR was wrong, that we should have sided against the British Empire in favor of the Nazis ... to be in a joint holy crusade against Stalin (the same people who think that FDR was a communist). Mussolini and Tojo mixed that all up with their Tripartite Pact ... and Stalin nearly made goo come from Marxist brains out their ears, when he made that treaty with Hitler. It was a lively time for my parents to be alive.
Yes, if you have identified some historical people, as evil ... it is best to let nothing drive you into their ideological camp ... even if the Kraken is about to swallow you. Captain Jack Sparrow survived that just fine.
Quote from: mauricio on October 18, 2015, 05:46:59 PM
>see the exact same shit
Nigga what the fuck are you talking about? show me this paramilitary christian sects destabilizing countries and taking cities and founding their christian utopia where they fucking enforce the bible as the rule of law in latin america?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2015/01/un-muslims-ethnically-cleansed-car-2015196546788288.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/2013714133949329934.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/new-report-urges-latin-american-countries-to-document-violence-against-lgbt
http://world.time.com/2013/04/26/why-latin-americas-homophobic-leaders-should-stop-their-gay-bashing/
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_christian_or_far_right_terrorism_partner/
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/131219/latin-america-homophobic-killing-lgbt
http://latindispatch.com/2011/08/04/mexicos-lgbt-community-faces-violence-despite-major-gains-in-civil-rights/
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/03/violence-still-prevalent-despite-progress-on-lgbti-rights-in-latin-america/
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2012/1120/Violence-against-women-in-Latin-America-Is-it-getting-worse
------
You were saying now?
As I said, same shit, different name. The only reason they aren't worse in Latin America is we haven't been spending the last couple of decades destabalising their governments (or at least militarily invading them) and funding religious terrorism as vigoriously as we have in the Middle East and the Saudi extremism.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 18, 2015, 06:41:58 PM
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2015/01/un-muslims-ethnically-cleansed-car-2015196546788288.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/2013714133949329934.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/new-report-urges-latin-american-countries-to-document-violence-against-lgbt
http://world.time.com/2013/04/26/why-latin-americas-homophobic-leaders-should-stop-their-gay-bashing/
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_christian_or_far_right_terrorism_partner/
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/131219/latin-america-homophobic-killing-lgbt
http://latindispatch.com/2011/08/04/mexicos-lgbt-community-faces-violence-despite-major-gains-in-civil-rights/
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/03/violence-still-prevalent-despite-progress-on-lgbti-rights-in-latin-america/
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2012/1120/Violence-against-women-in-Latin-America-Is-it-getting-worse
------
You were saying now?
As I said, same shit, different name. The only reason they aren't worse in Latin America is we haven't been spending the last couple of decades destabalising their governments (or at least militarily invading them) and funding religious terrorism as vigoriously as we have in the Middle East and the Saudi extremism.
what the fuck is this irrelevant shit, saying it's all the same thing with different a religion is utter bullshit, there's nothing like the war in syria going on in latin america right now that was utter bullshit, this randoms links don't asnwer shit. Just accept what you said was hyperbole.
So violence, homophobia and sexism is not the same thing as violence, homophobia and sexism...
Righty-o then.
Obviously there is no war, hence the ending statement of my post. The only difference is geo- political, not religious. Maybe if you would calm your tits you would realize that I already addressed that.
By the way, stop being so emotional. It's just my opinion. ( That's how you use that argument, right? Waiting on someone to call you on that, because I am sure people use that consistently and not just against people they disagree with)
Quote from: Baruch on October 18, 2015, 06:35:05 PM
Half of America still thinks that FDR was wrong, that we should have sided against the British Empire in favor of the Nazis ... to be in a joint holy crusade against Stalin (the same people who think that FDR was a communist). Mussolini and Tojo mixed that all up with their Tripartite Pact ... and Stalin nearly made goo come from Marxist brains out their ears, when he made that treaty with Hitler. It was a lively time for my parents to be alive.
Yes, if you have identified some historical people, as evil ... it is best to let nothing drive you into their ideological camp ... even if the Kraken is about to swallow you. Captain Jack Sparrow survived that just fine.
Yes and there were British voices at even the highest levels that wanted to side with Hitler. Also in siding with America meant the British had to give away all our technology to the states and as you can imagine there were strong objections, which is probably why the Mig 15 the best jet of the Korean war was powered by an engine which was an exact copy of a Rolls Royce original. So why was that given away?
(http://www.modelingmadness.com/scott/books/osprey/aviation/mig15aces.jpg)
Baruch would it not be better to say- think don't just react.
Quote from: mauricio on October 18, 2015, 06:56:02 PM
what the fuck is this irrelevant shit, saying it's all the same thing with different a religion is utter bullshit, there's nothing like the war in syria going on in latin america right now that was utter bullshit, this randoms links don't asnwer shit. Just accept what you said was hyperbole.
(http://i.imgur.com/AMLvIJw.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/j1kOG3Q.jpg)
Quote from: Shiranu on October 18, 2015, 07:02:32 PM
So violence, homophobia and sexism is not the same thing as violence, homophobia and sexism...
Righty-o then.
Obviously there is no war, hence the ending statement of my post. The only difference is geo- political, not religious. Maybe if you would calm your tits you would realize that I already addressed that.
By the way, stop being so emotional. It's just my opinion. ( That's how you use that argument, right? Waiting on someone to call you on that, because I am sure people use that consistently and not just against people they disagree with)
wow are you stupid or something. I was objecting to your hyperbole in saying "the exact same thing that we see in the middle east" which is false.
Obviously there's bigotry everywhere but your claim was unfounded. There's no violence and chaos on the scale of syria going on in latin america in the name of christianity as you claimed. I'm not making any argument of geopolitics vs religion or whatever. Just pointing out your ridiculous exaggeration in trying to compare the problems in latin america to what is going on in the middle east. Sorry if I triggered you but i was not angry when i made that challenge to you just confused on what the fuck were you even talking about. Now you trying to double down on it after I made a very specific question and you throw a bunch of irrelevant links about africa and bigotry vs lgbt as if that is somehow a valid response. Now that makes me mad. The worst thing is you probably know you were being hyperbolic by using the phrasing "same exact thing" but you won't concede cause "hur dur you used swear words muh pride why you so mad at me?"
Quote from: Baruch on October 18, 2015, 06:35:05 PM
Half of America still thinks that FDR was wrong, that we should have sided against the British Empire in favor of the Nazis
ah…..wat?
59, lived in 7 states, 14 different cities, met an awful lot of people….never…ever….ever…heard anything like that from any body. So..maybe 1 in 10,000 eh?
Quote from: aitm on October 18, 2015, 07:29:59 PM
ah…..wat?
59, lived in 7 states, 14 different cities, met an awful lot of people….never…ever….ever…heard anything like that from any body. So..maybe 1 in 10,000 eh?
As a 57 year old Cockney I have come across Citizens of the USA saying just that on the net, it is funny from hearing a few people how our ideas of what a place is like can be created, Anyway back to the subject these foreign muslins what were you Americans saying they are like?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 18, 2015, 07:11:08 PM
Your pictures are not displaying. Now if you want to make an actual point, how about you present this "exact same shit" as what is going on in the middle east but in latin america. Or you know you actually do the reasonable thing and admit that was merely hyperbole and that there is bigotry and violence is latin america but saying that there: "you will see the exact same shit you do in the Middle East, just with Jesus instead of Muhammad as the poster boy." is patently false.
Quote from: mauricio on October 18, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
Your pictures are not displaying.
They display fine for me.
To be fair I think Mauricio has a good point, things are not so bad where America and we allies are not bombing the bejesus out of everything.
Quote from: jonb on October 18, 2015, 08:21:43 PM
To be fair I think Mauricio has a good point, things are not so bad where America and we allies are not bombing the bejesus out of everything.
Considering that's exactly what I said, I'm not sure how that is a great point.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 18, 2015, 08:38:57 PM
Considering that's exactly what I said, I'm not sure how that is a great point.
That's what you meant to say , but you literally said this:
QuoteIn the West. Go to Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia and you will see the exact same shit you do in the Middle East, just with Jesus instead of Muhammad as the poster boy.
Because you got carried away and made an hyperbolic statement which is not true, you cannot believe that if you go to Latin america you will "see the exact same shit you do in the Middle East, just with Jesus instead of Muhammad as the poster boy." and at the same time believe that "[...]things are not so bad where America and we allies are not bombing the bejesus out of everything"
How can it be the ''exact same shit' but at the same time ''not as bad''? (which is an understatement cause currently no latinoameirican country is engulfed in war to the point of the government being at risk of deposition, like what is happening in syria)
Quote from: Shiranu on October 18, 2015, 05:19:09 PM
In the West. Go to Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia and you will see the exact same shit you do in the Middle East, just with Jesus instead of Muhammad as the poster boy.
post 84 I think is what the argument is about.
Quote from: mauricio on October 18, 2015, 09:05:41 PM
How can it be the ''exact same shit' but at the same time ''not as bad''? (which is an understatement cause currently no latinoameirican country is engulfed in war to the point of the government being at risk of deposition)
You see this is where we part company. Is any government in the middle east about to topple? Personally I don't give a fig about governments, but people suffering I do and there is a lot of that as Shiranu said in Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia. And your reducing the area in question just to Latin America is as bad as his error which you admit yourself might have only been caused in the heat of the moment.
Quote from: jonb on October 18, 2015, 09:17:32 PM
And your reducing the area in question just to Latin America is as bad as his error
I don't understand what you mean by this.
Maybe assad is not close to being toppled that might not be a precise characterization of the situation, but my point is that the type of struggle going on in syria is simply not the same as what is going on in latin america, which I do not deny exists. What I'm bothered about is the simplification of the issue and the carelessness in the use of language, not trying to say that the middle east is inherintly shit or that latin america is fine nor I'm making a argument about geopolitics and religion.
I specifically asked about latin america cause i keep up with news about the region and I have not heard about any struggle the size of what is going in syria. I was not trying to rest importance to other regions, or to smaller struggles, just contesting a specific claim i know to be false.
I am sorry, but I want to be a little old blokeish here, I want to hear both your voices and that petty dispute is getting in the way of that.
Quote from: jonb on October 18, 2015, 09:33:26 PM
I am sorry, but I want to be a little old blokeish here, I want to hear both your voices and that petty dispute is getting in the way of that.
Well thanks, hopefully it works. I usually forget that no matter how right I think I'm, I should still use a conciliatory approach in order to not put people on the defensive. Though my love for rhetorical questions, reduction ad absurdum and shitposting gets in the way of that some times.
Yes, who isn't like that?
But we all aim to this level of intellectual discussion.
https://youtu.be/9UMedd03JCA
I'm sorry M, I am just not seeing this how you are.
By "exact same shit" I am saying the exact same problems, not the same level. Yes, it is "worse" in the Middle East... but the symptoms and their causes are roughly the same. And there are parts of Latin America, and certainly parts of Africa (particularly Central), where you are, for practical purposes, going to be oppressed or killed just as heavily or quickly as you would in the Middle East.
It is the exact same shit; homophobia, violence, and sexism with basically the exact same root causes, again just trading Muhammad for Jesus, Allah for Yahweh. The only major difference is we have created a power vacuum and funded extremists... without this, the Middle East would probably be more like Latin America since that was the route it was taking until around the cold war.
Shiranu wrote:QuoteUh... yes. There are several Muslim countries I have considered moving to for my career.
I cannot think what career would be better practiced in an Islamic country.
However, converting to Islam would definitely improve your prospects there.
Good luck with that.
Well, here is another one (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3278441/Revealed-British-son-Indiana-Jones-movie-director-al-Qaeda-jihadi-poster-boy-bent-terror.html#ixzz3oxYx4uFa) who just moved to an Islamic country for a career change.
And good luck to him too.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 01:13:33 AM
Shiranu wrote:I cannot think what career would be better practiced in an Islamic country.
However, converting to Islam would definitely improve your prospects there.
Good luck with that.
Well, here is another one (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3278441/Revealed-British-son-Indiana-Jones-movie-director-al-Qaeda-jihadi-poster-boy-bent-terror.html#ixzz3oxYx4uFa) who just moved to an Islamic country for a career change.
And good luck to him too.
Maybe bettering one's career is not all everyone cares about.
Perhaps it would. However, I think I have said it before, but I am not particularly a "flamboyant atheist". Nor with my "foreign" name and a "not-quite-white" complexion will I stand out as much as say a blonde hair, blue eyed Scandinavian.
QuoteWell, here is another one who just moved to an Islamic country for a career change.
If I was to compare South Korea to North Korea because they are both in Asia, would that make alot of sense? They are basically the same...
Quote from: CloneKai on October 18, 2015, 01:44:50 PM
force as in military force?
by killing people?
Quote from: pr126 on October 18, 2015, 02:00:04 PM
Well, what do you think?
How should they do that,
pr?
Taking people out of their homes one by one shoot them in the back of their heads OR put them in camps first and then kill them in masses in a gas chambers? Did you think of a plan to go with your 'solution'?
One of the posters openly calls out for genocide and not one person is asking "what the hell are you talking about?"
QuoteIf I was to compare South Korea to North Korea because they are both in Asia, would that make alot of sense? They are basically the same...
Yes they are the same. Except for the ideology.
Which makes the NK a hellhole, and the South a prosperous vibrant economy. See the difference?
QuoteOne of the posters openly calls out for genocide and not one person is asking "what the hell are you talking about?"
Islam calls, no, commands genocide, and have done it in spades. 270 Million (http://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/) to date.
How about the Armenian genocide for starters?
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 01:55:28 AM
Yes they are the same. Except for the ideology.
Which makes the NK a hellhole, and the South a prosperous vibrant economy. See the difference?
Oh, right. I missed the memo where Turkey, Egypt, to an extent Jordan, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Albania, Indonesia, and several others are "hellholes", and not developing countries that face mostly the same amount of social issues as countries in Latin America, Asia, Eastern Europe do, other countries I have considered visiting and perhaps moving to one day.
Funny, all the actual hellholes in the Middle East share one common trend... geopolitical strife and post-colonialism symptoms. That seems to be the major trend, and oddly enough that trend extends to current non-Muslim countries as well as post-colonial countries of the past.
But I am sure that is all part of a conspiracy Muhammad put into place 1400 years ago. The key tenant of Islam was to teach the kafir to ignore geopolitical consequences and basic sociology and to instead have them put everyone into a black or white box. I mean, you quote the Qu'ran more than a Sunni cleric, so you can help me out here and remind me which surah that was located in again.
Surah 8 The spoils of war.
8:41
And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion - the day when the two armies met. And Allah , over all things, is competent.
Then Sura 9, Repentance
9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
What this means is that Islamic economy was based on looting and extortion by war and conquest.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 02:14:48 PM
Once again, patriarchal bullshit does play into it. I never denied that. What I'm asking is what's being done to protect LGBT people and women from Muslims? And yes, I will flatly say Muslims. Islam is directly opposed to LGBT and women's rights. What steps are being taken to minimize violence against LGBT people?
You realise that Muslims in Europe need to make a living and continue to their lives, feed their families and provide shelter for them like other human beings, right? Because all that 'trivial' needs require them being law abiding citizens and get along. That's human reality and it always wins over some religion.
About refugees. As these people are running for their lives, their motivation is to be able to stay there and earn a living; get a life. Same rules go for them, actually they wold likely to be more neutral than other islamic groups who has lived in Europe for a long time. Survival.
And if you uconsider that law is actually functional generally in Europe, your vision of Muslims -millions of people- moving around like war parties attacking women and lgbt groups that would need precautions to protect those specific groups is a hyped up paranoia.
Also, Europe is not like United States. It's not some vast open land that people live scattered around places in extreme isolation with hundreds of miles open space between them and in HUGE metropols planned by a ruler. It's a packed place. Most cities are small. Cities like London, Paris, Berlin and Rome are just them; a few. As a result, people need to 'get along' as the saying goes.
There is every kind of crime in Europe -naturally- and there isn't one group responsible from one category of crime.
Exactly like the majority of Americans, the majority of Europeans have the tendency to blame migrants and their culture for anythig that goes wrong. But if you dig, it is pretty much bullshit. Reality is different.
And as this is an American forum and as a result the language is English, there is a certain big influence by UK and its culture which is the least friendly country and culture for
any kind of migrants. British culture is racist and xenophobic by trait. No, not like every culture. The problem starts with the solid class culture and English oppressing and suppressing any thing other than English. That's the root of the common hatred. Ask the English if they can go around act the way they like in Scotland for example.
Before 9/11, there were muslims in UK. They weren't a tiny group that wouldn't be noticed. However, they weren't the title problem. Do you know who were? Polish migrants. That was the main whining point. I remember that very clearly. But then suddenly -as UK is an ally of Uncle Sam and has to go play fetch with him in the ME- along with America there started a huge hate campaign about how the world should be rid of muslims to go around. If you are not 5 years old, you can get that this was needed to send soliders and hold the society for the bodies coming back.
Now about the so called muslim rape epidemics in Norway and Sweden:Norway - About the Oslo Report. What is actually going on. Israel and Norway relations.
QuoteShortly after Arutz Sheva published the Oslo rapes report in early December, I wrote to The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police asking them to verify Gil Ronen’s claims. I received the following reply from Elisabeth Lund a Senior Adviser to the Ministry:
Statistics regarding assault rapists:
The Oslo Police District has given a report of rapes in Oslo in 2010. The report shows that for all types of rape, except assault rape, European perpetrators are in the majority, and they are mostly Norwegian. Assault rapes covers only five identified unique person. These have all a foreign origin. The number is however, so low that it does not provide a basis for drawing conclusions with regard to country of origin. Two of them were very young (under 18) and two had severe psychiatric diagnoses and cannot be regarded as representative of their ethnic culture. It is highlighted in the report that generalizations like “Oslo’s rapists are foreignersâ€, which have been seen in media, are wrong. The report gives no statistics regarding religion of rapists.â€
Yours Sincerely,
Grethe Kleivan
Deputy Director General
Gil Ronen’s claims can therefore be dismissed for what they are: the usual fanatical anti-Muslim fear-mongering so common amongst his ilk. Those who parroted Ronen’s claims should be ashamed of themselves and at the very least correct their mistake, but don’t expect “Facts†to get in the way of their hate propaganda.
Sweden:
This is the reason lying under the so called 'Swedish rape epidemic':
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372
QuoteThe Julian Assange extradition case has put Sweden's relatively high incidence of rape under the spotlight. But can such statistics be reliably compared from one country to another?
Which two countries are the kidnapping capitals of the world?
Australia and Canada.
Official figures from the United Nations show that there were 17 kidnaps per 100,000 people in Australia in 2010 and 12.7 in Canada.
That compares with only 0.6 in Colombia and 1.1 in Mexico.
So why haven't we heard any of these horror stories? Are people being grabbed off the street in Sydney and Toronto, while the world turns a blind eye?
No, the high numbers of kidnapping cases in these two countries are explained by the fact that parental disputes over child custody are included in the figures.
If one parent takes a child for the weekend, and the other parent objects and calls the police, the incident will be recorded as a kidnapping, according to Enrico Bisogno, a statistician with the United Nations.
Comparing crime rates across countries is fraught with difficulties - this is well known among criminologists and statisticians, less so among journalists and commentators.
Sweden has the highest rape rate in Europe, author Naomi Wolf said on the BBC's Newsnight programme recently. She was commenting on the case of Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who is fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden over rape and sexual assault allegations that he denies.
More stories from More or Less
Is it true? Yes. The Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences - about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants - of any force in Europe, in 2010. The second-highest in the world.
This was three times higher than the number of cases in the same year in Sweden's next-door neighbour, Norway, and twice the rate in the United States and the UK. It was more than 30 times the number in India, which recorded about two offences per 100,000 people.
On the face of it, it would seem Sweden is a much more dangerous place than these other countries.
But that is a misconception, according to Klara Selin, a sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm. She says you cannot compare countries' records, because police procedures and legal definitions vary widely.
"In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics," she says.
"So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record - one victim, one type of crime, one record."
The thing is, the number of reported rapes has been going up in Sweden - it's almost trebled in just the last seven years. In 2003, about 2,200 offences were reported by the police, compared to nearly 6,000 in 2010.
So something's going on.
But Klara Selin says the statistics don't represent a major crime epidemic, rather a shift in attitudes. The public debate about this sort of crime in Sweden over the past two decades has had the effect of raising awareness, she says, and encouraging women to go to the police if they have been attacked.
The police have also made efforts to improve their handling of cases, she suggests, though she doesn't deny that there has been some real increase in the number of attacks taking place - a concern also outlined in an Amnesty International report in 2010.
"There might also be some increase in actual crime because of societal changes. Due to the internet, for example, it's much easier these days to meet somebody, just the same evening if you want to. Also, alcohol consumption has increased quite a lot during this period.
"But the major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before."
If I punch somebody and the person eventually dies, some countries can consider that as an intentional murder, others as a manslaughter
Enrico Bisogno, UN statistician
The change in law meant that cases where the victim was asleep or intoxicated are now included in the figures. Previously they'd been recorded as another category of crime.
So an on-the-face-of-it international comparison of rape statistics can be misleading.
Botswana has the highest rate of recorded attacks - 92.9 per 100,000 people - but a total of 63 countries don't submit any statistics, including South Africa, where a survey three years ago showed that one in four men questioned admitted to rape.
In 2010, an Amnesty International report highlighted that sexual violence happens in every single country, and yet the official figures show that some countries like Hong Kong and Mongolia have zero cases reported.
Evidently, women in some countries are much less likely to report an attack than in others and are much less likely to have their complaint recorded.
UN statistician Enrico Bisogno says surveys suggest that as few as one in 10 cases are ever reported to the police, in many countries.
"We often present the situation as kind of an iceberg where really what we can see is just the tip while the rest is below the sea level. It remains below the radar of the law enforcement agencies," he says.
Naomi Wolf has also written that Sweden has the lowest conviction rate in Europe.
She was relying on statistics from a nine-year-old report, which calculated percentage conviction rates based on the number of offences recorded by the police and the number of convictions. But this is a problematic way of analysing statistics, as several offences could be committed by one person.
Police car in Sweden
Swedish police encourage rape victims to come forward
The United Nations holds official statistics on the number of convictions for rape per 100,000 people and actually, by that measure, Sweden has the highest number of convictions per capita in Europe, bar Russia. In 2010, 3.7 convictions were achieved per 100,000 population.
Though it's still the case, as Wolf pointed out to the BBC, that women in Sweden report a high number of offences - and only a small number of rapists are punished.
So there's a lot that official statistics don't tell us. They certainly don't reveal the real number of rapes that happen in Sweden, or any other country. And they don't give a clear view of which countries have worse crime rates than others.
Rape is particularly complex, but you'd think it would be straightforward to analyse murder rates across different countries - just count up the dead bodies, and compare and contrast.
If only, says Enrico Bisogno. "For example, if I punch somebody and the person eventually dies, some countries can consider that as an intentional murder, others as a manslaughter. Or in some countries, dowry killings are coded separately because there is separate legislation."
What's more, a comparison of murder rates between developed and less developed countries may tell you as much about health as crime levels, according to Professor Chris Lewis, a criminologist from Portsmouth University in the UK.
The statistics are to some unknown degree complicated by the fact that you're more likely to survive an attack in a town where you're found quickly and taken to a hospital that's well-equipped.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 01:59:46 AM
Islam calls, no, commands genocide, and have done it in spades. 270 Million (http://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/) to date.
I don't see anything different than the general international policies of Christian countries in the last few hundred years. If try to count, West would surpass ANY other culture in violence as it does in anything.
QuoteHow about the Armenian genocide for starters?
It's a good start. However, religion is not the reason for Armenian genocide. If it was, Kurds and Alewitts wouldn't have suffered a similar fate. Empires kill. In masses. Like Roman, British and American Empires. Nobody have accomplished it better than the Western culture. Just in the last decade 3 milion civilians are annihilated by US forces and allies. And you are talking about Muslims violence.
Mesoamerican genocide is the biggest genocide in every scale recorded in human history that we know of. It went on for hundreds of years. It's not even offically recognised as one. Trials have been suspended for almost a century. Museums of Mesoamerican culture DOES NOT show the scenes of genocide as the Holocaust Museums do. MONEY. 1 out of 10 Amercians are aware of this. Because genocide is commited 'by communist and muslims only'.
What's more, there are countless 'articles' in American media, why Mesoamerican Genocide shouldn't be classified as a 'genocide', because, wait for it, many people died as 'a result of disease and bad conditions' and atrocities are commited by certain groups that cannot be generalised; because it was a 'war'. Yeah when 'studying' history somebody forgot to tell them that's how all the death toll is calculated, that's what genocidce is, because it is the result of everything done by a Soverign nation that commited genocide. Holocaust death toll as well as world wars, calculated exactly like this. Just like the apologists of Irak war keep spewing the bullshit about 'the US attack is not the cause of the millions of death civillians death toll, but they mostly killed each other', although they arepoked in the eye by death numbers before and after the invasion.
Bosnian Genocide happened in last of the 90s. Systematic rape and murder of muslims by Serbians. NOT even talked about. Do you get off on reading about that? It wouldn't surprise me.
There is no Soverign country today who is not guilty of genocide. But if you are a Eurpean country or the USA, you can stop any media, talk or accusation getting official about this. Like French does for example. But turn around and bark about genocide to any other culture, demonise them.
The list of genocide is long in history and most of them are commited by the Western culture. For one thing they existes longer and they have been the dominant culture for a much longer time. Mesoamerican Genocide is defined and taught in Western schools as 'Discovery of America'.
So, stop deflecting.
Own up to the disgusting bullshit your rotten brain vomits every day. You are calling for GENOCIDE as a 'solution' to some imaginary, bullshit problems you love to wallow in and then turn around and talk about Jewish hatred in Europe and ant-semitism in the world. I'm curious, pr, do you taste shit in your mouth after writing all this? Because you should, like you know, how something you eat too much repeats itself. Considering you are full of it head to toe.
If some believer of ANY religion came to this forum and spewed half the genocide mongering, murderous disgusting bullshit you did, he would be first lynched and banned in a day. You belong to the KKK club, not some nonbeliever forum. Don't worry they'd take you happily, just don't tell them you are jewish.
By the way, an article from the site
pr posted. To give an idea about the source AND about the writer Bill Warner 'PhD'. It's a well versed call for crusade on Christians. He is preaching to Christians on how they should rise by using their churches. He is not talking about secularist approach, neither he is a secularist. He is a fucking 'priest'.
pr's source. What a surprise. and Overall his conclusion is how nobody talks about islamic violence, lol. :lol: You know it's a conspiracy on christians.
My fave line: "Christians are enjoined to care for all persecuted people, but in particular, they are to care for their own brothers and sisters. They manage to ignore the persecution by doing good works, such as care for the poor." :lol: And ther eis also the Good Samaritan line.
I am guessing, if you are not a christian, you cannot be counted in the persecuted group. Because thinking about Christians caring about any persecuted groups in the US for example- let alone in those countries he counts, just...I don't know stupid? Groups like lgbtq or women? :lol: I wish we could send all of them to another planet. Together.
The Most Despised People in the World
Dec 5 2013 | by Bill Warner QuoteThe most persecuted group in the world today is Christians. Christians in Nigeria, Egypt, Syria and other nations are murdered, raped, kidnapped, enslaved and persecuted on a daily basis. The reason for the vast majority of all of this violence is that they are Christian among Muslims.
But their abuse does not stop with the violence. The perpetrators of violence are measured in the thousands, but the greatest abuse is at the hands of those who should demand that the violence stop. The silence in the face this persecution is denial and justification. The persecutors are few, but the deniers are in the billions.
Christians are enjoined to care for all persecuted people, but in particular, they are to care for their own brothers and sisters. They manage to ignore the persecution by doing good works, such as care for the poor. Christians have compassion but no courage to face the enemy who kills them. In Nashville, TN (the buckle on the Bible belt) the favorite indoor sport for those who should be dealing with the enemy, Islam, is going to Family of Abraham events and bridge building dialogues where they dance to the tune of Muslims. There is no problem of meeting with Islam, but the rules of engagement are that nothing will be said that offends Islam.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, an injured man is on the side of the road. Two religious leaders pass him by on the other side of the road. They don’t harm the injured man, they just ignore him. This is the same thing that Christian leaders do at dialogues such as Family of Abraham. They meet with Muslims who adhere to a doctrine that includes killing Christians. But, the leaders will not bring up the Islamic persecution to them. The Christian leadership response to murder of their brothers and sisters is silence. They pass by on the other side of the road. Their silence is consent.
But Christians are not the only deniers. Normally, Jews are quick to step forward in the area of charity and support of victims, but not so with persecuted Christians. Some of this denial may be due to a dislike of Christianity, but Jews are no quicker to help their own.
If you go to thereligionofpeace.com you will find an amazing data base of jihad attacks since 9/11. The current number of attacks is in excess of 22,000 attacks. It is very instructive to parse the data and see what are the top four nations of jihad attacks. When you put the data on a per capita basis, you get the following countries: Israel, Thailand, Philippines and India. Or by religion: Jews, Buddhists, Christians and Hindus. So Jews are the victims of violence by Islam, but the Jews of America love to go to Family of Abraham events and be as silent as the Christians.
But what about the most sensitive victim group â€" the black American? Victim-ology is the dogma of a myriad black “civil rights†groups with their high priests of race hustles such as Al Sharpton. The most persecuted Christians are in Africa. But the civil rights hustlers of America just love to hang with Muslims as their brothers. All of those dead Africans? Not a problem for African Americans.
It is surprising how many Buddhists are being killed in jihad, but is it a surprise that Buddhists never talk about it? And aside from a few Hindu activists, never a word is heard from the Hindu community about their deaths by jihad.
The deaths in the Philippines are Catholics and what does Pope Francis say about Islam? He says,
Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.
Oh, I see. Over 1400 years of Christian deaths at the hands of jihadists means that they were not true Muslims and that the 22,000 jihadic attacks since 9/11 are not authentic. The annihilation of Christianity in Turkey, Middle East and Africa is not the result of “proper reading of the Koranâ€. The Pope is the perfect candidate for magical thinking and idiot compassion. And notice the little hate speech riff: “avoid hateful generalizationsâ€. Pope Francis, do you mean generalizations such as conclusions that result from reading the Koran, the Sunna, the Sharia and a 1400 year history of the murder of all kinds of Kafirs (non-Muslims)?
But, in his own way, Pope Francis is the leader of all Christians. He just happens to have on more elaborate clothing as he practices denial.
So, it turns out that Christians are not the most despised group of people in the world. They just happen to be the largest subgroup. The most despised group in the world is the victim of Islam. And whether it is a dead Christian congregation, a murdered apostate, a sad Muslim woman with FGM, or any other victim of jihad, no one will speak out for the victim and against the perpetrator. All leaders share in the shame of being ignorant cowards practicing idiot compassion.
How is this to stop? Well, being polite won’t help, because if polite worked, the problem would be solved. The key to our response is that we have the high moral ground. We must oppose the oppressor, Islam, and stand with the oppressed â€" Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and all others who are oppressed by jihad. Our opponents, the deniers, support the oppressor, Islam, and ignore and suppress the fate of the victims. The deniers are evil, period.
If you are a Christian, get some allies, and come up with a program about the persecuted church. The program could be bringing in some persecuted Christians, such as Copts, to speak to Sunday school classes or doing a long term study of the Armenian holocaust in 20th century Turkey. When you go to leadership, do not ask permission or make a request. Make demands and if those demands are not met, then some form of protest inside your church must be launched.
Stand up at services and protest, hand out brochures, do whatever it takes until “leadership†agrees to not pass by on the other side of the road and neglect the dead Christians. Point out their moral position is wrong and evil. Do not be shy. Ask them to use scripture to morally justify their denial and ignorance. Be respectful, but firm and do not stop until good prevails.
This is a moral battle and if you are not a Christian, you should do the same in other venues. A possible venue is the local media. Make demands to recognize the victims of jihad and if they are not met, make a protest. Public protest is a powerful tool for change. We must acknowledge the world’s largest human rights tragedy. Being nice is the road to civilizational annihilation.
QuoteYou belong to the KKK club, not some nonbeliever forum. Don't worry they'd take you happily, just don't tell them you are jewish.
You have called me a few names, the KKK is a new one. Thank you.
Pity there are no larger fonts available. TRY ALL CAPS. That will work.
Quote from: Baruch on October 18, 2015, 06:04:51 PM
The West isn't better than the East ... they have the same corruption, just a different culture. Of course freedom would be good for any culture ... but it is hard to get.
they have
little better freedom and somewhat more open society
better education
and greater diversity of ideas
atleast compared to my country.
these kind of things i want in my place, but we don't seems to be going that way.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 04:15:50 AM
You have called me a few names, the KKK is a new one. Thank you.
Pity there are no larger fonts available. TRY ALL CAPS. That will work.
you people love to fight.
:014:
CloneKai wrote:Quotethese kind of things i want in my place, but we don't seems to be going that way.
What is stopping Pakistan to do the same?
Quote from: CloneKai on October 19, 2015, 04:25:34 AM
you people love to fight.
:014:
This is not a fight. It is an interfaith dialogue. :08:
Quote from: Baruch on October 18, 2015, 05:50:08 PM
We are each taught culture by our parents, schools etc ... but it is very superficial, even up to 20 years old. If you really want to know things, even understand them, then a lifetime of learning is what is required. This is why literacy in some chosen language is so important. Both Medieval Jews and Medieval Muslims promoted literacy, but Medieval Christians did not. Of course with Jews and Muslims, they were primarily interested in you reading your scriptures for yourself. This is rather democratic. The danger to the state lies with how it is interpreted. Jews and Muslims wanted people to read for themselves, but control the interpretation. Christians wanted to cut it off at the source ... even the Medieval priests were mostly illiterate, they did liturgy from memory, often in a Latin they didn't understand. With modern times, the creation of printing destroyed the monopoly of learning by the clergy. In Islamic countries, a very different history occurred. You had the short period of Muhammad and Abu Bakr ... this was only 4 years total. Then you had the next three Caliphs, and civil war ... ending with the death of Ali. Aisha led one of those civil wars, but Ali spared her life. But with the conquests of Caliph Umar ... Islam developed a problem ... the center of Islam moved away from Mecca/Medinah to Syria and Iraq. In Syria the Arabs came under Byzantine influence, but in Iraq the Arabs came under Persian influence. The early period was settled by the Ummayads only 57 years after Abu Bakr. The Ummayads were able to form a stable empire, but based in Damascus, and under Byzantine influence. Problems persisted as the Islamic Empire continued to expand for another 89 years, until the Arabs clashed with the Chinese in Central Asia. Both regimes were shook to the core, and the Ummayads were replaced by the Iraqi Arab faction, the Abbasids, which created the new city of Baghdad. For the remaining centuries of stability, Islam came under Persian influence. Mecca/Medinah was all but forgotten, except for the Hajj ... and never became important again until the 20th century. Meanwhile a few Ummayads managed to create the first schism of territory ... by establishing their own caliphate in Iberia ... which continued to flourish and decline until 1492, the dawn of the modern period. This established a precedent that independent emirs and caliphs were possible. The remaining history of the Abbasid Caliphate is a story of gradual disintegration outside of Iraq, often under the ideology of Shiism or Ismailism or even Druze. When the Mongols came to Iraq in 1258, they ended the Abbasid Caliphate by genocide.
During all this time, there were several movements trying to deal with the challenges. When the Caliphate moved to Baghdad, they rapidly became more Persian, and this disturbed the imams and judges ... because they couldn't recognize Islam in Persian dress. Non-Arabic thinking and theology was introduced. The original reluctance to accept converts into Islam ... was reversed, because there was a need for more first tier citizens (those who could fight, dhimmis payed an extra tax in lieu of fighting) and the five simple affirmations were developed to allow easy entry into Islamic faith. Prior to that, you had to be adopted into an Arabic tribe! This brought many non-Arabs into Islam, which continues to a great extent today (otherwise the majority of Muslims wouldn't be Indic or Indonesian). This was very disturbing to orthodox Arabic muslims ... and this is what spurred the Hadith movement, and the development of Sharia (Arabic law). Over time, in many places, the Sunni movement was successful, just as rabbinic Judaism was among Jews.
The challenges of imperialism and the tragedies of political disintegration and genocide from Central Asia to Anatolia and Iraq ... hardened the Muslim culture and made it less open. The Salafists are developed from the Wahabists, and the Wahabists are developed from the most stringent Sharia faction after the Mongol genocide. The incursion of the Crusaders during this period was merely an annoyance, aside from the one attempt the Crusaders made to invade and destroy Mecca/Medinah. In other areas, such as Anatolia and India, Islam resumed territorial expansion. IMHO ... Salafists are synchronic ... all years are the same, and the year is that of the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols/Americans. So as their ancestors did, they have fallen back on puritanism, as a spiritual way of defeating in both mind and substance, anything that threatens them. Puritanism has happened in other cultures as well ... as xenophobia it happened in Europe in the 20th century.
but general populace should only know what we were taught. then why all these complication like what happened in the history.
they should only know the superficial bit, like i know and should make decisions based on that.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 04:29:01 AM
This is not a fight. It is an interfaith dialogue. :08:
ah
so that is what interfaith dialogue looks like
:043:
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 04:15:50 AM
You have called me a few names, the KKK is a new one. Thank you.
Pity there are no larger fonts available. TRY ALL CAPS. That will work.
It works better than posting the same bullshit over and over for years. And there is always a possibility you don't really get what is you are offering as a 'solution'. Also it's helpful for you to read at your age.
Here is a fun site about your Bill Warner -the PhD,lol- on history and his historcial capacity about his 'lecture video'. :lol: Don't miss the comments. Or skip it all,it is too long for you to read.
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1ocyxr/review_why_we_are_afraid_a_1400_year_secret_by_dr/
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 04:27:16 AM
CloneKai wrote:What is stopping Pakistan to do the same?
i really would like to know too.
to me it seems like
1) economy
2) education
3) isolation from other cultures
4) and your favorite religion
plays a part here.
but maybe there is more or i am wrong
Quote from: CloneKai on October 19, 2015, 04:25:34 AM
you people love to fight.
:014:
Yeah well, I tend to react when someone makes an open call for genocide. I'm 'weird' that way. :lol:
I said it before shoe, you have a choice. The ignore button.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 19, 2015, 04:35:51 AM
Yeah well, I tend to react when someone makes an open call for genocide. I'm 'weird' that way. :lol:
Yeah, i already know you are super weird :72:
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 04:37:24 AM
I said it before shoe, you have a choice. The ignore button.
Hi!
i actually enjoy you people fighting
so don't do that.
:cheer:
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 04:37:24 AM
I said it before shoe, you have a choice. The ignore button.
You realise that line -you keep writing- is pretty self explanatory, right?
Quote from: CloneKai on October 19, 2015, 04:38:35 AM
Yeah, i already know you are super weird :72:
Oh then considering the circumstance it's a compliment. Thanks. :)
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 19, 2015, 02:53:18 AM
You realise that Muslims in Europe need to make a living and continue to their lives, feed their families and provide shelter for them like other human beings, right? Because all that 'trivial' needs require them being law abiding citizens and get along. That's human reality and it always wins over some religion.
About refugees. As these people are running for their lives, their motivation is to be able to stay there and earn a living; get a life. Same rules go for them, actually they wold likely to be more neutral than other islamic groups who has lived in Europe for a long time. Survival.
And if you uconsider that law is actually functional generally in Europe, your vision of Muslims -millions of people- moving around like war parties attacking women and lgbt groups that would need precautions to protect those specific groups is a hyped up paranoia.
Also, Europe is not like United States. It's not some vast open land that people live scattered around places in extreme isolation with hundreds of miles open space between them and in HUGE metropols planned by a ruler. It's a packed place. Most cities are small. Cities like London, Paris, Berlin and Rome are just them; a few. As a result, people need to 'get along' as the saying goes.
There is every kind of crime in Europe -naturally- and there isn't one group responsible from one category of crime.
Exactly like the majority of Americans, the majority of Europeans have the tendency to blame migrants and their culture for anythig that goes wrong. But if you dig, it is pretty much bullshit. Reality is different.
And as this is an American forum and as a result the language is English, there is a certain big influence by UK and its culture which is the least friendly country and culture for any kind of migrants. British culture is racist and xenophobic by trait. No, not like every culture. The problem starts with the solid class culture and English oppressing and suppressing any thing other than English. That's the root of the common hatred. Ask the English if they can go around act the way they like in Scotland for example.
Before 9/11, there were muslims in UK. They weren't a tiny group that wouldn't be noticed. However, they weren't the title problem. Do you know who were? Polish migrants. That was the main whining point. I remember that very clearly. But then suddenly -as UK is an ally of Uncle Sam and has to go play fetch with him in the ME- along with America there started a huge hate campaign about how the world should be rid of muslims to go around. If you are not 5 years old, you can get that this was needed to send soliders and hold the society for the bodies coming back.
Now about the so called muslim rape epidemics in Norway and Sweden:
Norway - About the Oslo Report. What is actually going on. Israel and Norway relations.
Sweden:
This is the reason lying under the so called 'Swedish rape epidemic':
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372
I hear alot about how if minority, specifically muslim do some evil shit, people try to ignore it or try to avoid talking about it, so they don't look racist or something. is it true?
what with these specific muslim areas (in UK) i hear about where the hardcore islamism seems to be trying to make people not drink or harass women if they are not covered from head to toe? why aren't the law enforcement not enforcing laws there?
By the way, pr, I heard auntie Merkel's offering easy visa to Turkiye if it stops the refugee flow and Cameron agrees it is a serious offer they support, if it happens. What's your take on that?
I'd like a video of you runing in streets screaming your head off 'Turks are comiiiing'. I mean, come on, 75 million Turks! Some of them probbaly can afford a week vacation in EU.
:rotflmao:
QuoteYeah well, I tend to react when someone makes an open call for genocide.
So Putin bombing ISIS is genocide? Or a response to holy war (jihad)?
I was talking about Casus belli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli) not the extermination of all Muslims.
I was talking about fighting Islam, which is an IDEOLOGY, not Muslims. which are people.
Does anyone know that Islam has declared holy war against all non Muslims on the planet 14 centuries ago? It is still in progress today.
I believe that the idelogical war could be successful if we had the courage to broadcast to Muslims and non Muslims what Islam actually is, not what we would like it to be.
Broadcast Muhammad's deeds according to the Islamic scriptures.
You don't have to make it up, it is all there for the world to see.
But we cannot. We are afraid to hurt the Muslims feelings. Plus they will kill us if we upset them.
Enough with this "Islam is peace" crap. Islam is WAR and always has been.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 04:53:19 AM
So Putin bombing ISIS is genocide? Or a response to holy war (jihad)?
I was talking about Casus belli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli) not the extermination of all Muslims.
I was talking about fighting Islam, which is an IDEOLOGY, not Muslims. which are people.
my apologies, i also thought you were talking about some kind of big ass war or something.
the problem with this is, you never know who is the islamist you want to fight and who is random guy who want to live his or her life.
and these kind of wars seems to be producing more feeling of patriotism and radicalism than fixing the islamist problem.
So how do you exactly think this can be solved?
QuoteSo how do you exactly think this can be solved?
I have edited my previous post and added this:
I believe that the ideological war could be successful
if we had the courage to broadcast world wide to Muslims and non Muslims what Islam actually is, not what we would like it to be.
Broadcast Muhammad's deeds according to the Islamic scriptures. The Sirat Rasool Allah.
You don't have to make it up, it is all there for the world to see.
But we cannot. We are afraid to hurt the Muslims feelings. Plus they will kill us if we upset them.
Enough with this "Islam is peace" crap. Islam is WAR and always has been.
And you would not need to kill anybody.
Mind you, once the truth comes out about Islam, all hell will be loose.
There will be plenty of dead bodies. But that will only prove Islam's nature.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 19, 2015, 04:51:57 AM
I hear alot about how if minority, specifically muslim do some evil shit, people try to ignore it or try to avoid talking about it, so they don't look racist or something. is it true?
what with these specific muslim areas (in UK) i hear about where the hardcore islamism seems to be trying to make people not drink or harass women if they are not covered from head to toe? why aren't the law enforcement not enforcing laws there?
Oh yes that's true that people ignore a lot bullshit. But I don't know what do you mean by 'some evil shit'. However, they have been recording vigilante bullshit and harassment. People are getting arrested. And also the muslim communites are getting awarethat they need to do something if they want to preserve their safety.
On the other hand, years ago, 6 police officers were arrested for sitting on information about a pedophile chain and they defended themselves as 'we didn't do anything because media would all us racists because of muslim perpetraors'. Now, you tell me the level of that bullshit. Pedophile chains are followed by INTERNATIONAL cooperation by al most all countries that can afford to do so. I posted a few threads about this 2 years ago I guess.
And around that time there were international operations reported -after they ended- in US and EU media; with the police force working where I live.
If you think overall, how people live their lives, if there is a constant ignoring and avoiding crime that is supposed to be plummeting like mad? And the claim is this is just about muslim minorities.
I personally think they can do a lot of to put a stop to islamic bullshit in Europe, esp in the UK. They just don't, because it requires a big effort, man power and money AND it is more profitable in a big scale.
You mentioned you were in Germany. Don't ever think that there is a good solid adminsitration in the UK regarding ANY migrants, let alone muslims. The society evolved to blame every problem they have on migrants. That's the picture.
-While statistics show that migrants are a small group demanding welfare with no affect on the welfare budget, the propaganda is that the UK will bankrupt because of them, while Britons are the biggest welfare group over all in the EU.
-They want to pick well paid, white collar jobs without having the needed stats and refuse to do the menial jobs, because they are 'migrant jobs' and then they complain about how unemployment is a result of migrants who were happily taken to do those jobs in the first place, decades ago.
Roughly this.
All that so called crime epidemics are hyped up as it seems because whenever something breaks out, fortunately some official authority or an expert makes a report that shows 'crime in Europe is in normal range and there is no some specific rise attached to a certain group'. I actually had the same prejudice against muslims when I first read that and nod: 'yeah probably'. But then when you dig behind it a bit, it turns out to be hyped up bullshit.
But then people are simple. Short cuts are easy. Nobody wants to blame their own, esp. a culture tha already defines itself as superior to all. After 9/11, with the toxic media campaigns supporting the invasions, Westerners developed a strong tendency to interpret every change in attitude, bad results and situations as something 'Muslims did or caused'.
Before that Europe had the similar amount of muslim minority, with same culture but the attitude wasn't like this. Nobody points this out. So what happened? Everything changed over a night when planes hit twin towers? Of course not.
However, now this evil necessary, it is beneficial and profitable. And will be for a long time and eventually it will run its course like 'the evil communists' did. Let's hope it won't turn out to be another example of Nazi-Germany in the process.
And I agree with Auntie Merkel that this coming decades will be a serious test for Europe. But not in the way majority of Europeans think. This is a natural result of world policies led by the West back and forth. Looking back, I don't think there has ever been another possible outcome.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 19, 2015, 02:53:18 AM
And as this is an American forum and as a result the language is English, there is a certain big influence by UK and its culture which is the least friendly country and culture for any kind of migrants. British culture is racist and xenophobic by trait. No, not like every culture. The problem starts with the solid class culture and English oppressing and suppressing any thing other than English. That's the root of the common hatred. Ask the English if they can go around act the way they like in Scotland for example.
OH yes? is that so?
Would you like to provide evidence for that statement? When Did the KKK have a significant hold in the UK.
Would you rather be a Welsh speaker in Britain a native American Speaker in the USA, or a Kurdish Speaker in Turkey?
You might say that the this forum is evidence enough in that an immigrant from Hungry is so protective of the British way of Life that he hates other cultures having an influence here, but that equally disproves your argument doesn't it.
Shall we compare British and Turkish treatment of Minorities? Or even British and American think of Slavery, which was the First country that benefited from it to ban it? France did for a short while and then went back to slavery, Britain then stopped it and has stayed with that decision. Where did the slaves in the USA go to don't say it was Canada a British Colony.
In the Last fifty years there has been so much immigration into Britain that our capital city has now a minority of ethnic British in it. Is there another country in the world that is so open to that and has had such little friction. You might point to New York which is not a capital city, but would anybody say that during the time of mass immigration there was less friction there than there has been in London? Go on look at the facts.
Yes the British have friction over immigration but the troubles we have are less than most places start with.
In world war two the American soldiers that had a colour bar system and tried to keep it in place in Britain then found white American troops in fights with local British people who objected on mass to the idea one man should be treated as a lesser being by another.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/1/27/1390843847914/Mahatma-Gandhi-with-Cheer-008.jpg)
This is a picture of Gandhi with English mill workers, they gave support to his fight for Indian independence, even in knowing that it would lead to their loosing their jobs and going hungry. They are probably the grand daughters of the mill workers who went hungry during the American civil war with hardly a protest, because they were so strongly against Slavery, when the north blockaded the south and stopped the export of cotton. Which meant the British government did not step in to protect its trade routes as most other countries would have done.
Would you like the pictures going back say 150 years of black and Indian MPs elected by white British people?
Do not make the mistake because the British people are free and open and talk about our problems they are in anyway as near as bad as the problems your country hides under the carpet.
So put up or say sorry, for your ignorant racism.
Quote from: jonb on October 19, 2015, 05:57:12 AM
OH yes? is that so?
Would you like to provide evidence for that statement? When Did the KKK have a significant hold in the UK.
Would you rather be a Welsh speaker in Britain a native American Speaker in the USA, or a Kurdish Speaker in Turkey?
You might say that the this forum is evidence enough in that an immigrant from Hungry is so protective of the British way of Life that he hates other cultures having an influence here, but that equally disproves your argument doesn't it.
Shall we compare British and Turkish treatment of Minorities? Or even British and American think of Slavery, which was the First country that benefited from it to ban it? France did for a short while and then went back to slavery, Britain then stopped it and has stayed with that decision. Where did the slaves in the USA go to don't say it was Canada a British Colony.
In the Last fifty years there has been so much immigration into Britain that our capital city has now a minority of ethnic British in it. Is there another country in the world that is so open to that and has had such little friction. You might point to New York which is not a capital city, but would anybody say that during the time of mass immigration there was less friction there than there has been in London? Go on look at the facts.
Yes the British have friction over immigration but the troubles we have are less than most places start with.
In world war two the American soldiers that had a colour bar system and tried to keep it in place in Britian and then found white American troops in fights with local British people who objected on mass to the idea one man should be treated as a lesser being by another.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/1/27/1390843847914/Mahatma-Gandhi-with-Cheer-008.jpg)
This is a picture of Gandhi with English mill workers, they gave support to his fight for Indian independence, even in knowing that it would lead to their loosing their jobs and going hungry. They are probably the grand daughters of the mill workers who went hungry during the American civil war with hardly a protest when the north blockaded the south and stopped the export of cotton, because they were so strongly against Slavery. Which meant the British government did not step in to protect its trade routes as most other countries would have done.
Would you like the pictures going back say 150 years of black and Indian MPs elected by white British people?
Do not make the mistake because the British people are free and open and talk about our problems they are in anyway as near as bad as the problems your country hides under the carpet.
So put up or say sorry, for your ignorant racism.
Er... I didn't say KKK had any thing to do with UK or its culture. I said that
SPECIFICALLY to pr126 as his solution to the 'muslim problem' is to kill all of them. May be you should first learn to read.
And he replied to that personally, that this was a new one.
So I am skipping all the bullshit you wrote above. I am pretty well aware how Turkish gov treats minorities, Kurds, that's why I vote for their party.
QuoteUK and its culture which is the least friendly country and culture for any kind of migrants
You said this it is a lie!
Therefore you are producing the Bull shit!
Quote from: jonb on October 19, 2015, 06:13:37 AM
You said this it is a lie!
Therefore you are producing the Bull shit!
Yes, it is the least friendly country to migrants in Europe. I'm familiar with British culture, how they see each other and migrants all over. I'm also familiar with other migrant countries like Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland...etc. UK is not doing a good job culturally. And I understand the reason for that. I am not blindly attacking and saying 'English is baaaad!'
Do you have any idea how many British people we had/have here? Esp. where I live. Not to mention I have close relatives living in Europe, and in England, friends over 20 years. English, Scottish, British-Turkish, Irish...etc. Turks that was born there, lived there for most of their life, British people who lived where I live for a long time...etc.
It's interesting that you get provoked instantly when a negative comment made on your country while you criticise others -mainly American- comfortably. Stop acting like a tribalist. This is not about how many migrants you have. This is about your culture.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 19, 2015, 06:08:24 AM
Er... I didn't say KKK had any thing to do with UK or its culture. I said that SPECIFICALLY to pr126 as his solution to the 'muslim problem' is to kill all of them. May be you should first learn to read.
So is your justification that you were in an argument with an immigrant to Britain from Hungry and
therefore you can lie to win an argument?
If so, there is a wide gulf between us.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 19, 2015, 06:24:08 AM
Yes, it is the least friendly country to migrants in Europe. I'm familiar with British culture, how they see each other and migrants all over. I'm also familiar with other migrant countries like Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland...etc. UK is not doing a good job culturally. And I understand the reason for that. I am not blindly attacking and saying 'English is baaaad!'
Do you have any idea how many British people we had/have here? Esp. where I live. Not to mention I have close relatives living in Europe, and in England, friends over 20 years. English, Scottish, British-Turkish, Irish...etc. Turks that was born there, lived there for most of their life, British people who lived where I live for a long time...etc.
It's interesting that you get provoked instantly when a negative comment made on your country while you criticise others -mainly American- comfortably. Stop acting like a tribalist. This is not about how many migrants you have. This is about your culture.
There is not one culture in England there is not even one just one native English culture in London, your defence of your lie is first not to read my post, say what you said was a justifiable lie, and now to accuse me of being tribalist, no lets have some truth from you and some facts or an apology.
Quote from: jonb on October 19, 2015, 06:26:59 AM
So is your justification that you were in an argument with an immigrant to Britain from Hungry and therefore you can lie to win an argument?
If so, there is a wide gulf between us.
No, it is not an argument, it is an opinion and it is based on my personal, first hand experiences with British people in general.
However, I can make an argument based on those experiences, knowing how and what way British people tend to blame migrants for every problem in their country -welfare and unemployment and North European crime epidemics- and cite data that how the picture they are drawing is actually wrong. (I posted something like that in Eurislam thread.) Not that anyone here cares about it. Welfare and unemployment topics are good examples though. I have written a post to Clonekai above somewhere. If you are interested go read it. I am not going to write it again.
My reaction to
pr is about his genocidal, war mongering bullshit. I certainly do NOT think he is the standard. But I believe he presents the extreme stand of a general understanding.
Quote from: jonb on October 18, 2015, 08:21:43 PM
To be fair I think Mauricio has a good point, things are not so bad where America and we allies are not bombing the bejesus out of everything.
True, but Venezuela and Argentina are taking it in the ass from our bankers ... Venezuela more now. And Brazil (the B in BRIC) is about to coup their own leader again ... but we can blame that all on internal factors ... the Anglo-American combine has clean hands, particularly in the Falklands, or any other place that might have mineral or petroleum deposits, see recent James Bond movie about Bolivia.
Mauricio ... it isn't that Latin Americans are crazy Syrians etc ... but that they are an ant's nest that the US has been stirring since the Monroe Doctrine. And for the last 20 years, the narco-criminals in Mexico are worse than Columbia, are just like crazy Syrians ... though over drugs that US users demand, not because they have oil (it is going dry in Mexico) and wasn't Venezuela the founder of OPEC ... and wasn't Mexico the first country to nationalize the oil fields, long before the Arabs. None of this shit would be going down the last 100 years, if everyone had just kissed Exxon's ass! Mexico says ... too close to the USA, too far from G-d.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 02:32:16 AM
Surah 8 The spoils of war.
8:41
And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion - the day when the two armies met. And Allah , over all things, is competent.
Then Sura 9, Repentance
9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
What this means is that Islamic economy was based on looting and extortion by war and conquest.
So this is a prophecy about the British Empire and the USA?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 19, 2015, 06:46:44 AM
No, it is not an argument, it is an opinion and it is based on my personal, first hand experiences with British people in general.
However, I can make an argument based on those experiences, knowing how and what way British people tend to blame migrants for every problem in their country -welfare and unemployment and North European crime epidemics- and cite data that how the picture they are drawing is actually wrong. (I posted something like that in Eurislam thread.) Not that anyone here cares about it. Welfare and unemployment topics are good examples though. I have written a post to Clonekai above somewhere. If you are interested go read it. I am not going to write it again.
My reaction to pr is about his genocidal, war mongering bullshit. I certainly do NOT think he is the standard. But I believe he presents the extreme stand of a general understanding.
So it is your opinion and that justifies it does it? but you don't like others having opinions that are not justified by the facts. Others are wrong and you are right without reference to fact. I'm getting a good clear picture of your position. and then again the justification you should be able to say whatever you want because the other guy is bad.
Quote from: Baruch on October 19, 2015, 07:04:52 AM
So this is a prophecy about the British Empire and the USA?
If you let it happen.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 19, 2015, 04:23:48 AM
they have
little better freedom and somewhat more open society
better education
and greater diversity of ideas
atleast compared to my country.
these kind of things i want in my place, but we don't seems to be going that way.
The story of Arabs is one thing, but the story of Pakistan, as you well know, is very long and quite complicated ... 1700 years ago most of your ancestors were Buddhist ... with a large percentage of Hindus. But it was the White Huns, who were pagan, more than the Muslims, who came along 200 years later, who destroyed most of your country. It is a historical accident that Europe has been free at all, for the last 200 years ... one can mainly credit the French Revolution for scaring the upper class into less oppressive means.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 07:07:49 AM
If you let it happen.
Pay closer attention. I was saying is Muhammad predicting the British/US hegemony? Why is it an Arab hegemony then? Unless the British/US are crypto-Muslims. Yes, for the last 500 years the Brits and for the last 200 years the US has been letting it happen.
Quote from: jonb on October 19, 2015, 07:05:36 AM
So it is your opinion and that justifies it does it? but you don't like others having opinions that are not justified by the facts. Others are wrong and you are right without reference to fact. I'm getting a good clear picture of your position. and then again the justification you should be able to say whatever you want because the other guy is bad.
What are you even talking about, jonb? I am going to make any statement I like to a person who openly declares 'we can get away with killing people in masses'.
pr has nothing to do with my over all statements about British culture.
You mixed it up by reading a personal comment into it. I am talking about the common, average British culture and calling it the way it is and you cannot handle that because I am saying something negative. what reference I am supposed to show? Is there a research on 'how Britons treat migrants and their culture?' And how do you think you can 'prove' that Brisitsh culture is 'friendly' to any other, let alone to the migrants?
I think the only position that is revealed is yours. First time you see someone saying something 'bad' about UK and look how annoyed are you, you couldn't even read the post clearly. You need to grow up and handle it when someone says something negative about the country you live in.
It's not like that it is OK when we attack American culture left and right, but it is suddenly 'wrong' when it comes to UK.
Now if you excuse me, I need to go on working.
Quote from: Baruch on October 19, 2015, 07:27:18 AM
Pay closer attention. I was saying is Muhammad predicting the British/US hegemony? Why is it an Arab hegemony then? Unless the British/US are crypto-Muslims. Yes, for the last 500 years the Brits and for the last 200 years the US has been letting it happen.
Hey, the old Baruch is back. I can't say I miss the new one as I hardly knew him, and he so quickly disappeared.
Building an empire is the realm of video games in the West. That's why building an Islamic caliphate à la ISIS is so archaic.
I think that Merkel and Hollande are dreaming of a Mediterranean Empire (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/regions/euro-mediterranean-partnership/) called Eurabia.
They have been working on that for decades.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 08:17:05 AM
I think that Merkel and Hollande are dreaming of a Mediterranean Empire called Eurabia.
I'm not sure that any of the two will survive the next election. Mommy Merkel is losing it fast with her people. And Hollande never really connected with his own.
Mommy Merkel is a throwback from communist East Germany.
QuoteI'm not sure that any of the two will survive the next election. Mommy Merkel is losing it fast with her people. And Hollande never really connected with his own.
Doesn't matter. The damage is done. EU is going down the toilet.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 08:23:01 AM
Mommy Merkel is a throwback from communist East Germany.
Merkel was a physicist, prior to her conversion to politics. She did relatively well for her country until the recent crisis. If she is tossed out of power, which is most likely to happen, she can take comfort with upgrading herself by studying physics beyond the SM.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 19, 2015, 07:50:54 AM
What are you even talking about, jonb? I am going to make any statement I like to a person who openly declares 'we can get away with killing people in masses'. pr has nothing to do with my over all statements about British culture.
You mixed it up by reading a personal comment into it. I am talking about the common, average British culture and calling it the way it is and you cannot handle that because I am saying something negative. what reference I am supposed to show? Is there a research on 'how Britons treat migrants and their culture?' And how do you think you can 'prove' that Brisitsh culture is 'friendly' to any other, let alone to the migrants?
I think the only position that is revealed is yours. First time you see someone saying something 'bad' about UK and look how annoyed are you, you couldn't even read the post clearly. You need to grow up and handle it when someone says something negative about the country you live in.
It's not like that it is OK when we attack American culture left and right, but it is suddenly 'wrong' when it comes to UK.
Now if you excuse me, I need to go on working.
I have no need to protect the American angle there are more than enough Americans here to do that, in fact having a poke at them is a good thing precisely because they are the vast majority. The majority have a tendency to become complacent if they are not challenged.
Your position that any culture is
worse than others is what I object to. Think about what you are then saying that because I am English I should not refute your remarks about the English, in doing that I am just tribal, well my support for Serbians or my posting of the picture of the graveyard of the massacrer at Srebrenica is just because I am European, and then my support for middle eastern people is me being tribal for the old world. You might even say my support for immigrants is because some of my forebears moved to where I live now is my tribalism for immigrants.
Quote from: Baruch on October 19, 2015, 07:15:01 AM
The story of Arabs is one thing, but the story of Pakistan, as you well know, is very long and quite complicated ... 1700 years ago most of your ancestors were Buddhist ... with a large percentage of Hindus. But it was the White Huns, who were pagan, more than the Muslims, who came along 200 years later, who destroyed most of your country. It is a historical accident that Europe has been free at all, for the last 200 years ... one can mainly credit the French Revolution for scaring the upper class into less oppressive means.
Yeah, i always wondered when people say islam is young and it will take couple more hundred years before it will mature to a more humane standard.
the freedom, some west enjoy probably was an accident and might not happen in most of the muslim majority countries with 21st century military hardware.
But how much does the history, play a role in today's people mind, influencing them to have a more conservative and religious outlook on life?
I understand tribalism and country's infrastructure might still be affected but people, who may i add don't even know what happened there before islam arrived.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 19, 2015, 05:37:48 AM
Oh yes that's true that people ignore a lot bullshit. But I don't know what do you mean by 'some evil shit'. However, they have been recording vigilante bullshit and harassment. People are getting arrested. And also the muslim communites are getting awarethat they need to do something if they want to preserve their safety.
On the other hand, years ago, 6 police officers were arrested for sitting on information about a pedophile chain and they defended themselves as 'we didn't do anything because media would all us racists because of muslim perpetraors'. Now, you tell me the level of that bullshit. Pedophile chains are followed by INTERNATIONAL cooperation by al most all countries that can afford to do so. I posted a few threads about this 2 years ago I guess.
And around that time there were international operations reported -after they ended- in US and EU media; with the police force working where I live.
If you think overall, how people live their lives, if there is a constant ignoring and avoiding crime that is supposed to be plummeting like mad? And the claim is this is just about muslim minorities.
I personally think they can do a lot of to put a stop to islamic bullshit in Europe, esp in the UK. They just don't, because it requires a big effort, man power and money AND it is more profitable in a big scale.
You mentioned you were in Germany. Don't ever think that there is a good solid adminsitration in the UK regarding ANY migrants, let alone muslims. The society evolved to blame every problem they have on migrants. That's the picture.
-While statistics show that migrants are a small group demanding welfare with no affect on the welfare budget, the propaganda is that the UK will bankrupt because of them, while Britons are the biggest welfare group over all in the EU.
-They want to pick well paid, white collar jobs without having the needed stats and refuse to do the menial jobs, because they are 'migrant jobs' and then they complain about how unemployment is a result of migrants who were happily taken to do those jobs in the first place, decades ago.
Roughly this.
All that so called crime epidemics are hyped up as it seems because whenever something breaks out, fortunately some official authority or an expert makes a report that shows 'crime in Europe is in normal range and there is no some specific rise attached to a certain group'. I actually had the same prejudice against muslims when I first read that and nod: 'yeah probably'. But then when you dig behind it a bit, it turns out to be hyped up bullshit.
But then people are simple. Short cuts are easy. Nobody wants to blame their own, esp. a culture tha already defines itself as superior to all. After 9/11, with the toxic media campaigns supporting the invasions, Westerners developed a strong tendency to interpret every change in attitude, bad results and situations as something 'Muslims did or caused'.
Before that Europe had the similar amount of muslim minority, with same culture but the attitude wasn't like this. Nobody points this out. So what happened? Everything changed over a night when planes hit twin towers? Of course not.
However, now this evil necessary, it is beneficial and profitable. And will be for a long time and eventually it will run its course like 'the evil communists' did. Let's hope it won't turn out to be another example of Nazi-Germany in the process.
And I agree with Auntie Merkel that this coming decades will be a serious test for Europe. But not in the way majority of Europeans think. This is a natural result of world policies led by the West back and forth. Looking back, I don't think there has ever been another possible outcome.
'we didn't do anything because media would all us racists because of muslim perpetraors'.
yeah, i was like WTF, people are getting raped here and this matters to you, the excuse felt sooo stupid. but unfortunately alot of people believed this, atleast that what it looks like on the internet.
'I personally think they can do a lot of to put a stop to islamic bullshit in Europe, esp in the UK. They just don't, because it requires a big effort, man power and money AND it is more profitable in a big scale.'
why is it profitable?
and why big effort and man power, are the communities so big.
i think most communities like to blame others for any problems, they might have. in my country, people are corrupt because of the west (or atleast have their money saved in the west), terrorist target us because of the west, our youngs are dating, OMG! damn the west culture and indian movies.
So, the situation is exaggerated in the media, i thought something like that might be happening.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 05:23:01 AM
I have edited my previous post and added this:
I believe that the ideological war could be successful if we had the courage to broadcast world wide to Muslims and non Muslims what Islam actually is, not what we would like it to be.
Broadcast Muhammad's deeds according to the Islamic scriptures. The Sirat Rasool Allah.
You don't have to make it up, it is all there for the world to see.
But we cannot. We are afraid to hurt the Muslims feelings. Plus they will kill us if we upset them.
Enough with this "Islam is peace" crap. Islam is WAR and always has been.
And you would not need to kill anybody.
Mind you, once the truth comes out about Islam, all hell will be loose.
There will be plenty of dead bodies. But that will only prove Islam's nature.
What islam actually is, so basically about muhammad being thief, murder and rapist. and most of the islam being based on this shit.
Well, how will most of the muslim hear this? i stated about censorship in my country earlier, and many muslim majority countries also have stuffs like that. so again, how will this happen?
And what will this do to the muslims anyway? do you think they will believe some white guy (who they think is a christain) talking, what they probably will perceive as pure lies and defamation against islam? do you think they will believe the truth about islam?
When i heard the President of USA talking about peaceful religion of islam, i was under impression, that they didn't want to isolate or make an enemy of 20% of human population. So, however stupid it might have sounded like, i kind a felt it was reasonable. what with the USA and its white allies raiding one muslim country after another.
So please, atleast answer:
how to make muslim listen to the truth about islam?
Will the muslim believe it?
What will the muslim think after this broadcast of the truth? :017:
Quote from: jonb on October 19, 2015, 08:29:11 AM
Your position that any culture is worse than others is what I object to. Think about what you are then saying that because I am English I should not refute your remarks about the English, in doing that I am just tribal, well my support for Serbians or my posting of the picture of the graveyard of the massacrer at Srebrenica is just because I am European, and then my support for middle eastern people is me being tribal for the old world. You might even say my support for immigrants is because some of my forebears moved to where I live now is my tribalism for immigrants.
I didn't read your post. I am not talking about the pic you posted. I am not talking about anything you personally think about migrants. I don't care where are you from.
All I am saying is that UK does not have a friendly culture against migrants. And that is pretty politely put, so deal with it before I start to express it in a more...speific manner.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 08:23:01 AM
Mommy Merkel is a throwback from communist East Germany.
Doesn't matter. The damage is done. EU is going down the toilet.
It isn't in the toilet yet. If EU remains secular, then it will be all right. Question though: is the European leadership up to that task?
Quote from: CloneKai on October 19, 2015, 09:24:06 AM
how to make muslim listen to the truth about islam?
Will the muslim believe it?
What will the muslim think after this broadcast of the truth? :017:
You can pretty much say the same thing with Christians about the truth of their bible. Nevertheless, the West was still capable of building a secular society, in spite of Christianity. Are there any movements in Pakistan that are trying to bring the country to a more secular position?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 19, 2015, 09:40:06 AM
I didn't read your post. I am not talking about the pic you posted. I am not talking about anything you personally think about migrants. I don't care where are you from.
All I am saying is that UK does not have a friendly culture against migrants. And that is pretty politely put, so deal with it before I start to express it in a more...speific manner.
Read thisI see no backing down from that statement of yours a people are worse
Instead of countering PR you have given him just what he wants,
Proof you will say anything to counter him so your word is devalued.
Credibility for his argument that one set of people are inferior or superior to another, its just that the two of you disagree which set of people that is.
That at the end of the day you are the same as those you argue with you and pr are driven by your hate, yes yours might be crafted and delicately expressed but you are two sides of the same coin.
I am not interested in those that spread hate, however they cloth themselves.
Now say what you want to say, I leave others to judge a poster that is willing to lie to win an argument.
Josephpallazo wrote:QuoteQuestion though: is the European leadership up to that task?
I don't think so. They are too far left.
The ones who would be up to the task are marginalized by the media, some character assassination too, it will depend on the voters, (if voting makes a difference).
Same as in the USA I think. The democrats are in charge of the media, the voters are easily influenced.
Here we have no difference at all between the two major parties.
This is the liveliest thread we had for a long time. 13 pages in 2 days.
Quote from: jonb on October 19, 2015, 10:10:54 AM
Read this
I see no backing down from that statement of yours a people are worse
Instead of countering PR you have given him just what he wants,
Proof you will say anything to counter him so your word is devalued.
Credibility for his argument that one set of people are inferior or superior to another, its just that the two of you disagree which set of people that is.
That at the end of the day you are the same as those you argue with you and pr are driven by your hate, yes yours might be crafted and delicately expressed but you are two sides of the same coin.
I am not interested in those that spread hate, however they cloth themselves.
Now say what you want to say, I leave others to judge a poster that is willing to lie to win an argument.
Ah no. This not about pr. Neither about some hatred. I don't hate British people, I just know how the average briton sees. I also know a few out of that standard. And I am saying that the average culture you have there is not friendly to the migrants, nicely put, and that is the truth. I have spent a lot of time listening them, it didn't get improve in the last 25 years, just the actors of the show changed. It was the indians or the polish before, now it is the muslims. And it is always the same bullshit set of topics that is being chewed around. It's pathetic.
This is about you, not liking what I am saying; my opinion. Tough. And that's it.
Quote from: pr126 on October 19, 2015, 10:53:18 AM
Josephpallazo wrote:
I don't think so. They are too far left.
The ones who would be up to the task are marginalized by the media, some character assassination too, it will depend on the voters, (if voting makes a difference).
France still has Sarkozy who is making a comeback - best part of him, he married a sexy Italian singer; second best, he's of Hungarian descent; third best, he's a former Mossad operative. Can't get a better combination. Don't know much about Germany, though. I'm not worry about Italy, as the country is completely anti-Islam. The North has been swamped by the Lefties, but when they start feeling the brunt of their policies, there will be a lot of changes coming their way. As to the UK, if
jonb is any indication, that country is doomed.
Quote from: CloneKai on October 19, 2015, 08:43:23 AM
Yeah, i always wondered when people say islam is young and it will take couple more hundred years before it will mature to a more humane standard.
the freedom, some west enjoy probably was an accident and might not happen in most of the muslim majority countries with 21st century military hardware.
But how much does the history, play a role in today's people mind, influencing them to have a more conservative and religious outlook on life?
I understand tribalism and country's infrastructure might still be affected but people, who may i add don't even know what happened there before islam arrived.
There are several ways of thinking. One can look to the past, look to the present, or look go the future. For me, looking to the past or to the future are idealistic. If one is empirical, fact based, one will pay most attention to the present. However that is how I think, not how the majority think. Liberals in the neutral sense think about the future, and conservatives in the neutral sense think about the past. It is hard to write in such a way, as to distinguish how I think vs how "I think" the majority think.
If a person or group looks to the past ... then the past will be repeated. This is usually a bad thing. I am not saying they should, but that they do.
Pr126 ... giving you another American POV ...
"Here we have no difference at all between the two major parties." We see that in the US also. And some of us are trying to see past the dead horse of L vs R politics. Neither going L or R will help anyone, IMHO. Pragmatism and realism (of a non-apocalyptic sort) is what is needed.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 19, 2015, 09:59:15 AM
You can pretty much say the same thing with Christians about the truth of their bible. Nevertheless, the West was still capable of building a secular society, in spite of Christianity. Are there any movements in Pakistan that are trying to bring the country to a more secular position?
there are some stuffs
like women right organizations
human right organizations
and alot of social media stuffs
but no real big movement which could change the government positions or change mindset of the people.
we apparently were somewhat secular muslim society before our favorite dictator took over (Zia ul Haq), he added many shitty stuffs from sharia law into our laws and made this entire country alot more radical.
then we were improving a little bit then America came along and fucked up Afghanistan for us, radicalizing us again.
I think we are getting a little better again.
there have been protest against blasphemy laws and other religious hardcore stuffs, we even had pretty much stopped the death penalty (it was reestablished after the terrorist attack on the military academy which resulted in over 100 children dying). but talking about a secular state (which is what i believe pakistan founding father M Ali Jinnah wanted) is pretty much frowned upon, these people believe such concept like separation of church and state is a western concept and will make the country immoral and other truly horrible stuffs will follow like gay marriage, freedom to insult islam and prostitution.
Our leaders are always corrupt and everyone knows it
we also don't really like saudia arab or atleast the royalty there, especially since caliphate isn't supposed to have royalties and saudis seems always to be in the pocket of the americans. and pakistanis seems to be awakening to the possibilities maybe the saudis are funding these terrorist attacks by funding these mosques and madaras.
But there are no secular movements like
defending freedom of thought
or any atheist movement
or LGBT movement
Quote from: CloneKai on October 19, 2015, 03:31:02 PM
then we were improving a little bit then America came along and fucked up Afghanistan for us, radicalizing us again.
Wasn't the Taliban perceived as a danger to Pakistan?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 19, 2015, 06:36:19 PM
Wasn't the Taliban perceived as a danger to Pakistan?
Pakistan, like Iraq etc are not natural states. Pakistan is made up of many tribes, one large one in particular straddles Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan ... the Pashtun. The militant Pashtun are the Taliban. Technically they should have their own country, taken from parts of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan ... just as the Kurds should have their own country, taken from parts of Turkey, Iran and Iraq. But politics, not geography will prevail.
CloneKai = Zia ul Haq ... yes he really did do more for your country, than just more corruption. Often if a country is made up of many elements, it is believed that only the strongest dictator can keep it together ... and that a common ideology is required, either secular or religious. Unlike Kemal Ataturk, Zia ul Haq chose the religious alternative.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516rEYLP-9L._SX373_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Ah, I remember the personally signed photo of President Zia ul Haq sent to the author of this book with the legend, 'Thank you Mr Root for your pertinent views.'
Oh how I laughed, at that blackest of humour.
British Hunter Thompson? Satire is good for the soul. Did Gen Zia have immunity to irony?
It was a BIG bypass, but not only that but we have to wonder about our betters who run our countries that what are they doing if they personally have time to enter into correspondence with wet fish salesmen.
Quote from: Baruch on October 19, 2015, 07:05:31 PM
Pakistan, like Iraq etc are not natural states.
FYI, half the countries in the EU are not "natural" states?!? Yet, they manage to function, more or less. Of course, if the majority of a state turn out to be intolerant to other ethnic/religious groups, to the point that minorities live in continual fear of their lives then there is a humongus problem.
Yes, European states function because of an acceptance of differing cultures, this is why the American melting pot solution to immigration would not work in Europe.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 20, 2015, 11:30:52 AM
FYI, half the countries in the EU are not "natural" states?!? Yet, they manage to function, more or less. Of course, if the majority of a state turn out to be intolerant to other ethnic/religious groups, to the point that minorities live in continual fear of their lives then there is a humongus problem.
Setting up natural borders and borders based on language, is the work of the last 1000 years in Europe ... and they were mostly successful, at great cost. There may be occasional over-reach like England into Ireland ... but the modern map is pretty reasonable compared to 100 years ago, or in say Pakistan.
Quote from: jonb on October 20, 2015, 12:44:57 PM
Yes, European states function because of an acceptance of differing cultures, this is why the American melting pot solution to immigration would not work in Europe.
Only as per WW II, the alternative is annihilation ;-( And yes, the American solution can only work in places of similar history, like Canada. Otherwise states of equal power, Native American, African American etc would all be jostling and trying to find common ground and common currency. Assimilation is not always an alternative in the Old World ... it is primarily a New World phenomenon ... and Chinese/Indian.
Quote from: Baruch on October 20, 2015, 12:55:37 PM
Setting up natural borders and borders based on language, is the work of the last 1000 years in Europe ... and they were mostly successful, at great cost. There may be occasional over-reach like England into Ireland ... but the modern map is pretty reasonable compared to 100 years ago, or in say Pakistan.
Many of the European states were carved out after WW1, and the borders were established by the victors. There was some readjustments after WW2, but still those borders are anything but natural. The UK doesn't count.
Quote from: Baruch on October 20, 2015, 12:55:37 PM
Setting up natural borders and borders based on language, is the work of the last 1000 years in Europe ... and they were mostly successful, at great cost. There may be occasional over-reach like England into Ireland ... but the modern map is pretty reasonable compared to 100 years ago, or in say Pakistan.
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/8791894a27d2930c8af9a22a541475e8/tumblr_mnc1k2n14z1r9hc9jo1_500.gif)
(http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rachelindeed/17140785/59641/original.gif)
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/d26af5dbe401734ed86f5d08c94d45b6/tumblr_msiqlf4qYJ1sh1z9to3_400.gif)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Active_separatist_movements_in_Europe.png)
Some Active separatist movements in Europe.
Separatism has many origins ... but non-integral territory or differing language or religion, has frequently caused conflicts. There was reason for Nazi Germany to try to integrate other German speakers ... but not much reason to occupy all of France ... there were only limited German speakers in Alsace-Lorraine. The Germans have never learned when to stop ;-( If you compare Germany today vs what it was in before the Empire ... it is much more rational:
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/German_States1.html
There hasn't been much cause for Brittany to separate from France, as there is Catalonia from Spain.
And there are no black people or Jews in Texas right?
What gives you the idea anybody anywhere lives in nice crisp lines drawn on a map.
Quote from: Baruch on October 20, 2015, 06:35:39 PM
Separatism has many origins ... but non-integral territory or differing language or religion, has frequently caused conflicts. There was reason for Nazi Germany to try to integrate other German speakers ... but not much reason to occupy all of France ... there were only limited German speakers in Alsace-Lorraine. The Germans have never learned when to stop ;-( If you compare Germany today vs what it was in before the Empire ... it is much more rational:
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/German_States1.html
There hasn't been much cause for Brittany to separate from France, as there is Catalonia from Spain.
Do you really believe people want to separate on account of language/religion only? Northern Italy wants to separate from the South mainly because they see the Southerners as a bunch of uneducated, unpolished and crass people. So there.
QuoteDo you really believe people want to separate on account of language/religion only? Northern Italy wants to separate from the South mainly because they see the Southerners as a bunch of uneducated, unpolished and crass people. So there.
Calabrese. :c002:
But the food is good!
(http://www.sassiweb.com/uploads/pics/food_and_wine.jpg)
Quote from: pr126 on October 21, 2015, 05:25:18 AM
Calabrese. :c002:
But the food is good!
(http://www.sassiweb.com/uploads/pics/food_and_wine.jpg)
Ma vaffanculo , you-a gotta put-a multo cheese-a to have-a multo sapore...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 21, 2015, 05:10:34 AM
Do you really believe people want to separate on account of language/religion only? Northern Italy wants to separate from the South mainly because they see the Southerners as a bunch of uneducated, unpolished and crass people. So there.
Lombardy ... blond Italians of German ancestry. Calabria/Sicily ... olive skinned Italians of Greek/Arabic ancestry. But I am sure the writ of organized crime runs in N Italy too, it is just more famous in the S. Machiavelli was from N Italy. Italians are held together I think, by mutual dislike of central government, in Rome.
Quote from: Baruch on October 21, 2015, 06:17:38 AM
Lombardy ... blond Italians of German ancestry. Calabria/Sicily ... olive skinned Italians of Greek/Arabic ancestry. But I am sure the writ of organized crime runs in N Italy too, it is just more famous in the S. Machiavelli was from N Italy. Italians are held together I think, by mutual dislike of central government, in Rome.
You've forgotten that the Vikings invaded Sicily, hence lots of them having blue eyes.
The North and South are together solely due to Garibaldi, who prior to that practiced his war skills in Uruguay. Hence by your definition, Italy has made up borders, not natural.
QuoteMa vaffanculo , you-a gotta put-a multo cheese-a to have-a multo sapore...
I have worked in Switzerland for 3 years with italian people way back in the '60s .
I do remember some Italian, and
Ma vaffanculo I still remember well.
Che ti è preso ? Dio campanaro. :azn:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 21, 2015, 08:17:41 AM
You've forgotten that the Vikings invaded Sicily, hence lots of them having blue eyes.
The North and South are together solely due to Garibaldi, who prior to that practiced his war skills in Uruguay. Hence by your definition, Italy has made up borders, not natural.
United by a common language, but not until Dante made it so. Great literature makes languages ... Dante made Italian, as Luther made German.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 19, 2015, 06:36:19 PM
Wasn't the Taliban perceived as a danger to Pakistan?
not that much of a threat. Pakistan seems to had a little influence over the taliban.
but once Pakistan started helping America after 911. then they became a threat.
Quote from: Baruch on October 21, 2015, 12:41:02 PM
United by a common language,
Obviously you haven't heard a Venetian and a Sicilian talking - you might think that they are just different dialects...guess again, they are more different than French and Spanish. It's a myth that there is one language in Italy, it's more like a 101.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 21, 2015, 04:43:56 PM
Obviously you haven't heard a Venetian and a Sicilian talking - you might think that they are just different dialects...guess again, they are more different than French and Spanish. It's a myth that there is one language in Italy, it's more like a 101.
Does it not strike you as even slightly odd that on one thread you are arguing how different Italians are, a subject we presume you have knowledge of, and on another you are arguing that all the different peoples from the Atlantic to China are all the same?
Quote from: jonb on October 21, 2015, 05:40:54 PM
Does it not strike you as even slightly odd that on one thread you are arguing how different Italians are, a subject we presume you have knowledge of, and on another you are arguing that all the different peoples from the Atlantic to China are all the same?
Shh, that doesn't fit the agenda.
Quote from: jonb on October 21, 2015, 05:40:54 PM
Does it not strike you as even slightly odd that on one thread you are arguing how different Italians are, a subject we presume you have knowledge of, and on another you are arguing that all the different peoples from the Atlantic to China are all the same?
You don't understand the difference between ethnic groups and religious groups. Get yourself an education, fucking moron.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 21, 2015, 06:33:58 PM
Shh, that doesn't fit the agenda.
...says the Islamic apologist, LOL.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 21, 2015, 06:40:07 PM
You don't understand the difference between ethnic groups and religious groups. Get yourself an education, fucking moron.
Quotela rabbia è una manifestazione del tutto 'normale', una tappa della crescita di ogni bimbo.
As an Italian child psychologist would say.
And there are many schools of thought in Islam as well as different peoples with different understandings.
But my arbitrary grouping is better than your arbitrary grouping ;-)
Quote from: jonb on October 21, 2015, 06:56:18 PM
And there are many schools of thought in Islam as well as different peoples with different understandings.
AFAIC, all religions are based on fantasy. If you want to believe that certain religions are better than others, that's your opinion. But in regard to ethnicity and languages, which was the subject of discussion I was having with Baruch, clearly show that you can't follow the discussion, your intervention in reply #208 is as idiotic as it can be. Anyway, fuck off asshole. I'm done with your fucking stupidity.
https://youtu.be/NUyl0I-k7Rg
Edit. -
Stop being So emotional.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 21, 2015, 07:48:59 PM
And the award for, "The Most Ignorant Post In 2015" goes to...
Post #216. Congratulation.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 21, 2015, 07:55:40 PM
Post #216. Congratulation.
Yeah, out of all the posts you chose the one that had nothing to do with ignorance. Brilliance.
To spell it out for you... the various ethnicities and languages from the Atlantic to Asia all interpret Islam in different ways that vary on interpretation and cultural background, and yet you and several others paint Islam as a monolithic entity that only has one single way of existing that all Muslims follow.
If you don't see the hypocrisy in going all out on talking about how different Italians can be, but then continuously imply that Islam is "more or less" the same everywhere, then you are going to win more than just the ignorance award for the year.
By the way...
QuoteI remember when this place was a space for debate rather than ad hominems.
QuoteGet yourself an education, fucking moron.
Quote...says the Islamic apologist, LOL.
Quoteclearly show that you can't follow the discussion, your intervention in reply #208 is as idiotic as it can be.
QuoteAnyway, fuck off asshole. I'm done with your fucking stupidity.
I'm sure you will be called out on ad hom. spam and avoiding the topic any moment now. No way people who agree with you would only call out the other side, and never hold people on their side of the fence to the same standards. That's preposterous.
By the way... stop being so emotional. You always seem to go off the handle.
Shiranu wrote quoting Josephpalazzo:
Quote...says the Islamic apologist, LOL.
That is not an insult, that was based on observation.
There are some posters on this forum who will find plenty of faults about Christianity, but are more lenient towards Islam.
Despite the atheist narrative that all religions are equally bad.
Although apparently some religions are much worse, and here that happens to be Christianity.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 01:05:12 AM
To spell it out for you... the various ethnicities and languages from the Atlantic to Asia all interpret Islam in different ways that vary on interpretation and cultural background, and yet you and several others paint Islam as a monolithic entity that only has one single way of existing that all Muslims follow.
Who the fuck cares there are different interpretations of Islam... oh wait, you do as an Islamic apologist. Do you really think I care that there are over 2000 Christian denominations, each with its own interpretation of Christianity? Answer, no. And then you think I should care for different interpretations of Islam?! From what planet do you come from??
QuoteI remember when this place was a space for debate rather than ad hominems.
That's doesn't come from any of my posts. Get your facts straightened.
Quote
By the way... stop being so emotional. You always seem to go off the handle.
You should look at yourself in the mirror. Emotional and irrational is your trademark. Defending a religion like Islam at all cost even to the point of absurdity is no sign of rationality. Get a reality check.
Quote from: pr126 on October 22, 2015, 02:42:19 AM
Shiranu wrote quoting Josephpalazzo:
"...says the Islamic apologist, LOL."
That is not an insult, that was based on observation.
There are some posters on this forum who will find plenty of faults about Christianity, but are more lenient towards Islam.
Despite the atheist narrative that all religions are equally bad.
Although apparently some religions are much worse, and here that happens to be Christianity.
Unfortunately we have a number of Islamic apologists on this forum, who are in deep denial that they are apologists. Worse is that they think Islam is perhaps a race, or maybe an ethnicity and therefore any attack on it becomes the work of racists, when in reality, ISLAM is a RELIGION. And it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that ISLAM is a RELIGION, they simply are in total denial, revealing their true nature of apologists!!
EDIT: jonb and shiranu are examples. Watch them react as predicted.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 22, 2015, 06:05:37 AM
Unfortunately we have a number of Islamic apologists on this forum, who are in deep denial that they are apologists. Worse is that they think Islam is perhaps a race, or maybe an ethnicity and therefore any attack on it becomes the work of racists, when in reality, ISLAM is a RELIGION. And it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that ISLAM is a RELIGION, they simply are in total denial, revealing their true nature of apologists!!
My opposition to you is simply because you have crossed the line and you are not talking about religion, just propagating your ignorance.
Quote from: Baruch on October 21, 2015, 06:57:51 PM
But my arbitrary grouping is better than your arbitrary grouping ;-)
It's well known that you mix apples with oranges. :-)
jonb wrote:QuoteMy opposition to you is simply because you have crossed the line and you are not talking about religion, just propagating your ignorance.
This is simply your opinion. The line is drawn by you, according to your indoctrination.
No one is obliged to observe it. Rave on.
Quote
That's doesn't come from any of my posts. Get your facts straightened.
Sorry you had to learn this this way, but you are not the only one on the forum I can quote. World shattering, I know. I again apologize profusely.
QuoteYou should look at yourself in the mirror. Emotional and irrational is your trademark. Defending a religion like Islam at all cost even to the point of absurdity is no sign of rationality. Get a reality check.
Yes, and your little tirades and ad homs. are a shining beacon of emotional stability, as you nod your head and quote malicious articles with zero evidence supporting them truly show an unwavering and unshakable dedication to "the truth". Oh, to be like you someday. Us lesser minds can only dream...
QuoteUnfortunately we have a number of Islamic apologists on this forum, who are in deep denial that they are apologists. Worse is that they think Islam is perhaps a race, or maybe an ethnicity and therefore any attack on it becomes the work of racists, when in reality, ISLAM is a RELIGION. And it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that ISLAM is a RELIGION, they simply are in total denial, revealing their true nature of apologists!!
That's racist.
QuoteThat's racist.
(http://blog.theregularguynyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/the-most-interesting-man-in-the-world-meme-generator-i-don-t-always-laugh-but-when-i-do-i-m-laughing-at-you-a772d3.jpg)
Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 10:50:48 AM
Sorry you had to learn this this way, but you are not the only one on the forum I can quote.
You deliberately put this quote on top of some of my quotes giving the false impression that it was my quote. Consider yourself on my ignore list. Were I a mod you would be banned immediately. Consider yourself lucky.
Lol.
Seems Werribee
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 22, 2015, 11:06:59 AM
You deliberately put this quote on top of some of my quotes giving the false impression that it was my quote. Consider yourself on my ignore list. Were I a mod you would be banned immediately. Consider yourself lucky.
Was he always this much of a spoiled ass before he left?
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 18, 2015, 04:38:03 PM
On terrorism: it is a legitimate tactic. Every nation and hostile force uses terror as a weapon. If I was part of some rebel force I'd use terror tactics. What you want is your enemy to be afraid. I don't blame radical Muslims for terrorism, that's how war goes. I blame the west for failing to realize that we are at war, failing to see the enemy.
I honestly don't know what to do, but if we don't deal with it soon it will turn ugly. I'm talking full scale slaughter and genocide. Don't want that to happen? We need to wake up and deal with radical Muslims now.
Bush screwed it up with a needless war in Iraq, and that makes it almost impossible for the US to pursue a strategy that would eradicate radical Islam. Just look at the policies to fight ISIS; aerial attacks with no boots on the ground is useless. Unless there is another attack like 9/11 style, the US will continue to sleep at the wheel.
By saying 'radical Islam' is implying that there is another moderate, peaceful Islam somewhere.
This does not exist.
There are Muslims who do not engage in violent jihad, but that does not mean that Islam is peaceful.
All Muslims read the same scriptures. There is no Quran for radicals and another one for 'moderates'.
The Quran is in reality two books. Mekkan and Medinan.
The Mekkan part was from the times when Muhammad was still concilliatory, trying to get followers.
The second part are the Medinan verses which came when he migrated to Medina (Yathrib) and became a warlord with his army of followers.
The Mekkan verses then were abrogated, (annulled) by the later, more violent warring verses.
Quote from: pr126 on October 22, 2015, 02:43:56 PM
By saying 'radical Islam' is implying that there is another moderate, peaceful Islam somewhere.
This does not exist.
There are Muslims who do not engage in violent jihad, but that does not mean that Islam is peaceful.
All Muslims read the same scriptures. There is no Quran for radicals and another one for 'moderates'.
The Quran is in reality two books. Mekkan and Medinan.
The Mekkan part was from the times when Muhammad was still concilliatory, trying to get followers.
The second part are the Medinan verses which came when he migrated to Medina (Yathrib) and became a warlord with his army of followers.
The Mekkan verses then were abrogated, (annulled) by the later, more violent warring verses.
Fine, but you must understand that the US is a secular state, and as such, every American individual has a right to his or her religion. The US government cannot simply declare war on a religion, be it Islam or any other religion. In order to pursue a strategy, the US government must frame it within a political reality. Narrowing it down to a group of individuals or to a movement is a must. So the government so far has used "Islamic terrorist" or "Islamic extremists", and similar terms to justify its course of action. Also, the US has several allies in the ME, not necessarily the most savory ones, but the US is caught between a hard place and a rock: if it does too much, it is accused of having imperialistic ambition; if it does not enough, it is accused of letting the barbarians running the show and committing atrocities.
Quote from: pr126 on October 22, 2015, 02:43:56 PM
By saying 'radical Islam' is implying that there is another moderate, peaceful Islam somewhere.
This does not exist.
There are Muslims who do not engage in violent jihad, but that does not mean that Islam is peaceful.
All Muslims read the same scriptures. There is no Quran for radicals and another one for 'moderates'.
The Quran is in reality two books. Mekkan and Medinan.
The Mekkan part was from the times when Muhammad was still concilliatory, trying to get followers.
The second part are the Medinan verses which came when he migrated to Medina (Yathrib) and became a warlord with his army of followers.
The Mekkan verses then were abrogated, (annulled) by the later, more violent warring verses.
Obviously it is the same quran but they interpret it differently because it is a complex, poetic, and self-contradictory book. Same shit happens with the bible and the thousands of christian sects. They maybe not be very rational in their reinterpretations but to claim they do not exist is stupid or that there is one true interpretation is also stupid, that's literally fundamentalist reasoning. Complex books , specially when they are poetic/literary are usually written to be interpreted differently by different people. Just look at any other literary classic. An interpretation of a literary work doesn't have to be and usually is not completely rational since that is not the nature of the work itself being analyzed.
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 04:18:30 PM
Obviously it is the same quran but they interpret it differently because it is a complex, poetic, and self-contradictory book. Same shit happens with the bible and the thousands of christian sects. They maybe not be very rational in their reinterpretations but to claim they do not exist is stupid or that there is one true interpretation is also stupid, that's literally fundamentalist reasoning. Complex books , specially when they are poetic/literary are usually written to be interpreted differently by different people. Just look at any other literary classic. An interpretation of a literary work doesn't have to be and usually is not completely rational since that is not the nature of the work itself being analyzed.
to expand on this. Even when reading a supposedly clear and objective document like a manual to repair an engine you will easily find yourself confused at how to interpret certain indications and you may ask for help to other people who might read it differently. That's the nature of human language and it's limitations. It is prone to ambiguity.
QuoteWorse is that they think Islam is perhaps a race, or maybe an ethnicity and therefore any attack on it becomes the work of racists, when in reality, ISLAM is a RELIGION.
I actually want to go back and give this a serious response, even if I am now ignored...
You are accusing an anthropology student of placing Islam into race/ethnicity... concepts that don't exist in my field of study and were debunked years ago. Come on now...
Edit: Also, I see there will be no holding people to equal standards.That's all I wanted to know, and I will drop that train of thought now. It's disappointing, but it is what it is.
Edit Edit: That sounded too much like trying to put the responsibility on others. I apologise for not quoting correctly. That is all.
I won't apoloigise for my response though until I receive an apology for the slew of ad hom attacks which have been exceedingly far and beyond anything I have thrown their way. I think that is fair enough, even if we do not hold both parties to equal standards.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 05:05:58 PM
You are accusing an anthropology student of placing Islam into race/ethnicity... concepts that don't exist in my field of study and were debunked years ago. Come on now...
In what sense does race not exist?
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 05:19:33 PM
In what sense does race not exist?
Genetically, there is nothing that separates us into "different" humans. You cant go by skin tone; at what point does "black" stop being "black" or "white" stop being "white"? As for other traits, such as "big lips" or a wide nose, that is not tied into skin colour either. If you lined up 400 people and put them in order of skin color, lip size, nose width, eye shape, whatever... the middle would be hard to classify as one "race" or another, and it would be hard to draw a line where race 1, 2, 3 etc. starts and ends.
That is assuming everyone is purely from "race" A, B, C, D... but the vast majority of us are a mix of several "races" because humans love to fuck everything, so it becomes even muddier once you add that into the equation.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 05:24:59 PM
Genetically, there is nothing that separates us into "different" humans. You cant go by skin tone; at what point does "black" stop being "black" or "white" stop being "white"? As for other traits, such as "big lips" or a wide nose, that is not tied into skin colour either. If you lined up 400 people and put them in order of skin color, lip size, nose width, eye shape, whatever... the middle would be hard to classify as one "race" or another, and it would be hard to draw a line where race 1, 2, 3 etc. starts and ends.
That is assuming everyone is purely from "race" A, B, C, D... but the vast majority of us are a mix of several "races" because humans love to fuck everything, so it becomes even muddier once you add that into the equation.
that's literally the continuum fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy) Just because the concept of race is vague it does not mean it does not exist. Saying ''that race does not exist" sounds like a pretty revolutionary and neat idea, but in reality what you probably mean to say is that race is not a valid taxonomic class because it is too vague. Physiological differences between different ancestries certainly exist due to the fact that post human early migrations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations) different human populations were isolated from each other for 75000-100000 years. That is center of the concept of race and it is real. Race is a continuum and not an on/off state.
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 05:33:38 PM
that's literally the continuum fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy) Just because the concept of race is vague it does not mean it does not exist. Saying ''that race does not exist" sounds like a pretty revolutionary and neat idea, but in reality what you probably mean to say is that race is not a valid taxonomic class because it is too vague. Physiological differences between different ancestries certainly exist due to the fact that post human early migrations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations) different human populations were isolated from each other for 75000-100000 years. That is center of the concept of race and it is real.
The physiological differences though are far, far, FAAAAR too minute to count them as a different race. We are so overwhelmingly similar it is ridiculous to try to vary us based on physical rather than cultural differences.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 05:35:16 PM
The physiological differences though are far, far, FAAAAR too minute to count them as a different race.
what do you mean by race ?
Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 05:35:16 PM
The physiological differences though are far, far, FAAAAR too minute to count them as a different race. We are so overwhelmingly similar it is ridiculous to try to vary us based on physical rather than cultural differences.
to me Race is a continuum and not an on/off state.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 05:35:16 PM
We are so overwhelmingly similar it is ridiculous to try to vary us based on physical rather than cultural differences.
also i never said anything about "to vary us based on physical rather than cultural differences." why would it be a case of one or the other?
You have not answered clearly my previous post, it seems to me you do mean that a notion of race (which i would kindly ask you to clearly define) is not a useful classification due to it's vagueness, this is a true statement, but hardly as radical as what "race does not exist" implies.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 05:05:58 PM
You are accusing an anthropology student of placing Islam into race/ethnicity... concepts that don't exist in my field of study and were debunked years ago. Come on now...
Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 05:24:59 PM
If you lined up 400 people and put them in order of skin color, lip size, nose width, eye shape, whatever... the middle would be hard to classify as one "race" or another, and it would be hard to draw a line where race 1, 2, 3 etc. starts and ends.
This is pretty much a textbook example of the continuum fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy).
(http://i0.sinaimg.cn/IT/cr/2012/0724/3523828957.jpg)
Do no different colors exist because we cannot point to the exact place yellow turns into green or yellow into red? Race is not an on/off state it is a continuum, this does not mean it does not exist.
This is the same fallacy used by creationists when talking about the evolution of man from hominids, when they talk about the missing link and say you cannot show them the point in which a non-human turns into a human.
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 04:18:30 PM
Obviously it is the same quran but they interpret it differently because it is a complex, poetic, and self-contradictory book. Same shit happens with the bible and the thousands of christian sects. They maybe not be very rational in their reinterpretations but to claim they do not exist is stupid or that there is one true interpretation is also stupid, that's literally fundamentalist reasoning. Complex books , specially when they are poetic/literary are usually written to be interpreted differently by different people. Just look at any other literary classic. An interpretation of a literary work doesn't have to be and usually is not completely rational since that is not the nature of the work itself being analyzed.
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 04:28:27 PM
to expand on this. Even when reading a supposedly clear and objective document like a manual to repair an engine you will easily find yourself confused at how to interpret certain indications and you may ask for help to other people who might read it differently. That's the nature of human language and it's limitations. It is prone to ambiguity.
Good point.
Just to add a note: if you bring that up to those who interpret their sacred text literally, they will consider you as a heretic, that it's the work of Satan as the Quran (and also the bible) have passages warning the adherents of the faith of false prophets, or false interpretations. In fact, reason is not part of their landscape; faith is, submission to the will of god is.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 22, 2015, 06:24:09 PM
Good point.
Just to add a note: if you bring that up to those who interpret their sacred text literally, they will consider you as a heretic, that it's the work of Satan as the Quran (and also the bible) have passages warning the adherents of the faith of false prophets, or false interpretations. In fact, reason is not part of their landscape; faith is, submission to the will of god is.
That is a given since they hold those believes on the basis of faith, they are not open to rational discourse about them. But faith is not immutable and therein lies our hope.
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 06:30:05 PM
That is a given since they hold those believes on the basis of faith, they are not open to rational discourse about them. But faith is not immutable and therein lies our hope.
Faith might evolve but you've got to look over centuries to see any of its micro progress. By that time, we will all be dead.
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 05:40:26 PM
what do you mean by race ?
I'm curious--what do you mean by race?
I agree with Shiranu in his statements about race. I don't think they exist either. I can't define what a race is because they do not exist. This is some of the reasons I think that:
According to Jonathan Marks,[50]
By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic â€" that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal â€" that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left â€" the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal â€" was very small.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it â€" as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools â€" did not exist.
And:
Modern biological concepts of race can be implemented objectively with molecular genetic data through hypothesis-testing. Genetic data sets are used to see if biological races exist in humans and in our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans.
I think since the concept of race has caused so much damage to humanity, that to continue using the term is a huge disservice to mankind. I can see no good use of the term or concept of human races.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 22, 2015, 10:11:55 AM
It's well known that you mix apples with oranges. :-)
I like multicultural salads. Don't be a vegan racist ;-)
Quote from: Shiranu on October 22, 2015, 01:51:15 PM
Lol.
Seems WerribeeWas he always this much of a spoiled ass before he left?
He isn't Left ... he is clearly Right ... but he has redeeming aspects ;-)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 22, 2015, 02:30:40 PM
Bush screwed it up with a needless war in Iraq, and that makes it almost impossible for the US to pursue a strategy that would eradicate radical Islam. Just look at the policies to fight ISIS; aerial attacks with no boots on the ground is useless. Unless there is another attack like 9/11 style, the US will continue to sleep at the wheel.
Unless one understands what a firebreak is, it is useless to fight fire with fire. But Europe is the firebreak. It will be demolished so that the fire will burn itself out. Reminder to self ... don't let Americans play with matches anymore ;-(
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 22, 2015, 06:59:00 PM
I'm curious--what do you mean by race?
I agree with Shiranu in his statements about race. I don't think they exist either. I can't define what a race is because they do not exist. This is some of the reasons I think that:
According to Jonathan Marks,[50]
By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic â€" that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal â€" that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left â€" the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal â€" was very small.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it â€" as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools â€" did not exist.
And:
Modern biological concepts of race can be implemented objectively with molecular genetic data through hypothesis-testing. Genetic data sets are used to see if biological races exist in humans and in our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans.
I think since the concept of race has caused so much damage to humanity, that to continue using the term is a huge disservice to mankind. I can see no good use of the term or concept of human races.
This. Responding from phone, so couldn't essay.
Quote from: pr126 on October 22, 2015, 02:43:56 PM
By saying 'radical Islam' is implying that there is another moderate, peaceful Islam somewhere.
This does not exist.
There are Muslims who do not engage in violent jihad, but that does not mean that Islam is peaceful.
All Muslims read the same scriptures. There is no Quran for radicals and another one for 'moderates'.
The Quran is in reality two books. Mekkan and Medinan.
The Mekkan part was from the times when Muhammad was still concilliatory, trying to get followers.
The second part are the Medinan verses which came when he migrated to Medina (Yathrib) and became a warlord with his army of followers.
The Mekkan verses then were abrogated, (annulled) by the later, more violent warring verses.
You are being scholarly ;-) It was the choice of the early Caliphate to include early and late, and probably burn anything they didn't like. That is why the Hadith came along 100 years later, to try to repair the false memory generated by the official Quran. Much of the genuine Hadith seems to originate with the women of Medinah. People forget that in between, Aisha had led a civil war against Ali. But most Muslims are not secular and so can't be genuinely scholarly, anymore than the Vatican can be objective. It wasn't Protestantism that brought Enlightenment to Europe after all ... but secular scholarship. IMHO ... anything legitimate can never be harmed by actual facts. The biggest annulment was the replacement of Jerusalem as the Qibla, with Mecca. And the Place of Ascension in Mecca, with the one in Jerusalem (after the conquest of Umar). The foundation myth of Islam took over 200 years to form.
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 04:28:27 PM
to expand on this. Even when reading a supposedly clear and objective document like a manual to repair an engine you will easily find yourself confused at how to interpret certain indications and you may ask for help to other people who might read it differently. That's the nature of human language and it's limitations. It is prone to ambiguity.
That is why a book can only be defined in context .. so the Quran is circa 700 CE. The context was lacking, so the Hadith started to appear circa 750 CE. The Bible has all the Jewish and Christian commentaries that are not just modern, but ancient as well. At least we don't need a rabbi to help us read a car repair manual ... but I am sure his interpretation would be very kosher ;-)
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 05:50:50 PM
You have not answered clearly my previous post, it seems to me you do mean that a notion of race (which i would kindly ask you to clearly define) is not a useful classification due to it's vagueness, this is a true statement, but hardly as radical as what "race does not exist" implies.
The concept of Nazis exist, as does the concept of race ... but both are useless concepts, even pernicious.
Quote from: Baruch on October 22, 2015, 07:36:55 PM
The concept of Nazis exist, as does the concept of race ... but both are useless concepts, even pernicious.
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
QuoteRace, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.[1][2][3][4][5][6] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. The term was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense,[7] starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[8][9]
Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[10] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[11] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[12][13][14][15][16]
Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[17] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[12] or simplistic way,[18][page needed] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[19][20]
Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[7][21]
Maybe you can start by answering my posts towards him about it?
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 22, 2015, 06:59:00 PM
I'm curious--what do you mean by race?
dictionary:
race2 [reys] noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
I would define it as race is the concept that describes a continuum of differences in geographical ancestry post early human migrations, that caused gradually different groups to developed different degrees of adaptive traits to their environment.
QuoteBy the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic â€" that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal â€" that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left â€" the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal â€" was very small.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it â€" as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools â€" did not exist.
Yes is agree with this thought i do not know some of those concepts (polymorphic or clinal) I agree mainly with the last sentences race is not discrete and those largely pure gene pools disappeared when intercontinental travel became feasible. The old notion of race was wrong. Though simply claiming that race does not exist is rather misleading.
After the early human migrations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations) there's like 75k - 125k years of human populations evolving in relative isolation from each other ( some groups were much more isolated from others because of distance you could not travel intercontinentally with ease at the time) that's enough time in a evolutionary scale for adaptations to their specific environments hence why we see differences. The most basic of it being differences in the concentration of melanin in the skin due the variance of sun light intensity in their respective habitats. Others are differences in types of skeletal muscle fibers: slow-twitch and fast-twitch . Slow-twitch muscles help enable long-endurance feats such as distance running, while fast-twitch muscles fatigue faster but are used in powerful bursts of movements like sprinting. Certain African populations developed very effective fast-twitching muscles that have allowed their modern descendants to win Olympic sprint races in a streak for years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres_at_the_Olympics#Race)
Obviously this does not make ALL racial memes and stereotypes real, but it shows there are indeed differences due to evolution , this racial differences are indeed based on objective facts. The concept of race as an on/off state and with clear breaking points is not real thought. In reality race is an approximation and a spectrum, but to use those characteristics to claim it does not exist as an objective reality is to commit the continuum fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy)
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 22, 2015, 06:59:00 PM
I can't define what a race is because they do not exist.
I do not see how this makes any sense, i can define lots of things that do not exist: The unicorn is a legendary animal that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. If you cannot tell me what is this ''race'' that does not exist then we cannot really discuss much.
QuoteI think since the concept of race has caused so much damage to humanity, that to continue using the term is a huge disservice to mankind. I can see no good use of the term or concept of human races.
Frankly I do not care about this, because it is irrelevant to what I'm trying to convey. Which is to challenge the accuracy of the claim "race does not exist" which I find misleading, especially when you have not precisely defined what is this thing and how does it not exist.
Quote
Races may exist in humans in a cultural sense, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner and to see if cultural categories correspond to biological categories within humans. Modern biological concepts of race can be implemented objectively with molecular genetic data through hypothesis-testing. Genetic data sets are used to see if biological races exist in humans and in our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible.
This study is taking common operative definitions of race used in the field of biology (which from what I have read are probably those used in fungi and bacteria since that is the only realms where the category ''race'' is still widely used) and showing how they do not work when applied to humans.
I'm not advocating for this specific definitions or any really, to be used in science or established as taxonomic subcategories for the homo sapiens. That is not my argument.
Some of those statements in the previous post are copypasted from previous discussions with someone who had a shitty definition of social construct, so it would be good that you ignore that term and concentrate on the "race does not exist" so we do not get into another semantic debate.
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 08:14:12 PM
Maybe you can start by answering my posts towards him about it?
dictionary:
race2 [reys] noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
I would define it as race is the concept that describes a continuum of differences in geographical ancestry post early human migrations, that caused gradually different groups to developed different degrees of adaptive traits to their environment.
Mike--I disagree with this definition for the sake of this discussion. This is why. As I understand it, humans have evolved from a single origin in Africa. That tells me that since we have a common ancestor all humans are, well, human. Differences arose because of geography. But that did not change that we are all human. And according to the biologists I've read, were are not separate species. We are not Neanderthal and human--we are just human.
mauricio-- The old notion of race was wrong. Though simply claiming that race does not exist is rather misleading.
Mike--I don't find it misleading to say that there is only one human race--I find it illuminating. I find that it shows we are really, actually, one--at least biologically. Culturally, that is not the case.
mauricio--Obviously this does not make ALL racial memes and stereotypes real, but it shows there are indeed differences due to evolution , this racial differences are indeed based on objective facts. The concept of race as an on/off state and with clear breaking points is not real thought. In reality race is an approximation and a spectrum, but to use those characteristics to claim it does not exist as an objective reality is to commit the continuum fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy)
Mike--Then I guess I am not engaging in 'real thought'. Human characteristics are on a spectrum. Geography is the main reason for this--and when geography is no longer a factor, the superficial characteristics blend in quite nicely with the rest of the human characteristic pool. For me 'race' does not exist because it has been mislabeled from the beginning.
mauricio--i can define lots of things that do not exist: The unicorn is a legendary animal that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. If you cannot tell me what is this ''race'' that does not exist then we cannot really discuss much.
Frankly I do not care about this, because it is irrelevant to what I'm trying to convey. Which is to challenge the accuracy of the claim "race does not exist" which I find misleading, especially when you have not precisely defined what is this thing and how does it not exist.
Mike--yes, you can define a unicorn or what Jesus looked like or existed. That does not mean you can provide any evidence that a unicorn existed or that Jesus existed. So, I could define what a unicorn is differently than you and there would be no way to prove either of us as being correct. I can't define what race is, since I don't think 'races' for humans really ever existed. Yes, they were labeled race, but that was done in error from the beginning.
Mike--My point is that the use of human races has been a determent to human kind. That is what is important for me. If science was used in the original definition of race, it was wrong. It is time it was corrected. If biology cannot establish that there are human races, then for me, there are no races--only one human race.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 22, 2015, 09:51:50 PM
Quote from: mauricio on October 22, 2015, 08:14:12 PM
Maybe you can start by answering my posts towards him about it?
dictionary:
race2 [reys] noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
I would define it as race is the concept that describes a continuum of differences in geographical ancestry post early human migrations, that caused gradually different groups to developed different degrees of adaptive traits to their environment.
Mike-- I disagree with this definition for the sake of this discussion. This is why. As I understand it, humans have evolved from a single origin in Africa. That tells me that since we have a common ancestor all humans are, well, human. Differences arose because of geography. But that did not change that we are all human. And according to the biologists I've read, were are not separate species. We are not Neanderthal and human--we are just human.
Of course we are all from the same species. There cannot be humans of a different species because human IS the species called homo sapiens. If they were of a different species they would no longer be human by definition. By definition a species cannot be subdivided into more species.
"I disagree with this definition for the sake of this discussion" what do you mean exactly by disagree with it? You think what it describes is real but you would not call it race? then feel free to call it whatever you want I do not care about the semantic debate of whether the word race is appropriate or not but rather that you understand and accept that the concept I described does exist.
mauricio-- The old notion of race was wrong. Though simply claiming that race does not exist is rather misleading.
Mike--I don't find it misleading to say that there is only one human race--I find it illuminating. I find that it shows we are really, actually, one--at least biologically. Culturally, that is not the case.
we are not one biologically ( well depending on what exactly do you mean by that) there are physiological differences between humans due to evolutionary mechanisms producing adaptations to the environment in the last 75k-125k years. I already explained this with the melanin and muscle fiber examples do you deny this facts?
"I find it illuminating. I find that it shows we are really, actually, one" Also what does this even mean? we are indeed one species not that that makes us all that similar in our subjective individual perceptions where subtle differences in the structure of our beings are greatly amplified.
mauricio--Obviously this does not make ALL racial memes and stereotypes real, but it shows there are indeed differences due to evolution , this racial differences are indeed based on objective facts. The concept of race as an on/off state and with clear breaking points is not real though. In reality race is an approximation and a spectrum, but to use those characteristics to claim it does not exist as an objective reality is to commit the continuum fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy)
Mike--Then I guess I am not engaging in 'real thought'. Human characteristics are on a spectrum. Geography is the main reason for this--and when geography is no longer a factor, the superficial characteristics blend in quite nicely with the rest of the human characteristic pool. For me 'race' does not exist because it has been mislabeled from the beginning.
Sorry that was a typo there I meant to type though not thought. If by race you mean the old concept of discrete races described in the previous quote you shared yes I agree with this. But it is not so much that racial differences do not exist is more that they were described incorrectly based on poor methodology and xenophobic attitudes that bred racist memes that were preposterous exaggerations or outright falsehoods. And yes the intensity of this differences has been greatly reduced with the populations mixing on a global scale, but they still influence and matter though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres_at_the_Olympics#Race) and will for a long time, since they were established in 75k-125k years of generation after generation and it is only recently that we have starting mixing with people from all over the globe on an unprecedented scale. How much do they influence or matter? I do not know or care that much I just challenge the claim that they do not exist or are completely meaningless.
mauricio--i can define lots of things that do not exist: The unicorn is a legendary animal that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. If you cannot tell me what is this ''race'' that does not exist then we cannot really discuss much.
Frankly I do not care about this, because it is irrelevant to what I'm trying to convey. Which is to challenge the accuracy of the claim "race does not exist" which I find misleading, especially when you have not precisely defined what is this thing and how does it not exist.
Mike--yes, you can define a unicorn or what Jesus looked like or existed. That does not mean you can provide any evidence that a unicorn existed or that Jesus existed.
This is tautological and irrelevant since we were talking about defining thing that do not exist...
So, I could define what a unicorn is differently than you and there would be no way to prove either of us as being correct.
But this is not what the discussion is about, or rather I don't want to debate what is the true definition of race, rather that the concept of race, even the old one fraught with inaccuracies and falsehood is still based in some objective facts, which I have attempted to describe with my new definition of race provided here that tries to accurately describe the reality of the phenomena.
I can't define what race is, since I don't think 'races' for humans really ever existed. Yes, they were labeled race, but that was done in error from the beginning.
How could you possibly know that "they were labeled race, but that was done in error from the beginning." without knowing what ''race'' was? aren't you being facetious here? You clearly must have an idea about this concept of race you disagree with , otherwise how can you even attempt to formulate your criticism of it without knowing it's characteristics and you have already patently shown you do have an idea of what this ''race'' means in this response you have given. I was simply asking for a concise resume for clarity purposes and avoid semantic issues.
Mike--My point is that the use of human races has been a determent to human kind. That is what is important for me. If science was used in the original definition of race, it was wrong. It is time it was corrected.
Ok that is fine, but those things do not show the concept of race to be completely false, in the sense that there exists this differences that I described in my new definition of race (which you seem to accept here: "Human characteristics are on a spectrum. Geography is the main reason for this--and when geography is no longer a factor, the superficial characteristics blend in quite nicely with the rest of the human characteristic pool.") . Darwinism was also used to promote hatred and abhorrent behavior by misinterpretation and exaggeration of his claims also some of the claims he made were wrong, but in science wrong usually means not precise enough: inaccurate.
If biology cannot establish that there are human races, then for me, there are no races--only one human race.
For race to be used in science as a subdivision of the homo sapiens species it must have a clear and useful operative definition, this is not something I claim my definition is, it is just meant for a more precise layman discussions.
Race must exist.
Otherwise there would be no reason to call white people racist. :96:
Quote from: pr126 on October 22, 2015, 11:50:04 PM
Race must exist.
Otherwise there would be no reason to call white people racist. :96:
Ahem ... "race" has always been a political term, not a biological term ... because "racism" is purely political .. usually for bad politics. It was developed as a concept by Enlightenment Europeans like Voltaire and Lamarck (who was an actual biologist). It doesn't help that "species" isn't clear either ... as per neanderthal vs sapiens or lion vs tiger ... but we will leave the biologists to ponder that. What it was for, was so that European imperialists and colonialists could feel good about themselves ... but later the term was turned pejorative in most cases. Some people are entitled to be masters vs some people are entitled to be slaves ... hence Nazism was inevitably drawn into the question of master race.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 06:32:11 AM
Some people are entitled to be masters vs some people are entitled to be slaves ...
You're just not capable of admitting that some individuals are born as leaders, and you're not one of them.
QuoteAhem ... "race" has always been a political term, not a biological term ... because "racism" is purely political .. usually for bad politics.
I know that. It is used as a blunt instrument to stun people into silence.
A conversation stopper. You don't want to be called a racist.
Reminds me of a very nice, almost peaceful Quran verse:
Quran 2:191YusufAli.
And slay them wherever ye catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 23, 2015, 07:35:12 AM
You're just not capable of admitting that some individuals are born as leaders, and you're not one of them.
As an American ... I have no masters and I keep no slaves. And I don't accept leaders or followers either ... other cultures will differ. I can only assume you are being ironic.
Quote from: pr126 on October 23, 2015, 07:36:31 AM
I know that. It is used as a blunt instrument to stun people into silence.
A conversation stopper. You don't want to be called a racist.
Reminds me of a very nice, almost peaceful Quran verse:
Quran 2:191
YusufAli.
And slay them wherever ye catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith
Yes, in today's meaning. But I am not of this time only, but of every time. And I agree, killing and being killed is better than any submission ... which is why on principle I can't be Muslim.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 10:00:06 AM
As an American ... I have no masters and I keep no slaves. And I don't accept leaders or followers either ... other cultures will differ. I can only assume you are being ironic.
Yeah because it is just Americans on the planet who has no masters and keeps no slaves. But surely every other culture will differ. Pfffft.
The irony in that statement starts with the poverty and the homeless in your country, goes on with your education system and ends with the limits of corporate democracy.
You are just above Turkey in the recognition of evolution as a scientific theory among the general population. Ouch.
Mauricio, when you said this: Ok that is fine, but those things do not show the concept of race to be completely false, in the sense that there exists this differences that I described in my new definition of race (which you seem to accept here: "Human characteristics are on a spectrum. Geography is the main reason for this--and when geography is no longer a factor, the superficial characteristics blend in quite nicely with the rest of the human characteristic pool.") . Darwinism was also used to promote hatred and abhorrent behavior by misinterpretation and exaggeration of his claims also some of the claims he made were wrong, but in science wrong usually means not precise enough: inaccurate.
I am led to think that we were actually on the same page. As Baruch pointed out, 'race' was a political label from the start. That is what I object to.
Yes, every person is unique in all ways; physical, mental, emotional--all ways. So, in that respect, being human is also being unique. But those differences are variations on a central theme. And I see that theme as being the same in every culture and gene pool. I think you are saying that in scientific parlance that there are verifiable differences that can be linked to a particular gene pool. Okay. But to call them racial now is to mislabel them because that term, 'race' is now so political that it simply cannot have anything but a bad meaning. I'm not sure what term to use, if any--maybe just saying there are biological differences in different gene pools; but those differences become less and less when the gene pools are mingled.
I think we are saying the same thing; or even actually talking about two different subjects. I think Shiranu and I were using race in the political manner; and you in the scientific manner. Neither of us are wrong, just putting the emphasis on a different element of what 'races' mean.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 10:14:33 AM
Yeah because it is just Americans on the planet who has no masters and keeps no slaves. But surely every other culture will differ. Pfffft.
The irony in that statement starts with the poverty and the homeless in your country, goes on with your education system and ends with the limits of corporate democracy.
You are just above Turkey in the recognition of evolution as a scientific theory among the general population. Ouch.
I am not sure how this can happen, but the US, as a whole, needs to stop thinking the US is 'exceptional'. We are not. And it causes us damage in the eyes of the world. We act as the classroom bully, and expect the rest of the world to accept us as the 'leader' and 'savior' of the world. Yes, most countries fear us and we then interpret that as respect. What the repubes don't seem to know is that fear always turns to hate. Fear is a good short term tool to use, but it almost always backfires on it's user. Too much we seem to think we are the same country that emerged out of WWII as the leader of the world and that the world is as it was then.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 10:00:06 AM
As an American ... I have no masters and I keep no slaves. And I don't accept leaders or followers either ... other cultures will differ. I can only assume you are being ironic.
No, I'm not being ironic. People have different gifts - in sports, arts, science, and so on. And there are people who are just natural born leaders. The difference between you and I is that I accept that reality, and you don't. You resent it, and your resentment leads you to see the worst in things, and conspiracies everywhere. And it seems that you have swallowed line, hook and sinker Nietzsche's philosophy of masters/slaves, which frankly is a bit outdated.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2015, 10:54:10 AM
I am not sure how this can happen, but the US, as a whole, needs to stop thinking the US is 'exceptional'. We are not. And it causes us damage in the eyes of the world. We act as the classroom bully, and expect the rest of the world to accept us as the 'leader' and 'savior' of the world. Yes, most countries fear us and we then interpret that as respect. What the repubes don't seem to know is that fear always turns to hate. Fear is a good short term tool to use, but it almost always backfires on it's user. Too much we seem to think we are the same country that emerged out of WWII as the leader of the world and that the world is as it was then.
I agree with you overall. Minus the last line. That line is the root of the whole problem you are describing in the rest o f the post.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 11:21:46 AM
I agree with you overall. Minus the last line. That line is the root of the whole problem you are describing in the rest o f the post.
By that I mean that the US emerged from WWII as the most powerful country in the world. There were many reasons why that was so. But we, as a country, were not used to being the most powerful. There is no doubt that prior to WWII, we had been gaining political strength from WWI. WWII put us way ahead economically, especially. So, the US had to come to terms with that power--what to do with it, how to develop it, and so on. But I am not saying the US prior to WWII was pure as the driven snow. Far from it. The Mexican War and the Spanish-American War are two fine examples of how the US played power politics from the start. It's just that we did not have the global power then that we did when we emerged from WWII. We have always played power politics with our local neighbors--Manifest Destiny and all that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2015, 10:54:10 AM
I am not sure how this can happen, but the US, as a whole, needs to stop thinking the US is 'exceptional'. We are not. And it causes us damage in the eyes of the world. We act as the classroom bully, and expect the rest of the world to accept us as the 'leader' and 'savior' of the world. Yes, most countries fear us and we then interpret that as respect. What the repubes don't seem to know is that fear always turns to hate. Fear is a good short term tool to use, but it almost always backfires on it's user. Too much we seem to think we are the same country that emerged out of WWII as the leader of the world and that the world is as it was then.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2015, 11:30:40 AM
By that I mean that the US emerged from WWII as the most powerful country in the world. There were many reasons why that was so. But we, as a country, were not used to being the most powerful. There is no doubt that prior to WWII, we had been gaining political strength from WWI. WWII put us way ahead economically, especially. So, the US had to come to terms with that power--what to do with it, how to develop it, and so on. But I am not saying the US prior to WWII was pure as the driven snow. Far from it. The Mexican War and the Spanish-American War are two fine examples of how the US played power politics from the start. It's just that we did not have the global power then that we did when we emerged from WWII. We have always played power politics with our local neighbors--Manifest Destiny and all that.
Jut to add my 2¢.
Some people forget to ask some fundamental questions: what if some other country had developed the bomb before the US? What would the world be if Hitler had developed the bomb first? Would it have been if the USSR had it first? After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were outcries in the US from all walks of life. I don't think that there would have been the same outcries had the USSR developed it before everyone else and started to use it indiscriminately. Now ask yourself: what if the US stops being the world police, what happens next? Politics abhor a vacuum, and soon some other country will fill that role, and some country like China won't be playing the human rights card as they don't have it back home.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 10:14:33 AM
Yeah because it is just Americans on the planet who has no masters and keeps no slaves. But surely every other culture will differ. Pfffft.
The irony in that statement starts with the poverty and the homeless in your country, goes on with your education system and ends with the limits of corporate democracy.
You are just above Turkey in the recognition of evolution as a scientific theory among the general population. Ouch.
American as "ideology" from my POV. Nobody else's POV, and certainly not a description of any country. If I want a perfect country to live in, I don't think I will find it, by definition (u-topia). Do you support Turkey as a country (not necessarily the current government or even constitution) ... as a people or as an idea? For me it is an idea (yes I am being idealistic, but not fantastic ... I don't think we are getting better, let alone "arrive"). The people are rather horrible.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 23, 2015, 12:03:19 PM
Jut to add my 2¢.
Some people forget to ask some fundamental questions: what if some other country had developed the bomb before the US? What would the world be if Hitler had developed the bomb first? Would it have been if the USSR had it first? After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were outcries in the US from all walks of life. I don't think that there would have been the same outcries had the USSR developed it before everyone else and started to use it indiscriminately. Now ask yourself: what if the US stops being the world police, what happens next? Politics abhor a vacuum, and soon some other country will fill that role, and some country like China won't be playing the human rights card as they don't have it back home.
There you go, filling in my "impression" of you ... in a way I don't support ... not that you need to. The US is not the World Police. Frankly I wish the Europeans had all drown on the way to the New World ... just to see what interesting things the Natives would have developed into.
The US has no human rights, nobody has. Back to the powdered wig with you ;-) My idea and your idea of "America" are not the same.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 23, 2015, 10:55:14 AM
No, I'm not being ironic. People have different gifts - in sports, arts, science, and so on. And there are people who are just natural born leaders. The difference between you and I is that I accept that reality, and you don't. You resent it, and your resentment leads you to see the worst in things, and conspiracies everywhere. And it seems that you have swallowed line, hook and sinker Nietzsche's philosophy of masters/slaves, which frankly is a bit outdated.
Sorry, Nietzsche is upside down with you. Nietzsche actually was for leadership (of Greek excellence) just like you describe. The Nazis are the ones who imagined that one gained this thru blond hair and blue eyes.
Yes, I resent ... but it is because of G-d being a monster ... not because I don't want to kiss the butts of master chess players for example. That excellence is all fine and dandy, but I could care less. You think of humans as chimps, with alpha males ... and you are one of the alphas ... LoL
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2015, 11:30:40 AM
By that I mean that the US emerged from WWII as the most powerful country in the world. There were many reasons why that was so. But we, as a country, were not used to being the most powerful. There is no doubt that prior to WWII, we had been gaining political strength from WWI. WWII put us way ahead economically, especially. So, the US had to come to terms with that power--what to do with it, how to develop it, and so on. But I am not saying the US prior to WWII was pure as the driven snow. Far from it. The Mexican War and the Spanish-American War are two fine examples of how the US played power politics from the start. It's just that we did not have the global power then that we did when we emerged from WWII. We have always played power politics with our local neighbors--Manifest Destiny and all that.
OK.
The nature of power. After a zone reaches a certain level of power, it has to continue to gain power constantly. And if it fails to gain the power to preserve its station, doesn't matter what changes in the general environment, the power will be gained by other zones and the former zone will automatically lose power and as a result, eventually the station of being a power zone.
There is a crisis in American identity over all. Let's divide it roughly into the Christian and the Secular. These two groups are suffering the same identity crisis in a different way as far as I can see it.
I don't know how to explain how I see it and I will try to caricaturise it to make it easy. Don't take it as an insult or some rant.
-Christians support and defend the ideas which is surrounded around a specific set of rules and regulations of what they see as the building blocks of their society. Ruled by Christianity with the general differences passed after the French revolution; standardisation, modern state, nationalism...etc. They believe that they are the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. They believe their country saved the world. They believe they live in the most democratic country with the most freedom available. They believe they live in the richest country...etc.
They believe and live in that identity as long as their rules apply and they are the first class. Now, it is taken from them as they see it. They are in some sort of a crisis.
-Seculars support absolute secularism. At least in theory. However, those generations grew and raised with the same of the best and the greatest, the -EST propaganda with the Christians since the WWII. So insert here pretty much the same things besides the religious vision of the American society. But now the world; actually the known history of the US has started to 'change'. Good thing with the secular lot, they are open to the information or criticism more or less, muıch better than the first group. Things that looked very square a few decades ago, do not look like that any more. As the time passes, people realise consciously and unconsciously what kind of a bullshit they have been fed all their lives. (Goes for every country more or less)
They are in some sort of an identity crisis. While Christians miss the golden old days when it was all for them, Seculars miss the other sides of the golden days. Could be anything from the space race to the ...-EST nation.
Now, if you give people this identity; create a hyped up culture defining itself as the greatest, flying on the clouds with fantasy freedoms, teaching them to see themselves as the giant in the mirror, this is how they are going to act. You cannot get ground their ass in a few decades by telling them that they are just an ordinary country with a belligerent, isolated culture and enough military power to bully around, because that's all their govs' policies did roughly for the last 100 years, politely put. And they will see themselves entitled to do or say anything.
These two groups of people actually had/have the same identity -from many aspects- built on different principles. But now that identity looks far away, and what is left feels shrunk -naturally because those ideals are made up and that propaganda has always been a fantasy so POOF! they start to disappear. AND PEOPLE ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF THIS. Nobody is stupid. Nothing got shrunk, it is still the same thing. Kid started to grow up.
I am 39, you wouldn't believe the difference between how Americans talk about the domestic and international policies of their country today and how they did 15 years or a decade ago. I could say that I'm a 'witness' of this, at least in a small dimension.
And do you think that is easy to come by? Or that would happen without a crisis or a struggle? It's not just the Irak war catastrophie, Mike. American society started to change before it got a black president and legalised gay marriage or marijuana. It
Now, things got interesting.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 12:41:49 PM
The US is not the World Police.
As the only superpower, the US doesn't need your approval.
QuoteFrankly I wish the Europeans had all drown on the way to the New World ... just to see what interesting things the Natives would have developed into.
You have an unrealistic, idealized vision of the Native Americans. They were just as vicious, with less technological advances.
QuoteThe US has no human rights, nobody has.
Nobody is going to grab you in the middle of the night, throw you in jail and leave you there to rot, which FYI, it does happen in other countries.
QuoteMy idea and your idea of "America" are not the same.
Agree, yours is colored with hatred, resentment and a dose of CT's.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 12:33:32 PM
American as "ideology" from my POV. Nobody else's POV, and certainly not a description of any country. If I want a perfect country to live in, I don't think I will find it, by definition (u-topia). Do you support Turkey as a country (not necessarily the current government or even constitution) ... as a people or as an idea? For me it is an idea (yes I am being idealistic, but not fantastic ... I don't think we are getting better, let alone "arrive"). The people are rather horrible.
No, American as an 'identity' from your POV, not 'ideology'. American ideology = capitalism+nationalism
And that is not idealism, but propaganda. There is a big difference between fantastical bullshit and idealism.
And you know I don't support the current gov in the country. However, Turkey is a very convenient example. I could give you Scandinavian countries and a few other European ones to compare, but I guess we could do a favour to the US by starting from Canada to compare the 'no masters and no slaves'. Start by trying to imagine some places where your average left is far right.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 23, 2015, 01:05:03 PM
You have an unrealistic, idealized vision of the Native Americans. They were just as vicious, with less technological advances.
Europeans came to their land, invaded their home, committed genocide and enslaved their people for hundreds of years. They wiped out their entire culture(s) and their people -they'll die out soon- AND they do not even agree to recognise the crime offically.
BUT THEY WERE JUST AS VICIOUS?! And if you don't agree with that you have an idealised-unrealistic vision of Mesoamericans?
You are so fucking full of shit, you got to the levels of retarded rube dribble. And you get annoyed when you are called an American idiot? You are golden quality.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 01:32:34 PM
Europeans came to their land, invaded their home, committed genocide and enslaved their people for hundreds of years. They wiped out their entire culture(s) and their people -they'll die out soon- AND they do not even agree to recognise the crime offically.
BUT THEY WERE JUST AS VICIOUS?! And if you don't agree with that you have an idealised-unrealistic vision of Mesoamericans?
You are so fucking full of shit, you got to the levels of retarded rube dribble. And you get annoyed when you are called an American idiot? You are golden quality.
The best part of it is he wants to hold Turks responsible for the Armenian genocide, then trivialized the largest genocide in human history.
And I'll say the natives were aggressive... but then, humans are aggressive. And many tribes wanted to just be left alone and didn't interact with the white man. The most "peaceful" whites at the very least aggressively wanted them to convert to Christianity.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 23, 2015, 01:37:23 PM
The best part of it is he wants to hold Turks responsible for the Armenian genocide, then trivialized the largest genocide in human history.
And I'll say the natives were aggressive... but then, humans are aggressive. And many tribes wanted to just be left alone and didn't interact with the white man. The most "peaceful" whites at the very least aggressively wanted them to convert to Christianity.
Yeah well, genocide is something that happens in other countries, don't you know? :lol:
The irony is that he is talking exactly the same way genocide deniars and right wingers here talk. They would get along very well.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 01:32:34 PM
BUT THEY WERE JUST AS VICIOUS?!
Before the Europeans arrived, they were warring among each other, committing atrocities - they were no better than any other groups of people. Get your facts straightened out before spewing stupidities as you usually do.
QuoteDespite myths to the contrary, not all Native Americans were peaceful. Like Europe, the American continent faced tribal warfare that sometimes led to human and cultural destruction.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/1.asp
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 23, 2015, 02:21:47 PM
Before the Europeans arrived, they were warring among each other, committing atrocities - they were no better than any other groups of people. Get your facts straightened out before spewing stupidities as you usually do.
Nobody said they are different than other humans, you genocide apologist, toxic nationalist piece of shit. You are not in a position to question anyone's intelligence or to demand some respect to your opinion.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 02:43:12 PM
Nobody said they are different than other humans, you genocide apologist, toxic nationalist piece of shit. You are not in a position to question anyone's intelligence or to demand some respect to your opinion.
Sure, when the facts contradict your asshole opinions revert to insult. Great thinking.
QuoteAhem ... "race" has always been a political term, not a biological term ... because "racism" is purely political .. usually for bad politics.
This is not true race was a legit scientific term and it still is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28biology%29
Also gotta love the fight in the talk page because people do not like the term, same shit as why they changed transsexualism from gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria, the concept remains the same but the word must be changed because it is too un-PC, scientists need to bend over and change their terms because layman cannot be bothered to understand their definitions.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 23, 2015, 01:37:23 PM
then trivialized the largest genocide in human history.
You got any source on that? Pretty sure a big part of their dead was not genocide but disease same shit happened in south america, I thought genocide was only willful systematic killings.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 12:41:49 PM
... just to see what interesting things the Natives would have developed into.
The native americans along with the australian aborigines, if left alone would have accomplished….nothing. Just as today in little african or south american spots where never before seen tribes are being still "found" they have yet to come up with anything beyond a bow or a blow-"gun". The aborigines remained stagnant for 35,000 years, the american natives, it is suggested around 15,000, they never did shit.
The entirety of modern civilization as we all understand it to be is the result of war. War drove technologies and inventions and that which wasn't driven by war was appropriated for it. Civilizations that had no contact with other civilizations do nothing but remain stagnant.
In English, even officially, we give different meanings to the same word. This is why "explanation of what I meant" happens so much on the Internet. It doesn't invalidate whatever definition you might be using, it just requires due diligence to explain what you mean by X.
On Native American genocide ... the diseases brought by the Europeans, did most of the damage, as a detailed history of Squanto (in New England) would show. And the Europeans, while they had superior technology, generally didn't engage in germ warfare ... except on a few rare occasions. Also germs not known to Europeans were carried back to Europe to devastate Europe. But, even given the early technology, the Europeans would have killed every native one at a time using toothpicks if necessary ... the epidemiology simply made it much easier. The death of all the Carib peoples, is why the Spanish started importing African slaves. Before he came to the New World, Columbus worked in the Portuguese slave trade in W Africa.
Joe ... if I were you, I would avoid dark alleys, just in case Jonb or Drunkenshoe happen to be waiting for you ;-) In reality I like all of you, but some of you are easier to like than others.
Drunkenshoe ... your sociological analysis of the US today is pretty good for someone not living here. But distance maybe gives you better objectivity ... which is one reason why I like your posts.
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2015, 02:58:28 PM
The native americans along with the australian aborigines, if left alone would have accomplished….nothing. Just as today in little african or south american spots where never before seen tribes are being still "found" they have yet to come up with anything beyond a bow or a blow-"gun". The aborigines remained stagnant for 35,000 years, the american natives, it is suggested around 15,000, they never did shit.
The entirety of modern civilization as we all understand it to be is the result of war. War drove technologies and inventions and that which wasn't driven by war was appropriated for it. Civilizations that had no contact with other civilizations do nothing but remain stagnant.
Watch out now, aitm, soon you will be accused of trivializing genocide, or of being a genocide apologist...LOL. Shiranu and drunkenshoe are the most hilarious posters on AF. We should give them some kind of medal... like the SHIT MEDAL OF THE MONTH.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 03:03:11 PM
On Native American genocide ... the diseases brought by the Europeans, did most of the damage, as a detailed history of Squanto (in New England) would show. And the Europeans, while they had superior technology, generally didn't engage in germ warfare ... except on a few rare occasions. Also germs not known to Europeans were carried back to Europe to devastate Europe. But, even given the early technology, the Europeans would have killed every native one at a time using toothpicks if necessary ... the epidemiology simply made it much easier. The death of all the Carib peoples, is why the Spanish started importing African slaves. Before he came to the New World, Columbus worked in the Portuguese slave trade in W Africa.
Maybe they could have but they did not. So to call it the biggest genocide of history is false. Because we know the disease was probably the biggest killer since epidemics travel much faster than their primitive armies.
Quote from: mauricio on October 23, 2015, 03:16:16 PM
Maybe they could have but they did not. So to call it the biggest genocide of history is false. Because we know the disease was probably the biggest killer since epidemics travel much faster than their primitive armies.
World's smallest violin playing ;-) If you were a dead Native American, would you care exactly why your tribe was wiped out? Too bad the Natives didn't have protective suites like E-bola nurses ... those Europeans are dirty savages ;-))
Quote from: mauricio on October 23, 2015, 03:16:16 PM
Maybe they could have but they did not. So to call it the biggest genocide of history is false. Because we know the disease was probably the biggest killer since epidemics travel much faster than their primitive armies.
Racist...:lol:
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2015, 03:21:22 PM
World's smallest violin playing ;-) If you were a dead Native American, would you care exactly why your tribe was wiped out? Too bad the Natives didn't have protective suites like E-bola nurses ... those Europeans are dirty savages ;-))
Yes, those Europeans are EVIL.
Disease is not genocide. Especially when the carrier is ignorant of it. To
associate that with genocide is willful ignorance or plain stupidity.
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2015, 02:58:28 PM
The native americans along with the australian aborigines, if left alone would have accomplished….nothing. Just as today in little african or south american spots where never before seen tribes are being still "found" they have yet to come up with anything beyond a bow or a blow-"gun". The aborigines remained stagnant for 35,000 years, the american natives, it is suggested around 15,000, they never did shit.
The entirety of modern civilization as we all understand it to be is the result of war. War drove technologies and inventions and that which wasn't driven by war was appropriated for it. Civilizations that had no contact with other civilizations do nothing but remain stagnant.
And that is fortune telling your way anachronistically back in history.
You realise that the last...let's say 5000 years is a very tiny 'bit' of 'time' in scale just on this planet, right? Infact, it actually doesn't even exist in the time scale of the planet. We made it up out of our asses with comparing it to the precious 'now' applying an imaginary zombie jew's birthday to some ancient pagan holiday as a starting point.
There is no such thing as world would got stuck here or there without wars or this or that war and genocide at this or that time. It would be the same for the world if the last 5000 years of development happened another 5000 years later or another 5000 years ago. It would be the 'same' 5000 years later in history when it reached to the period of time that can be defined as the development of the last 5000 years in history, today.
As long as you reach hundreds of millions of years of recorded civilisation, it makes a difference about the size of my ass in time scale of planet's existence. NONE.
I love it how people tend to believe that their culture is the cause of human development and that the world would have got stuck in stone age if it wasn't for them, in a snug, warm, linear, delusional understanding of history.
You know your way of thiking is also called 'God's plan' by another gropup of people, right? :lol:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 23, 2015, 12:03:19 PM
Jut to add my 2¢.
Some people forget to ask some fundamental questions: what if some other country had developed the bomb before the US? What would the world be if Hitler had developed the bomb first? Would it have been if the USSR had it first? After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were outcries in the US from all walks of life. I don't think that there would have been the same outcries had the USSR developed it before everyone else and started to use it indiscriminately. Now ask yourself: what if the US stops being the world police, what happens next? Politics abhor a vacuum, and soon some other country will fill that role, and some country like China won't be playing the human rights card as they don't have it back home.
Joe, I like playing the historical 'what if's'. I have and do wonder what the world would be like if Hitler had won. I think that that is not too difficult to figure out. Or what if Japan had won. Would they have divided the world into two parts--Japan and Germany? And how long would that have lasted? None of those possible outcomes would have been very pretty for the rest of the world, I don't think. As for the bomb, that has always been a huge question for me. Was it right? Was it moral? Did we have the right to use such a weapon and should it have been used where they were used? And on and on...................If I could have had the ear of Truman and from the vantage point of using that ear with today's knowledge, I'd tell him to do what he had planned. I think we should have dropped those bombs. We were justified and it was moral, and it saved lives, maybe up to a million of American lives and millions of Japanese lives. WWII was one of the few wars in which we were literally fighting for our lives and country. The outcome was not a done deal--we had to give our all or lose our country. We did horrible things in that war--our soldiers were mostly boys, not really men--not until they survived that combat, then those that lived emerged as men and women. But our boys were literally fighting for their own lives and in combat morality changes. Over all were were not as savage as some, like the Germans or the Japanese, but savage enough. But then, war is like that. It has to be savage--that is why it is called war.
What if others had found the bomb first? Who knows. I'm glad the Soviets didn't. I do believe Germany would be a slag heap for a long time. I shudder to think what would have happened if the Japanese had gotten it first.
As for being the world's police right now---I don't know. What gives us the right? We have not used our power to date with much moral authority. We have not displayed much good judgement. I see us as having used up the 'good will' that we gained in WWII. It has for the most part, be spent most unwisely. Bush all by himself has spent more good will points than we can manufacture in generations. I think that for the US to think it can be the police of the world is foolish and will end up harming us more than any other thing we do.
I was struck a few years ago when I saw news coverage of the US sending aid to an area of Pakistan that had suffered a huge natural disaster. I don't remember if it was an earthquake or huge flood or what. Anyway, I remember seeing us military helicopters landing, soldiers rushing off, but loaded with medical supplies and food and other necessary items for life. I remember seeing an interivew with a father whose daughter was as death's doorstep, and was saved in the last instance by a US medical team. That father was beyond appreciation! I doubt he could ever be turned into an enemy of the US. That is the type of policing we should be doing. We should be using our 'shock and awe' to come to the aid of the worlds people in that type of stress. Not destroying countries so we can then give them democracy; what a crop of crap that is! We had better learn to fix out own fences for they are falling down around our ears right now.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 01:32:34 PM
Europeans came to their land, invaded their home, committed genocide and enslaved their people for hundreds of years. They wiped out their entire culture(s) and their people -they'll die out soon- AND they do not even agree to recognise the crime offically.
BUT THEY WERE JUST AS VICIOUS?! And if you don't agree with that you have an idealised-unrealistic vision of Mesoamericans?
You are so fucking full of shit, you got to the levels of retarded rube dribble. And you get annoyed when you are called an American idiot? You are golden quality.
To be honest, the Aztecs and Incas in particular were rather notorious.
It was like they were the Romans, or any other aggressive conquering power where the vanquished held a deep resentment. This is why the Spaniards had such an easy time gathering allies among various city states and other affiliates. As the saying goes, "The enemy of my enemy..."
Before the Spaniards arrived, capturing people for the purpose of human sacrifice was a very lucrative business in Mesoamerica, as there was plenty of clout to be had for those who were good at it. It wasn't enough to just sacrifice prisoners of war, many were unfortunate souls who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. No wonder there was so much resentment.
These people weren't actually all that much different then the rest of us. They achieved some absolutely amazing things. They didn't have bronze or iron working, but that most certainly doesn't mean they were not advanced. Their knowledge of agriculture, astronomy and engineering was remarkable if not unparalleled; but they definitely had violence issues.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 01:02:55 PM
OK.
The nature of power. After a zone reaches a certain level of power, it has to continue to gain power constantly. And if it fails to gain the power to preserve its station, doesn't matter what changes in the general environment, the power will be gained by other zones and the former zone will automatically lose power and as a result, eventually the station of being a power zone.
There is a crisis in American identity over all. Let's divide it roughly into the Christian and the Secular. These two groups are suffering the same identity crisis in a different way as far as I can see it.
I don't know how to explain how I see it and I will try to caricaturise it to make it easy. Don't take it as an insult or some rant.
-Christians support and defend the ideas which is surrounded around a specific set of rules and regulations of what they see as the building blocks of their society. Ruled by Christianity with the general differences passed after the French revolution; standardisation, modern state, nationalism...etc. They believe that they are the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. They believe their country saved the world. They believe they live in the most democratic country with the most freedom available. They believe they live in the richest country...etc.
They believe and live in that identity as long as their rules apply and they are the first class. Now, it is taken from them as they see it. They are in some sort of a crisis.
-Seculars support absolute secularism. At least in theory. However, those generations grew and raised with the same of the best and the greatest, the -EST propaganda with the Christians since the WWII. So insert here pretty much the same things besides the religious vision of the American society. But now the world; actually the known history of the US has started to 'change'. Good thing with the secular lot, they are open to the information or criticism more or less, muıch better than the first group. Things that looked very square a few decades ago, do not look like that any more. As the time passes, people realise consciously and unconsciously what kind of a bullshit they have been fed all their lives. (Goes for every country more or less)
They are in some sort of an identity crisis. While Christians miss the golden old days when it was all for them, Seculars miss the other sides of the golden days. Could be anything from the space race to the ...-EST nation.
Now, if you give people this identity; create a hyped up culture defining itself as the greatest, flying on the clouds with fantasy freedoms, teaching them to see themselves as the giant in the mirror, this is how they are going to act. You cannot get ground their ass in a few decades by telling them that they are just an ordinary country with a belligerent, isolated culture and enough military power to bully around, because that's all their govs' policies did roughly for the last 100 years, politely put. And they will see themselves entitled to do or say anything.
These two groups of people actually had/have the same identity -from many aspects- built on different principles. But now that identity looks far away, and what is left feels shrunk -naturally because those ideals are made up and that propaganda has always been a fantasy so POOF! they start to disappear. AND PEOPLE ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF THIS. Nobody is stupid. Nothing got shrunk, it is still the same thing. Kid started to grow up.
I am 39, you wouldn't believe the difference between how Americans talk about the domestic and international policies of their country today and how they did 15 years or a decade ago. I could say that I'm a 'witness' of this, at least in a small dimension.
And do you think that is easy to come by? Or that would happen without a crisis or a struggle? It's not just the Irak war catastrophie, Mike. American society started to change before it got a black president and legalised gay marriage or marijuana. It
Now, things got interesting.
Yes, I agree with most of what you just said. I would suggest that if you took an American GI who fought in WWII from the year 1955 and brought him to now, he would look at this country and say something like this--I fought for this???!!! He would be disappointed and appalled! And I think rightly so.
As a college student I found I like history for the first time. Why? Because the propaganda that was taught to me prior to that was being shown as just that--propaganda. I saw faint glimmers of a different story emerging from the old falsehood called US History. That interested me to the point of making me change my major to history. Yes, society started to change after WWII. But then, all societies change; that is the nature of societies. None remain the same. It seems to me that for a society, our society, to change in a healthy way, one needs real history not just propaganda. Propaganda works for the short run (if it's well done) but not the long run. We are just starting to enter the 'long run' when referencing WWII. This country has lied to it's citizens so much and about so much that it is no longer believed when it tells us anything. That is not a good place for a country to be--but here we are. If we, as a country, can understand that we have been lied to, see through them, and begin repairing the damage done to us, we may pull out of this tailspin we are in. If not, then we won't. I really do fear for my daughters retirement days and the days of my grandchildren.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 23, 2015, 02:21:47 PM
Before the Europeans arrived, they were warring among each other, committing atrocities - they were no better than any other groups of people. Get your facts straightened out before spewing stupidities as you usually do.
Joe, you are entirely correct in your assessment of the native peoples of North and South America. But then, the same can be said of all peoples who ever lived. The fact is that North and South American had native groups who were total warriors; wanting only to take over their neighbors. And those who abhorred fighting. But mostly in the middle where they pretty much wanted to do what their ancestors did. The same could be said of any region of the world. So, by what right did the Europeans have in just marching into an area, and taking control? They had that right because they could do it and they did. Morality did not figure in--their might gave them that right. Is that how it should be? Should the strongest just take? It should be plain to all that the US had/has a pretty shoddy record when dealing with the Natives of this part of the world. That shoddy record has not been acknowledged much or for long. We should be looking for ways to repair the damage our govt. inflicted on these peoples, not in trying to keep the story quiet.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 04:24:07 PM
I love it how people tend to believe that their culture is the cause of human development
Your interpretation of my post is so baffling that I can only assume you really need to go back to the drunk thread. Not only did I not, in any way shape or form suggest that "my culture" had a mother fucking thing to do with the advancement of civilization, neither did I suggest that your fuckabouts hindered it. Face it, you're just fucking jealous. I am sorry that I was born here and you were born there. This is the only understanding for that lengthy babble fest of "nothing- that- had- any-fucking-thing-to-do-with-what-I-said". Truly, I have no idea what that had to do with the facts that cultures or societies, left alone and/or shunned do not advance in any way culturally, technologically or …….in any way. Really shoe, have another drink…what the fuck girl.
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2015, 02:58:28 PM
The native americans along with the australian aborigines, if left alone would have accomplished….nothing. Just as today in little african or south american spots where never before seen tribes are being still "found" they have yet to come up with anything beyond a bow or a blow-"gun". The aborigines remained stagnant for 35,000 years, the american natives, it is suggested around 15,000, they never did shit.
The entirety of modern civilization as we all understand it to be is the result of war. War drove technologies and inventions and that which wasn't driven by war was appropriated for it. Civilizations that had no contact with other civilizations do nothing but remain stagnant.
I used to think quite a bit like that. Then I begin to wonder. What does 'accomplished' mean? What is it that most people today want? I'd suggest that most everybody wants to have a family, friends, live in peace and be able to do what they like to make a living. If that can be done in an aboriginal setting, why is that inferior to my being able to do it in the USA in 2015? By what right do we have to judge? What does 'stagnant' mean? Who judges that? Maybe we, as modern people, are living with too much change? Maybe we will change our way into oblivion because we can't control it? Why are our solutions to life's problems the only or the best ones? Hell, our society has been only a few finger pushes (the fire buttons on ICBM's) from being returned to a worse than stagnant society. We have enough nukes out there that it could still happen several times over. We don't know the outcome of our modern technology or 'modern' thought. Maybe stagnant was the way to go. Maybe that would lead to a more safe and sane approach to technology. In geological terms, 35,000 years is only yesterday. Why must we run head long into a new, bright and shinny future? (And remember to read your Furture Shock children)
Understand, I am not suggesting that I am against technology. Hell damn no! I love my life now and as I have lived it. (Love my video games!!! Long live the PC!!!) But that does not mean that others have to share my opinion. Or my way of life. Stagnant may be the way to go. And who is to say that would not accomplish the most in the long run????
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2015, 06:03:01 PM
They had that right because they could do it and they did. Morality did not figure in--their might gave them that right. Is that how it should be? Should the strongest just take?
So what? Really! SO FUCKING WHAT? The history of the world is exactly that! Every mother fucking page of history is the strong taking from the weak. Did "we" all of a sudden start it? Hell no! Did we invent it? Fuck no. Did we perfect it? NO! This is the history of the mother fucking world. In the americas long before the white man showed up the navajoes were butchering the apaches at the stake, they were not some mother fucking noble warrior like a mother fucking disney movie. The cherokees were standing the Iroquois on a pole over hot coals shooting arrows in their arms and legs, not enough to kill them, just enough to fucking torture them.
You want a government to apologize to some people that we interrupted their way of life by prohibiting them from skinning other humans? What year is this again?
Quote from: mauricio on October 23, 2015, 03:16:16 PM
Maybe they could have but they did not. So to call it the biggest genocide of history is false. Because we know the disease was probably the biggest killer since epidemics travel much faster than their primitive armies.
Very, very true. But should we not also acknowledge that genocide did occur, no matter what it's size?
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on October 23, 2015, 05:51:05 PM
To be honest, the Aztecs and Incas in particular were rather notorious.
It was like they were the Romans, or any other aggressive conquering power where the vanquished held a deep resentment. This is why the Spaniards had such an easy time gathering allies among various city states and other affiliates. As the saying goes, "The enemy of my enemy..."
Before the Spaniards arrived, capturing people for the purpose of human sacrifice was a very lucrative business in Mesoamerica, as there was plenty of clout to be had for those who were good at it. It wasn't enough to just sacrifice prisoners of war, many were unfortunate souls who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. No wonder there was so much resentment.
It might be tough to admit, but these people weren't actually all that much different then the rest of us. They achieved some absolutely amazing things, but they definitely had issues.
Why would you even think that I thought that they were different than us? Or any human is. I haven't said or even implied anything of the sort. Is that even a fact anyone here would bother to present as an extra under normal circumstances? No. Why would it be tough? What does it have to do with it at all?
What does even "they were as bad as other humans" mean? What kind of a twisted bullshit logic is that?
I just reacted to normalising an unrecognised genocide that went on hundreds of years by saying 'they were equally vicious' (?) out of nowhere, because someone expressed an anachronistic thought, something like "it would be interesting to watch what would happen if Europans got drowned on the way and America wasn't even touched".
Nobody got drowned, they annihilated people and their culture. It already happened. If you are getting back to that with a bullshit statement of 'they were equally vicious and if you do not think that you are unrealistic and idealising natives" AND calling that these poeple being human as much the other 'a fact', you are trying to normalise genocide and miserably failing at it.
They had issues? What does this even mean? Is there a place or a country or a culture that doesn't/didn't have issues? Almost every soverign country is guilty of genocide. More, the criteria depends on political power, not what happens to people in reality.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2015, 06:21:17 PM
What does 'accomplished' mean? What is it that most people today want? Maybe stagnant was the way to go.
Mike, I appreciate what you are suggesting. Really. But the proverbial cat is out of the bag. It's a little to late for that. We are at where we are at. Either the world goes forward, stays the same or just keeps fucking itself.
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2015, 06:23:39 PM
So what? Really! SO FUCKING WHAT? The history of the world is exactly that! Every mother fucking page of history is the strong taking from the weak. Did "we" all of a sudden start it? Hell no! Did we invent it? Fuck no. Did we perfect it? NO! This is the history of the mother fucking world. In the americas long before the white man showed up the navajoes were butchering the apaches at the stake, they were not some mother fucking noble warrior like a mother fucking disney movie. The cherokees were standing the Iroquois on a pole over hot coals shooting arrows in their arms and legs, not enough to kill them, just enough to fucking torture them.
US you have been making benefit and profit around genocide politics for over 70 years, aitm. It's a many faced industry for the US to make money and politics. The whole American invasions and propaganda is based on genocides and dictators killing people around the world.
Holocaust is the first one...
QuoteYou want a government to apologize to some people that we interrupted their way of life by prohibiting them from skinning other humans? What year is this again?
American governments refuse to apologise officially or recognise the genocide, because if they do, they would have to pay compensation and give land. Exactly why Turkey refuses to recognise the genocide. Because it costs huge money and land.
Ha! I guess staying the same and keeps fucking itself is rather the same thing. meh. You know what I mean.
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2015, 06:23:39 PM
So what? Really! SO FUCKING WHAT? The history of the world is exactly that! Every mother fucking page of history is the strong taking from the weak. Did "we" all of a sudden start it? Hell no! Did we invent it? Fuck no. Did we perfect it? NO! This is the history of the mother fucking world. In the americas long before the white man showed up the navajoes were butchering the apaches at the stake, they were not some mother fucking noble warrior like a mother fucking disney movie. The cherokees were standing the Iroquois on a pole over hot coals shooting arrows in their arms and legs, not enough to kill them, just enough to fucking torture them.
You want a government to apologize to some people that we interrupted their way of life by prohibiting them from skinning other humans? What year is this again?
Wow! Got your blood moving, eh??! Where did I say the Europeans invented might makes right??? I didn't. Yes, that is what history is. The history of warfare. Who killed whom, when, why and how. That's how we keep track of time. I don't think you are suggesting that that is the best way to be or that since every body else is doing it, it must be okay? That is not the aitm I recognize from this board.
You see, I don't really have many solutions to this. Recognizing that that is the wrong way for societies to act is a good first step. Just say what happened without giving any judgement to it. Just say it in a truthful manner. Then we can look at it and ask if we want to approach the world in this manner any more. And begin trying to figure out what to do next and how to do it. I have no ready made solutions. I don't know that apologizing matters or would be effective or correct. But I do know that I am not in favor of using the same old might makes right argument any more. And no, the Native American societies were not the Golden Societies who reached perfection. But they were societies. And I do realize that that was then and this is now--different reasoning and measures were used--and none of it can be taken back and fixed. But with what happened acknowledged by all, moving forward would be easier. But I still don't have any solutions. But I know that as a society we can't fix what we cannot see as even broken.
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2015, 06:28:06 PM
Mike, I appreciate what you are suggesting. Really. But the proverbial cat is out of the bag. It's a little to late for that. We are at where we are at. Either the world goes forward, stays the same or just keeps fucking itself.
Yes, the cat is out of the bag, and we cannot begin to put it back in. We are where we are. But I would suggest that no many now much about that cat that is now out of the bag. My suggestion is that we start telling the truth about that cat. Only that we acknowledge what really happened. That way we can then make informed decisions about our continued use of the principle of might makes right. That's all. Even if I were given the power to do so, I don't know how to fix that problem. But I think the first step is for all of us to be aware of it. Without knowing much about that cat that is out of the bag, the world will just keep fucking itself--and without condoms so that we spread the same old diseases we always have.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 06:37:07 PM
US you have been making benefit and profit around genocide politics for over 70 years, aitm. It's a many faced industry for the US to make money and politics. The whole American invasions and propaganda is based on genocides and dictators killing people around the world.
what the hell does this have to do with your previous drunken ramble in regards to humanities treatment of humanity over the last 4000 years?
QuoteHolocaust is the first one…
really? I would go with Alexander "the great" then maybe Ghengis Khan, but all along there were little fish in little ponds butchering people you never heard about but they….weren't "American" enough for you to whine about eh?
QuoteAmerican governments refuse to apologise officially or recognise the genocide, because if they do...
and line them up. 85093235406 places deep in the history of the world of people killing people, the scale is not important the act is. Get off your horse, your own people have no fucking right to pretend to be righteous.
Jews who died of disease and starvation are counted among the victims of the Holocaust. That's how the numbers of genocide is calculated. Same with the Armenian Genocide...etc.
I don't get how is that it is suddenly a rule that Mesoamerican Genocide death toll shouldn't be calculated withe same criteria.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2015, 06:45:31 PM
My suggestion is that we start telling the truth about that cat. Only that we acknowledge what really happened.
Give the world a start date to admit their errors. And lets be honest, give the world a real start date to admit their errors that have shaped the world from day one. How far back do we go? Are our (American) actions not precipitated by other countries? Did "americans" start WW1, WW2, Korea? Does everybody get to play? Or just us?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 06:46:58 PM
That's how the numbers of genocide is calculated.
The standard, usual understanding of the word genocide, your know, what they call "definition" would suggest that genocide means: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation".
Now of course, your jealousy that you are not Amurican, would suggest that us "amuricans" in the 16, 17 and 18 hundreds should have been fully aware of bacterial and other infections and how they work cause you know….we did it on purpose eh?
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2015, 06:46:30 PM
what the hell does this have to do with your previous drunken ramble in regards to humanities treatment of humanity over the last 4000 years?
really? I would go with Alexander "the great" then maybe Ghengis Khan, but all along there were little fish in little ponds butchering people you never heard about but they….weren't "American" enough for you to whine about eh?
and line them up. 85093235406 places deep in the history of the world of people killing people, the scale is not important the act is. Get off your horse, your own people have no fucking right to pretend to be righteous.
What the fuck are you talking about?!
I am NOT refering to my previous post. I am talking about plain traditional American politics.
The whole propaganda from WWII to Communists and Middle Eastern inavsions ARE BASED on the same bullshit.
From Lenin to Saddam, from this to that, every other politics is made around some genocide going on or imaginary mass murder weapons produced to commit genocide.
Calm down.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 06:46:58 PM
Jews who died of disease and starvation are counted among the victims of the Holocaust. That's how the numbers of genocide is calculated. Same with the Armenian Genocide...etc.
I don't get how is that it is suddenly a rule that Mesoamerican Genocide death toll shouldn't be calculated withe same criteria.
When you speak of genocide by Anglophones, to Anglophones ... the protagonist/antagonist position shifts. We have a terrible time (as others in our position, say Turks regarding Armenians ... it isn't just about compensation, it is also deeply emotional). Since I am Anglophone, I can speak without personal involvement (and we know I am personally involved in things we dispute and should dispute) about things long ago or far away. But of course in an American's case, speaking of not only our original criminality, but our current criminality is taboo. Especially our current criminality (I have never ever denied this). Why clutch pearls over things that happened long ago? Because it throws into high relief our current hypocrisy. It is easy to dismiss hypocrisy, if you aren't the hypocrite (on say Vietnam). And if one is a member of an "antagonist" position in some current rhetoric (say a German being disingenuous about WW II) then their delusion is even more different from clinical than that of the "protagonist" position (say over bombing Dresden). As per ancient Greek theater ... the need for catharsis, as well as justice is so great and so cataclysmic in its potential release, by all parties (maybe not sociologists from cultures completely removed) that only Oedipal results can be expected, or even the generational cycle that included Agamemnon.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 06:57:35 PM
What the fuck are you talking about?!
I am NOT refering to my previous post. I am talking about plain traditional American politics.
Then what the hell did that have to do with my post? Nothing. So why the hell are you even responding to a post that had nothing to do with your reply?
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2015, 06:55:42 PM
The standard, usual understanding of the word genocide, your know, what they call "definition" would suggest that genocide means: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation".
Now of course, your jealousy that you are not Amurican, would suggest that us "amuricans" in the 16, 17 and 18 hundreds should have been fully aware of bacterial and other infections and how they work cause you know….we did it on purpose eh?
Did you read this part: "Jews who died of disease and starvation are counted among the victims of the Holocaust." Do you also know that the international genocide laws (formats...etc) is based on the Holocaust?
It's NOT my personal opinion OR decision that it is calculated that way.
Do you have the basic inteligence to get what does all this mean or did you just enter some angry bulkhead phase that you'll throw anything back at me without even reading it?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 07:06:56 PM
It's NOT my personal opinion …
The original definition of genocide was "the deliberate" destruction of a "people" based on ethnicity, gender, race or religion.
Using it broadly to suggest the accidental infection of people would also suggest that Africans are responsible for genocide for a multitude of diseases including AIDS. Give anyone time they can blame everyone for everything.
You know what, forget about it. This is exactly like trying to talk to the morons here about another genocide. I don't need another breed. Who gives a fuck what a few people think how genocide death toll 'should' be calculated...or what 'should' be the nomenclature on Mesoamerican Genocide...blah blah.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 07:22:50 PM
You know what, forget about it. This is exactly like trying to talk to the morons here about another genocide. I don't need another breed. Who gives a fuck what a few people think how genocide death toll 'should' be calculated...or what 'should' be the nomenclature on Mesoamerican Genocide...blah blah.
Right..because fuck man I can't bitch at Alexander or Ghengis Khan or Napolean or Chief Joesph or Hajoulh or Timmerman or Stalin or Hitler…because you goddamn amuricans fucked up the entire world and deserve all my distain…..meh fuck off. You want to judge the pot by your definition…how very fair of you.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 06:24:24 PM
Why would you even think that I thought that they were different than us?
Funny that your memory is so short. I called them as vicious as any other groups, and you screamed as if I had murdered, and called me a genocide apologist. Calling you a hypocrite would be mild. Glad to see your getting your ass kicked as you well deserve. :021:
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2015, 06:50:44 PM
Give the world a start date to admit their errors. And lets be honest, give the world a real start date to admit their errors that have shaped the world from day one. How far back do we go? Are our (American) actions not precipitated by other countries? Did "americans" start WW1, WW2, Korea? Does everybody get to play? Or just us?
Yes, you describe the cat well. The only country we (Americans) can or should control, is us. The govt is not going to admit anything, we all know that. But we can start by teaching real history--not propaganda. No, we did not start WWI, or II, or Korea. But did we start The Mexican-American War, The Spanish American War, and a host of others? How about the Indian Wars? For a 'peace loving' country we do seem to be in a bunch of wars. I would like that to stop. Once again, I'm not sure how to do that except for us to find out our true history.
For what it's worth, and given the direction this thread has taken I can't see it being taken worth much from the opposition...
The colonists hardly shed tears when they went to a Native town that had been decimated by disease and raided their stocks, or camped in the town. The Americans hardly shed tears when they started declaring the previously Native lands as their own. The Spaniards hardly shed tears as well, nor did the Portuguese further south when they came in and enslaved the survivors. The Americans hardly shed tears as they desecrated Native holy sites simply for the fuck of it. The Americans hardly shed tears as they marched Natives from Florida to Oklahoma in terrible conditions. The Americans hardly shed tears as they made deal after deal with the Natives, then turned around and broke them time and time again.
And America hardly sheds a tear over the continued living standards of the Native Americans and the governments inability to even address that the Native Americans still exist and have any rights; see the standard of education in Native states and territories, the amount of federal aid they receive and how corporation rights trump theirs.
If it wasn't for several hundred years of fucking them over, then yes you might have a very strong point that the disease shouldn't count as a genocide. But considering how far we were bending over backwards to fuck them in any and every single way possible, destroyed and continue to destroy sacred sites and remains of cities like Cahokia (where the St. Louis Rams or whoever the fuck have more right to build parking lots than the anthropologically amazing ruins of the largest native city sits) and the continued fucking over of Native Americans to this day really gives that position no leg to stand on. We have intentionally utilized the disease to the absolute maximum we could.
And yes, Natives were "bad people" to each other... therefor that makes our actions justified? Just... what? You can apply that logic, over-the-top as it may be, to say, "Well... Jews stole money and killed people, so should we REALLLLY feel bad that the Holocaust happened?".
14 centuries of jihad, (holy war) where several countries, many cultures destroyed, looted, plundered, raped, 270 million butchered, millions enslaved by an ideology that must not be named.
All this is completely erased from memory, from history books, from school books. It never happened.
Except it is still happening today.
On the other hand, we must never forget the crusades, the inqusition, witch hunts, colonialism.
That is hammered into your conciousness time after time to make you feel guilty and bad about yourselves what your ancestors did centuries ago.
You wretches. You barbarians. Shame on you and to your descendants till the end of time.
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2015, 07:28:04 PM
Right..because fuck man I can't bitch at Alexander or Ghengis Khan or Napolean or Chief Joesph or Hajoulh or Timmerman or Stalin or Hitler…because you goddamn amuricans fucked up the entire world and deserve all my distain…..meh fuck off. You want to judge the pot by your definition…how very fair of you.
This is NOT my definition. International laws are based on Jewish Holocaust.
On one hand, you are screaming your head off that how the strong and the powerful commits genocide, create wars and this is how the natural order.
On the other hand, it is all about how the USA have the biggest horse power; the -EST, the MOST blah blah and runs on the industry of war, it is a fucking job in the country.
What do you think would be the result? Well, that biggest horse power ends with the worst this picture. That's the way it goes. And I am not saying this just to Muricans, I am saying this to ALL SOVERIEGN COUNTRIES.
Stop acting like a child. If you cannot connect the modern American attitude against the Mesoamerican Genocide and international policies of USA for the last 70 years, then you are a dumbass.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 23, 2015, 11:14:32 PM
For what it's worth, and given the direction this thread has taken I can't see it being taken worth much from the opposition...
The colonists hardly shed tears when they went to a Native town that had been decimated by disease and raided their stocks, or camped in the town. The Americans hardly shed tears when they started declaring the previously Native lands as their own. The Spaniards hardly shed tears as well, nor did the Portuguese further south when they came in and enslaved the survivors. The Americans hardly shed tears as they desecrated Native holy sites simply for the fuck of it. The Americans hardly shed tears as they marched Natives from Florida to Oklahoma in terrible conditions. The Americans hardly shed tears as they made deal after deal with the Natives, then turned around and broke them time and time again.
And America hardly sheds a tear over the continued living standards of the Native Americans and the governments inability to even address that the Native Americans still exist and have any rights; see the standard of education in Native states and territories, the amount of federal aid they receive and how corporation rights trump theirs.
If it wasn't for several hundred years of fucking them over, then yes you might have a very strong point that the disease shouldn't count as a genocide. But considering how far we were bending over backwards to fuck them in any and every single way possible, destroyed and continue to destroy sacred sites and remains of cities like Cahokia (where the St. Louis Rams or whoever the fuck have more right to build parking lots than the anthropologically amazing ruins of the largest native city sits) and the continued fucking over of Native Americans to this day really gives that position no leg to stand on. We have intentionally utilized the disease to the absolute maximum we could.
And yes, Natives were "bad people" to each other... therefor that makes our actions justified? Just... what? You can apply that logic, over-the-top as it may be, to say, "Well... Jews stole money and killed people, so should we REALLLLY feel bad that the Holocaust happened?".
[There is a very big amount of people in the world who thinks exactly what you wrote about Jewish Holocaust. Another underestimated amount of people actually believe it's a lie and a conspiracy. Seriously.]
The main reason Americans' various reactions against Mesoamerican Genocide is that nobody is actually RAISED by that responsibility in the country. Exactly what happens in other countries. If you are raised withou knowing this all your life, when somebody says 'about this' people do react.
Jewish Holocaust Museums are dedicated to the remind the catastrophie. 'Native American' Museums are not. They are transformed into friendly places offering the examples of an ancient exotic American culture, NOT to their end.
For people who wants to hear on the subject from an American historian, an expert on the subject.
There is a mention of Christopher Hitchens at 20:06 with direct quotes from his column. Stannard makes a good comparison on Hitchens's bullshit about Mesoamerican Genocide because Americans 'won' and how Nazis are looked at because they have 'lost'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qra6pcn4AOE
About David Stannard:
QuoteAfter returning to college in 1968, Stannard graduated magna cum laude from San Francisco State University in 1971. He then went to Yale and obtained an M.A. degree in history (1972), a Master of Philosophy in American Studies (1973), and a Ph.D. in American Studies in 1975. He has taught at Yale University, Stanford University, the University of Colorado, and the University of Hawaii. He has lectured throughout the United States, in Europe, and in Asia.
He is currently a writer and professor in the Department of American Studies at the University of Hawaii, where he was awarded the Regents' Medal for Excellence in teaching, he has contributed dozens of articles to scholarly journals in a variety of fields.
Anyway, I am out. I don't see anything can be discussed here among the usual childish, knee jerk reactions of "yooou say my country baaad". Have fun.
Quote from: pr126 on October 24, 2015, 12:40:29 AM
14 centuries of jihad, (holy war) where several countries, many cultures destroyed, looted, plundered, raped, 270 million butchered, millions enslaved by an ideology that must not be named.
:67:
How about Genghis Khan who murdered and enslaved millions? Nobody talks about that.
ALL OF YOU ARE A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 24, 2015, 06:18:02 AM
How about Genghis Khan who murdered and enslaved millions? Nobody talks about that.
ALL OF YOU ARE A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES.
Hey, Joe, take your meds.................calm down..................you'll pop a vessel.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 24, 2015, 06:18:02 AM
How about Genghis Khan who murdered and enslaved millions? Nobody talks about that.
ALL OF YOU ARE A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 24, 2015, 08:26:17 AM
Hey, Joe, take your meds.................calm down..................you'll pop a vessel.
What, I'm just mimicking our drama queen, Islamic apologist, anti-American douchebag who goes along the name of
drunkenshoe.
I think she is not alone, there are a few Americans here who hate their own country.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 23, 2015, 11:14:32 PM
therefor that makes our actions justified?
Yes our great great grandfathers were not very good humans, but to be truthful, they were after all, following the examples of their great great grandfathers who followed the examples of their….and on and on. Suddenly everybody stops and says, HEY! Lets blame it all on modern day americans cause after all, they gots the money eh? Yes the "native" americans were butcherers against other tribes. Wasn't no damn disney movie. Hand pick a couple of peaceful tribes that got fucked? Good for you, you can do the same with every nationality, every ethnic group, every culture, every tribe, if indeed the history was available.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 24, 2015, 05:41:18 AM
Anyway, I am out. I don't see anything can be discussed here among the usual childish, knee jerk reactions of "yooou say my country baaad". Have fun.
How convenient of you to skip your people own atrocities.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2015, 09:49:21 PM
I'm not sure how to do that except for us to find out our true history.
I think most american of our "age" are fully aware of our checkered history. I cannot speak for todays youth who seem more interested in social media than learning how to read, but that is just me. Being aware of our history and also understanding that we are no better nor worse than humanity about the world should make us aware that we are not anything special. Nor should people ignore what is going on in the rest of the world to point a finger and say, "look how bad they are".
It is perfectly acceptable for a person to start the revolution to change all of it. Who here will start it?
Quote from: aitm on October 24, 2015, 08:59:50 AM
Yes our great great grandfathers were not very good humans, but to be truthful, they were after all, following the examples of their great great grandfathers who followed the examples of their….and on and on. Suddenly everybody stops and says, HEY! Lets blame it all on modern day americans cause after all, they gots the money eh? Yes the "native" americans were butcherers against other tribes. Wasn't no damn disney movie. Hand pick a couple of peaceful tribes that got fucked? Good for you, you can do the same with every nationality, every ethnic group, every culture, every tribe, if indeed the history was available.
This is the result of decades of cultural Marxist education in American (and all western) universities.
They are taught to despise their countries, their cultures and pasts.
You must be from an earlier generation.
Quote from: pr126 on October 24, 2015, 08:56:21 AM
I think she is not alone, there are a few Americans here who hate their own country.
Any human, with any sympathy, has to hate humanity. That is the first stage of adulthood. The trick is getting past misanthropy. If you get to this stage as an old person, you don't have too many years left to move on past the hate (of the elderly curmudgeon). I am still working on mine ... if I have really sympathy, then I have to have sympathy even if people don't deserve my sympathy ... and I have to be careful to include myself or my country in the list of baddies. Can I avoid depression and nihilism? Time will tell, but as the Buddha said, I am working diligently on my own salvation from this horrible karma all beings are trapped in. But for me, salvation is quality of life, not quantity. In the Abrahamic tradition this is spelled out as .. can innocence be regained for the guilty? Irrational, yes ... but I see no better alternative. Can I gain an adult childhood?
Quote from: pr126 on October 24, 2015, 08:56:21 AM
I think she is not alone, there are a few Americans here who hate their own country.
These are usually from the extreme Left who believe they must defend (a knee jerk reaction) the poor people of the world from the dreadful imperialistic American policies that can do no good.
Quote from: pr126 on October 24, 2015, 09:23:40 AM
This is the result of decades of cultural Marxist education in American (and all western) universities.
They are taught to despise their countries, their cultures and pasts.
You must be from an earlier generation.
That is a very narrow vision. The hippies are killing us! Love of country isn't patriotism BTW. Just as being fearless isn't courage. To keep a level head while all those around you are losing theirs, to do what needs to be done even though you are afraid, that is courage. Ignorant jingoism isn't patriotism. Patriotism is taking the country and your world, as it is, and struggling to make it better, day by day.
Baruch wrote:[
QuoteCan I gain an adult childhood?
Of course you can. And many do. Think dementia, Alzheimers.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 24, 2015, 09:38:16 AM
These are usually from the extreme Left who believe they must defend (a knee jerk reaction) the poor people of the world from the dreadful imperialistic American policies that can do no good.
A very sad admission on your part ;-( You have swallowed the red pill. American rape can do no good, not because it is American, but because it is rape. If we can't come up with an actual positive action, then it is best to take a break and not take a negative action, just because we feel we must be doing something.
QuotePatriotism is taking the country and your world, as it is, and struggling to make it better, day by day.
Not if you are taught from an early age that patriotism is a dirty word.
Quote from: pr126 on October 24, 2015, 09:39:02 AM
Baruch wrote:[Of course you can. And many do. Think dementia, Alzheimers.
You must hate your inner child. Child abuser ;-(
Quote from: pr126 on October 24, 2015, 09:41:52 AM
Not if you are taught from an early age that patriotism is a dirty word.
That is your cross to bear. I was taught and believe and live ... that patriotism isn't going out and murdering people on orders like Einsatzgruppen. It is the very acme of citizenship, the state of being civilized. But the present American leaders are the followers of Prentice Bush and Henry Ford Sr ... Nazis all.
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 09:40:28 AM
A very sad admission on your part ;-( You have swallowed the red pill. American rape can do no good, not because it is American, but because it is rape. If we can't come up with an actual positive action, then it is best to take a break and not take a negative action, just because we fell we must be doing something.
Your definition of rape is exclusively yours, not the one in the dictionary. In all actions there are advantages/disadvantages, and that goes with American policies. However, you only concentrate on the disadvantages, and the worst part of it is that you think that your judging is fair, when it's really warped.
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 09:42:30 AM
You must hate your inner child. Child abuser ;-(
My inner child is dead.
Quote from: pr126 on October 24, 2015, 09:51:06 AM
My inner child is dead.
I cry tears of blood for you ... this place of karma is so terrible, that this can happen to anyone. I would suggest immediate resuscitation of any good childhood memories as a palliative. Rhetorical question ... were you abused as a child? This is why child abuse (in the usual sense by adults) is so terrible ... a gift that keeps on giving long after the abuser is even dead. My parenting for example, was imperfect. Those imperfections are a pain I will carry forever, because I will not trivialize it ... and because my love of my child is always growing.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 24, 2015, 09:47:38 AM
Your definition of rape is exclusively yours, not the one in the dictionary. In all actions there are advantages/disadvantages, and that goes with American policies. However, you only concentrate on the disadvantages, and the worst part of it is that you think that your judging is fair, when it's really warped.
I don't judge when a shark tears into a seal. And not in this case either. But the water is still bloody ... I won't pretend that is it clear.
And I really am not talking politics in this thread, though some have dragged it thru that mire.
Quote from: aitm on October 24, 2015, 09:20:30 AM
I think most american of our "age" are fully aware of our checkered history. I cannot speak for todays youth who seem more interested in social media than learning how to read, but that is just me. Being aware of our history and also understanding that we are no better nor worse than humanity about the world should make us aware that we are not anything special. Nor should people ignore what is going on in the rest of the world to point a finger and say, "look how bad they are".
It is perfectly acceptable for a person to start the revolution to change all of it. Who here will start it?
Yep--that is pretty much how I see it.
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 09:57:35 AM
I don't judge when a shark tears into a seal. And not in this case either. But the water is still bloody ... I won't pretend that is it clear.
And I really am not talking politics in this thread, though some have dragged it thru that mire.
Yet your posts are awash with moral judgments. Are you that blind?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 24, 2015, 10:23:51 AM
Yet your posts are awash with moral judgments. Are you that blind?
I wish no animal were a carnivore ... but that is my inner child speaking. Unlike Pr126, my inner child isn't dead yet, nor do I wish to kill him. People in comparison are primates ... but to not aspire to be more than a monkey ... and to use our animal nature as justification for our more irrational predations ... is short sighted. If that is moralizing, then so be it. But judging is different. That means that I decide ... if a person is good or bad, not their actions. I don't do that. Of course if someone knows their actions might be questionable, one lying gambit is to claim that all actions are equal, or all actions are required by Darwinian struggle.
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 10:41:15 AM
I wish no animal were a carnivore ... but that is my inner child speaking. Unlike Pr126, my inner child isn't dead yet, nor do I wish to kill him. People in comparison are primates ... but to not aspire to be more than a monkey ... and to use our animal nature as justification for our more irrational predations ... is short sighted. If that is moralizing, then so be it. But judging is different. That means that I decide ... if a person is good or bad, not their actions. I don't do that. Of course if someone knows their actions might be questionable, one lying gambit is to claim that all actions are equal, or all actions are required by Darwinian struggle.
Oh please stop that Freudian mumbo-jumbo psycho-babble "inner child" stuff. Human ARE predators, they were never non-predators, never never. Get with the program. Even monkeys wage war on other monkeys. And we are different than monkeys, and therefore using them as a scale to measure against is totally unfair to monkeys.
Morality is always inescapable as we all develop a sense of right and wrong, regardless of who were your parents, what culture you were born into, or what were your life experiences during your growing up. What is necessary is to avoid using your "morality" as a standard for everyone else - a mistake that is repeated too often.
So morality is universal? Do you eat the brains of your dead relatives, like they do in New Guinea?
And are you joining Pr126 in the "my inner child is dead" club?
So when do I wage war on you? Take your stuff. Rape your wife. Enslave your children. And kill you if you resist, of if you do not, make you my bitch? I really don't think ethics/morality is relative ... unless it doesn't involve your own relatives ;-( And remember, I am just establishing my place as an alpha male ... I am doing nothing un-natural.
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 02:27:04 PM
So morality is universal?
No. It's cultural, historical, personal. Why do you ask such a stupid question?
QuoteDo you eat the brains of your dead relatives, like they do in New Guinea?
Either you're being silly, or you're really dense to ask that question.
QuoteAnd are you joining Pr126 in the "my inner child is dead" club?
Ok, now I'm tending to think on the side that you are really dense.
QuoteSo when do I wage war on you? Take your stuff. Rape your wife. Enslave your children. And kill you if you resist, of if you do not, make you my bitch? I really don't think ethics/morality is relative ... unless it doesn't involve your own relatives ;-( And remember, I am just establishing my place as an alpha male ... I am doing nothing un-natural.
Now, you're being an asshole.
When you have something more intelligent, I'll respond. Right now, you're a waste.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 04:24:07 PM
And that is fortune telling your way anachronistically back in history.
You realise that the last...let's say 5000 years is a very tiny 'bit' of 'time' in scale just on this planet, right? Infact, it actually doesn't even exist in the time scale of the planet. We made it up out of our asses with comparing it to the precious 'now' applying an imaginary zombie jew's birthday to some ancient pagan holiday as a starting point.
There is no such thing as world would got stuck here or there without wars or this or that war and genocide at this or that time. It would be the same for the world if the last 5000 years of development happened another 5000 years later or another 5000 years ago. It would be the 'same' 5000 years later in history when it reached to the period of time that can be defined as the development of the last 5000 years in history, today.
As long as you reach hundreds of millions of years of recorded civilisation, it makes a difference about the size of my ass in time scale of planet's existence. NONE.
I love it how people tend to believe that their culture is the cause of human development and that the world would have got stuck in stone age if it wasn't for them, in a snug, warm, linear, delusional understanding of history.
You know your way of thiking is also called 'God's plan' by another gropup of people, right? :lol:
holy shit you love to miss the point... what are you even talking about? His point was simple , isolated cultures do not generate much technological and cultural progress. Meanwhile the opposite is true and the wars this cultural clashes generate can accelerate progress. What does that have to do with age of the earth or him believing his culture is the cause of human development.
Quote from: mauricio on October 24, 2015, 02:58:45 PM
holy shit you love to miss the point... what are you even talking about? His point was simple , isolated cultures do not generate much technological and cultural progress. Meanwhile the opposite is true and the wars this cultural clashes generate can accelerate progress. What does that have to do with age of the earth or him believing his culture is the cause of human development.
On progress thru warfare ... I think the scholars are actually evenly divided on that. The scholars who support authoritarian militaristic regimes naturally support the that hypothesis ... both for advancement and to avoid the Gulag.
For the mutineers on the Bounty ... the backward paradise of Tahiti was very tempting ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 03:07:01 PM
On progress thru warfare ... I think the scholars are actually evenly divided on that.
I am sure somewhere on this blue dot there may exist a society/culture/nation that never invaded nor was invaded who all by themselves rose to air conditioning and micro-waves…somewhere surely...
QuoteFor the mutineers on the Bounty ... the backward paradise of Tahiti was very tempting ;-)
Indeed when facing the gallows at the progressive mainland.
QuoteI just reacted to normalising an unrecognised genocide
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 06:37:07 PM
American governments refuse to apologise officially or recognise the genocide, because if they do, they would have to pay compensation and give land. Exactly why Turkey refuses to recognise the genocide. Because it costs huge money and land.
The genocide of the natives is pretty well known by almost everyone who has finished school it is definitely recognized around the world, now this idea of having to compensate people with money and land is utter bullshit. That's collectivist thinking stupidity, innocent individuals are not liable for the crimes of their ancestors committed hundreds of years ago. Also an official apology of the government for something they are not even responsible sounds like a completely meaningless thing.
Quote from: mauricio on October 24, 2015, 03:20:03 PM
Also an official apology of the government for something they are not even responsible sounds like a completely meaningless thing.
Mostly yes, however the US and Canada have issued official apologies to the Native Americans.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 23, 2015, 11:14:32 PM
If it wasn't for several hundred years of fucking them over, then yes you might have a very strong point that the disease shouldn't count as a genocide.
No that's completely irrelevant and no matter how much emotional appeal and irrelevant things you bring up disease is not genocide. It is a simple and factual thing, genocide means deliberate killing of large groups, the epidemic was not deliberate, therefore the epidemic is not genocide.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2015, 06:21:17 PM
I used to think quite a bit like that. Then I begin to wonder. What does 'accomplished' mean? What is it that most people today want? I'd suggest that most everybody wants to have a family, friends, live in peace and be able to do what they like to make a living. If that can be done in an aboriginal setting, why is that inferior to my being able to do it in the USA in 2015? By what right do we have to judge? What does 'stagnant' mean? Who judges that? Maybe we, as modern people, are living with too much change? Maybe we will change our way into oblivion because we can't control it? Why are our solutions to life's problems the only or the best ones? Hell, our society has been only a few finger pushes (the fire buttons on ICBM's) from being returned to a worse than stagnant society. We have enough nukes out there that it could still happen several times over. We don't know the outcome of our modern technology or 'modern' thought. Maybe stagnant was the way to go. Maybe that would lead to a more safe and sane approach to technology. In geological terms, 35,000 years is only yesterday. Why must we run head long into a new, bright and shinny future? (And remember to read your Furture Shock children)
Understand, I am not suggesting that I am against technology. Hell damn no! I love my life now and as I have lived it. (Love my video games!!! Long live the PC!!!) But that does not mean that others have to share my opinion. Or my way of life. Stagnant may be the way to go. And who is to say that would not accomplish the most in the long run????
Maybe in your individual life you could go live peacefully in a minimalist way. But since we are talking about ways of life of entire populations through various generations, the picture is much more grim and brutal. Just look at the native americans and other new world populations completely destroy by disease, gun powder, iron and steel they had no immunity to disease but the europeans did due to intermingling and conquest in europe, they had no gun powder because they had not traded with other civilizations like the Chinese. Being stagnant only spells dead on the big picture. Maybe the USA will end up consumed in nuclear fire, that does not tell you much about the isolationist model being better, just that the USA model was not that good either.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2015, 06:24:02 PM
Very, very true. But should we not also acknowledge that genocide did occur, no matter what it's size?
Of course i was only challenging the claim that it is the biggest in history due to the massive death that occurred due to the disease epidemics.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 06:46:58 PM
Jews who died of disease and starvation are counted among the victims of the Holocaust. That's how the numbers of genocide is calculated. Same with the Armenian Genocide...etc.
I don't get how is that it is suddenly a rule that Mesoamerican Genocide death toll shouldn't be calculated withe same criteria.
Because it wasn't just normal disease and starvation of prisoners receiving inhuman treatment, the colonists did not go out of their way to murder and imprison 80% of the native american population, it was a series of epidemics that raced through the region and killed vast amounts of people even faster than the colonialist armies would be able to get there. They killed lots of people but this claim of 100 million being the victims of deliberate killing which is what genocide means is nonsense.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 07:22:50 PM
You know what, forget about it. This is exactly like trying to talk to the morons here about another genocide. I don't need another breed. Who gives a fuck what a few people think how genocide death toll 'should' be calculated...or what 'should' be the nomenclature on Mesoamerican Genocide...blah blah.
Because it is wrong and it seems you cannot defend your position with an argument. Why would completely indirect non deliberate deaths be counted as part of a genocide? unlike the germans the colonist did not know shit about microorganisms or the mechanics of epidemics or had ways to effectively prevent them. The Nazi deliberately imprisoned the Jews and did not provide them with proper amounts of food and medicine.
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 09:40:28 AM
A very sad admission on your part ;-( You have swallowed the red pill. American rape can do no good, not because it is American, but because it is rape. If we can't come up with an actual positive action, then it is best to take a break and not take a negative action, just because we feel we must be doing something.
It's not about justifying american imperialism but rather about refuting the hyperbolic narratives of certain leftists than try to distort history and language to fit their anti-western narrative and their identity politics narrative, by challenging the specific facts they get wrong. For example: the idealization of the women suffragist movement that ignores their violent and racist views. Or the ridiculous exaggeration of the native american genocide claiming up to 100 million victims, that does not even make sense pragmatically. I'm not american and I do not like the USA imperialism at all, since my country is the bitch of the USA signing all the treaties that will benefit us in short term and fuck us later on. But I don't want to let the left go to shit because of idiotic people peddling hyperbolic narratives and rhetoric that polarizes it and kills it's political power. This new extreme form of identity politics and emotional rhetoric is making the left cannibalize itself.
Quote from: mauricio on October 24, 2015, 03:47:38 PM
Maybe in your individual life you could go live peacefully in a minimalist way. But since we are talking about ways of life of entire populations through various generations, the picture is much more grim and brutal. Just look at the native americans and other new world populations completely destroy by disease, gun powder, iron and steel they had no immunity to disease but the europeans did due to intermingling and conquest in europe, they had no gun powder because they had not traded with other civilizations like the Chinese. Being stagnant only spells dead on the big picture. Maybe the USA will end up consumed in nuclear fire, that does not tell you much about the isolationist model being better, just that the USA model was not that good either.
Personally, I like isolation and would consider myself an isolationist. Except that that does not work. Yeah. I understand that. But I was not suggesting to live in a minimalist way. Just because it has always been accepted that war is good does not mean that that is right or even correct. And just because humans will make war on other humans at the drop of a hat, does not mean that that is right. That is basically all I'm saying. I don't know how that will change. I don't know what it will take to make it change. Just because something was, does not mean it always should be. Look, I realize I will not see any type of change in the direction I'd like to see. My child will not and my grandchildren will not either. This is a process akin to evolution. Until it dawns on societies that are not connected that war is the opposite to survival, war will be with us. Yes, I realize all that. But I can dream.
Quote from: mauricio on October 24, 2015, 04:41:42 PM
It's not about justifying american imperialism but rather about refuting the hyperbolic narratives of leftists than try to distort history and language to fit their anti-western narrative and their identity politics narrative, by challenging the specific facts they get wrong. For example: the idealization of the women suffragist movement that ignores their violent and racist views. Or the ridiculous exaggeration of the native american genocide claiming up to 100 million victims, that does not even make sense pragmatically. I'm not american and I do not like the USA imperialism at all, since my country is the bitch of the USA signing all the treaties that will benefit us in short term and fuck us later on. But I don't want to let the left go to shit because of idiotic people peddling hyperbolic narratives and rhetoric that polarizes it and kills it's political power. This new extreme form of identity politics and emotional rhetoric is making the left cannibalize itself.
By making any argument that is Left-Right ... you lose, right? Yes, the Right does seem to have its act together, the Left, not so much.
If you are Latin American ... my sympathies are with you, aside from whatever foolishness your own country is doing. Latin America has sabotaged itself since the time of Bolivar and Hidalgo. But American intervention above and below ground is just as real ... that is the part I sympathize with.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 24, 2015, 06:16:16 PM
Personally, I like isolation and would consider myself an isolationist. Except that that does not work. Yeah. I understand that. But I was not suggesting to live in a minimalist way. Just because it has always been accepted that war is good does not mean that that is right or even correct. And just because humans will make war on other humans at the drop of a hat, does not mean that that is right. That is basically all I'm saying. I don't know how that will change. I don't know what it will take to make it change. Just because something was, does not mean it always should be. Look, I realize I will not see any type of change in the direction I'd like to see. My child will not and my grandchildren will not either. This is a process akin to evolution. Until it dawns on societies that are not connected that war is the opposite to survival, war will be with us. Yes, I realize all that. But I can dream.
Yes that sounds sensible. Though I'm afraid that reality may just not agree with us. See something like the end of eternity story by Isac Asimov.
Mike CL ... funny how the ideal world is exactly the one that matches one's personality ;-)
The US is between a rock and a hard place. If we are isolationist, then WW II happens ... but if we are interventionist, then Vietnam happens. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But with ICBMs it is no longer practical to be isolationist. It wasn't even practical if the Axis had succeeded in conquering the Old World without American opposition. Perhaps you should consider getting on a reality show, like those folks who live in a tree house, or live in the back woods of Alaska. The bears I hear aren't Muslim or Mexican.
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 06:43:30 PM
Mike CL ... funny how the ideal world is exactly the one that matches one's personality ;-)
The US is between a rock and a hard place. If we are isolationist, then WW II happens ... but if we are interventionist, then Vietnam happens. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But with ICBMs it is no longer practical to be isolationist. It wasn't even practical if the Axis had succeeded in conquering the Old World without American opposition. Perhaps you should consider getting on a reality show, like those folks who live in a tree house, or live in the back woods of Alaska. The bears I hear aren't Muslim or Mexican.
If we are dealing with the 'ideal', what other ideal would I really know about except my own? I suspect that is what ideal refers to. For a country to be fully isolationist is an ideal as well--but it a not possible ideal, for no nation can really be totally isolationist. No country can be self sufficient--trade is a must. The US has always been between a rock and a hard place. All nations that have any type of power are in the same situation. But isolationism is not an either--or situation. It is a continuum. I think we should be on the isolation end and not the total involvement end.
Are you suggesting that the US of the 1930's was so god like, that they could control the world with it's puppet strings? I don't think so. I think that we need to mind our own business much more than we do.
Reality show? What does that have to do with anything??? I don't watch them, and they are not a reflection or any reality I'm familiar with. And I don't watch them. So, how would I chose one to be on???
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 24, 2015, 10:26:36 PM
If we are dealing with the 'ideal', what other ideal would I really know about except my own? I suspect that is what ideal refers to. For a country to be fully isolationist is an ideal as well--but it a not possible ideal, for no nation can really be totally isolationist. No country can be self sufficient--trade is a must. The US has always been between a rock and a hard place. All nations that have any type of power are in the same situation. But isolationism is not an either--or situation. It is a continuum. I think we should be on the isolation end and not the total involvement end.
Are you suggesting that the US of the 1930's was so god like, that they could control the world with it's puppet strings? I don't think so. I think that we need to mind our own business much more than we do.
Reality show? What does that have to do with anything??? I don't watch them, and they are not a reflection or any reality I'm familiar with. And I don't watch them. So, how would I chose one to be on???
To me ideals are a beacon, something to strive for and to guide your way, but should never be held dogmatically and never imposed on others without reason. And also we should recognize that against objective reality many of our ideals are meaningless, since they are mainly centered around our subjective concerns.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 24, 2015, 10:26:36 PM
If we are dealing with the 'ideal', what other ideal would I really know about except my own? I suspect that is what ideal refers to. For a country to be fully isolationist is an ideal as well--but it a not possible ideal, for no nation can really be totally isolationist. No country can be self sufficient--trade is a must. The US has always been between a rock and a hard place. All nations that have any type of power are in the same situation. But isolationism is not an either--or situation. It is a continuum. I think we should be on the isolation end and not the total involvement end.
Are you suggesting that the US of the 1930's was so god like, that they could control the world with it's puppet strings? I don't think so. I think that we need to mind our own business much more than we do.
Reality show? What does that have to do with anything??? I don't watch them, and they are not a reflection or any reality I'm familiar with. And I don't watch them. So, how would I chose one to be on???
Well ... if you examine your own words, from a perspective other than your own (namely the other billions of people) you are going to have a hard time ... given each one of us wants a personal custom utopia ... to get any cooperation. Any real society has to have more than one person in it ... and at that point the idea of individualism is toast. But of course there is a continuum ... but perhaps that is merely mixing two bad ideas together?
No, the US was very fortunate in the 1930s, other than the Depression. If we had shared a border with Germany, like France or Poland ... things would have gotten ugly real fast, because the German soldier was more efficient at killing people, excepting the Japanese soldier ... than any other kind. Fortunately German submarines couldn't steam into Dallas TX ;-)
And if you aren't a survivalist ... then my comment about reality TV won't make sense, even if you had seen episodes. I am not a survivalist myself, and I only catch bits and pieces of the survival shows ... like using scuba in icy water to dredge for gold in Alaska.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 24, 2015, 06:16:16 PM
Personally, I like isolation and would consider myself an isolationist. Except that that does not work. Yeah. I understand that. But I was not suggesting to live in a minimalist way. Just because it has always been accepted that war is good does not mean that that is right or even correct. And just because humans will make war on other humans at the drop of a hat, does not mean that that is right. That is basically all I'm saying. I don't know how that will change. I don't know what it will take to make it change. Just because something was, does not mean it always should be. Look, I realize I will not see any type of change in the direction I'd like to see. My child will not and my grandchildren will not either. This is a process akin to evolution. Until it dawns on societies that are not connected that war is the opposite to survival, war will be with us. Yes, I realize all that. But I can dream.
War has always existed and will always exist. Even monkeys go to war against other monkeys. And when one side wins, they kill everyone on the other side - males, females and infants. We're not monkeys, and will never be but we are predators, have always been, and will always be. It's in our nature. We are worse than monkeys, in the sense that we kill not only for territory or other tangible reasons but on the basis of a certain ideology. It's only when we invented the nukes that we realized that a nuclear war could bring our own extinction. So great care was taken to prevent that, but conventional wars are going to be with us for a very long time.
As for the US being the so-called "police of the world", if ever the US pulls out of that role, other big powers will try to fill in. The risk of greater conflicts will be higher, not less.
Though I have never verified it, according to Robert Hughes book, "The Fatal Shore" which I read many many years ago about the English settling Australia, the aborigines prior to warring with other tribes would send their women over to the enemy. If they men had sex with the women, there was no war, if not, war. Now if true, that there could have saved a few lives over the course of history eh?
But a lot of countries, would have rattled sabres at Denmark so that they could show they didn't want to have a war.
Quote from: mauricio on October 24, 2015, 10:52:05 PM
To me ideals are a beacon, something to strive for and to guide your way, but should never be held dogmatically and never imposed on others without reason. And also we should recognize that against objective reality many of our ideals are meaningless, since they are mainly centered around our subjective concerns.
You say--To me ideals are a beacon, something to strive for and to guide your way, but should never be held dogmatically and never imposed on others without reason. I wholeheartedly agree.
But when you say-- And also we should recognize that against objective reality many of our ideals are meaningless, since they are mainly centered around our subjective concerns. I say, wait a moment. We do need to be aware of the realities of the world--fully aware. But we should not resign ourselves to them. Yes, we have to act upon those realities. But we need not disregard our ideals to do that. I ideals are never meaningless. It was a reality that in the 50's in the South that Negros (they were not Blacks, then) we at the bottom of the pile and at the back of the bus in all respects. That was objective reality--and had been since they arrived on these shores. Yet, the ideal of actual freedom was still present. Rosa Parks found that one day, the Zeitgeist of that particular moment was such that an ideal broke through. This was not the first time Rosa or others had done what she did. And not the last. It was, however, a time when an objective state gave way to an ideal. One cannot predict when that will happen. It just does. So, I see that as a reason not to give up our ideals. For if we do, and submit to the objective reality of the times, those objective times will last forever. What I regard as an ideal will take a long, long time to come to pass (if ever), but that does not mean I have to just give up.
Quote from: jonb on October 25, 2015, 08:20:42 AM
But a lot of countries, would have rattled sabres at Denmark so that they could show they didn't want to have a war.
I certainly would... :72:
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 11:04:18 PM
Well ... if you examine your own words, from a perspective other than your own (namely the other billions of people) you are going to have a hard time ... given each one of us wants a personal custom utopia ... to get any cooperation. Any real society has to have more than one person in it ... and at that point the idea of individualism is toast. But of course there is a continuum ... but perhaps that is merely mixing two bad ideas together?
Mike---No shit, Charlie! Except, I would suggest that the average person in any society today would want the same ideal that I do. And that would be to be allowed to live reasonably left alone, to raise a family, make a living and live in peace. Yes, that is idealism--but not, at least to me, something that cannot come to pass. No, it will not just one day come to be. It is a continuum and will progress in the old two steps forward, one step back process. And whether or not my 'ideal' is a bad idea, that is entirely in your beholders eyes.
No, the US was very fortunate in the 1930s, other than the Depression. If we had shared a border with Germany, like France or Poland ... things would have gotten ugly real fast, because the German soldier was more efficient at killing people, excepting the Japanese soldier ... than any other kind. Fortunately German submarines couldn't steam into Dallas TX ;-)
Mike--Geography has always played a large part in the political history of the US. Isolation for just about any European country is impossible. Which is why the Versailles Treaty was a huge reason for WWII. Yes, the German and Japanese soldiers were better killing machines--at the beginning. Later one we matched them savage fighter for savage fighter--probably became better. As for German subs in Houston--did not get there--but they could and did reach the Gulf of Mexico.
And if you aren't a survivalist ... then my comment about reality TV won't make sense, even if you had seen episodes. I am not a survivalist myself, and I only catch bits and pieces of the survival shows ... like using scuba in icy water to dredge for gold in Alaska.
Mike--Nope, not a survivalist and don't watch those types of TV shows. The closest I get to survivalist shows is American Picker.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 25, 2015, 07:14:54 AM
War has always existed and will always exist. Even monkeys go to war against other monkeys. And when one side wins, they kill everyone on the other side - males, females and infants. We're not monkeys, and will never be but we are predators, have always been, and will always be. It's in our nature. We are worse than monkeys, in the sense that we kill not only for territory or other tangible reasons but on the basis of a certain ideology. It's only when we invented the nukes that we realized that a nuclear war could bring our own extinction. So great care was taken to prevent that, but conventional wars are going to be with us for a very long time.
As for the US being the so-called "police of the world", if ever the US pulls out of that role, other big powers will try to fill in. The risk of greater conflicts will be higher, not less.
It is always instructive to study animal behavior and then think about how it applies to humans; for we are indeed, animals. We are not only predators, but the king/queen of the scavengers, as well. Humans will do anything to survive--like most other animals. And as for war--as Fallout 3 and Fallout:New Vegas says--And war.............war never changes. You are correct, war has been with humans and will be for a very long time. That does not mean forever. I do think that as time passes, more and more humans will begin to realize that humans cannot exist if war does not change. It may never totally go away, but it will have to be managed somehow, channeled, somehow, to be much less destructive. Or our species may simply kill themselves--a sort of mutual suicide. Evolution is most always a slow, slow process. And changing war is like that--a slow slow process. Yes, I am idealistic about this--but that's me. I view the way to change akin to the one more rat into the box idea. Rats in a box are peaceful until you add that one more rat--then hell breaks loose. My ideal is like that--how many idealists need to be added to human societies before war changes? Before a bit of the ideal becomes real? I don't know. Like I admit to--I am an idealist and romantic at heart.
As for the US being police of the world--well, that could just as easily be used against us. The so-called terrorist groups are not made up of stupid people--not the leadership. What was the real object of the 9/11 attack? To cause bedlam in the US so they could just walk in and take over? Nobody thinks that. Then what? I suggest it may have been to get us to become a bigger cop and stronger cop of the world. Why? Because we will become so over extended that we will bleed ourselves to death. How many Iraq wars can we stand? As it is now, our middle is rotting out. Our infrastructure is rusting away. And we cannot afford to address that problem because we are busy being the world's police. How about we fix ourselves; if not, we will simply rust away. We will be kept busy addressing so many hot spots around the world that one day, we will have few roads left--NY City will not have water, for all the mains will be broken; bridges will be too feeble to hold traffic--and on and on. Yet, we will still be looking for hot spots to go fix. And it has been shown we are not very good at fixing those hot spots and we are not very good at fixing ourselves. Not right now we are not--I think we aught to stop trying to fix the world and fix us.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 25, 2015, 09:15:09 AM
It is always instructive to study animal behavior and then think about how it applies to humans; for we are indeed, animals. We are not only predators, but the king/queen of the scavengers, as well. Humans will do anything to survive--like most other animals. And as for war--as Fallout 3 and Fallout:New Vegas says--And war.............war never changes. You are correct, war has been with humans and will be for a very long time. That does not mean forever. I do think that as time passes, more and more humans will begin to realize that humans cannot exist if war does not change. It may never totally go away, but it will have to be managed somehow, channeled, somehow, to be much less destructive. Or our species may simply kill themselves--a sort of mutual suicide. Evolution is most always a slow, slow process. And changing war is like that--a slow slow process. Yes, I am idealistic about this--but that's me. I view the way to change akin to the one more rat into the box idea. Rats in a box are peaceful until you add that one more rat--then hell breaks loose. My ideal is like that--how many idealists need to be added to human societies before war changes? Before a bit of the ideal becomes real? I don't know. Like I admit to--I am an idealist and romantic at heart.
As for the US being police of the world--well, that could just as easily be used against us. The so-called terrorist groups are not made up of stupid people--not the leadership. What was the real object of the 9/11 attack? To cause bedlam in the US so they could just walk in and take over? Nobody thinks that. Then what? I suggest it may have been to get us to become a bigger cop and stronger cop of the world. Why? Because we will become so over extended that we will bleed ourselves to death. How many Iraq wars can we stand? As it is now, our middle is rotting out. Our infrastructure is rusting away. And we cannot afford to address that problem because we are busy being the world's police. How about we fix ourselves; if not, we will simply rust away. We will be kept busy addressing so many hot spots around the world that one day, we will have few roads left--NY City will not have water, for all the mains will be broken; bridges will be too feeble to hold traffic--and on and on. Yet, we will still be looking for hot spots to go fix. And it has been shown we are not very good at fixing those hot spots and we are not very good at fixing ourselves. Not right now we are not--I think we aught to stop trying to fix the world and fix us.
On many points I agree with you. Note that the infrastructure could be easily fixed if taxes on the rich could be increased by 2-3%, or shut down tax haven account ($600 billions/year in government revenue). Needed: political will to do it, maybe with the next president, who knows.
I agree with your point that we shouldn't try fixing other countries's problems. But we can't totally ignore them either, and should provide help with others when asked.
The war in Iraq ( the one in 1991) was a huge mistake. It was at the request of Saudi Arabia, a theocracy versus a secular government under Saddam Hussein, and the US under Bush father blew it completely. Then the problem was that this was never discussed in the aftermath of 1991, and so we ended up repeating that mistake in 2003, and we will most likely repeat it again as we haven't been able to discuss it with the country deeply divided along partisan lines.
Joe - Iraq 91 wasn't just because the Saudis asked us nicely. They ordered us. But the clincher was George Sr meeting Thatcher at the Aspen conference, and she convinced him. The same thing happened in 2003 ... without Tony Blair ... it would have never happened ... George Jr was too busy chocking on pretzels while Darth Cheney was running things .. in his case carrying out the PNAC ... which Obama is still faithfully doing. The relations and actions of the "great leaders who get there because they are ubermenschen" is devious and stupid to the point of insanity.
Mike - Yes, my mother and I both enjoy American Picker ... because we both enjoy antiques. Since we are both antiques ourselves, it comes natural ;-)
In Syria we are bombing everyone but Assad, including christards and even atheist groups, it is no wonder that the west is finding harder and harder line enemies forming up against us, and with the refugees that are being produced the right wing in Europe are starting to get very twitchy and might turn not just on the immigrants but the people they see as causing the immigration.
We are digging a hole, I think it is time to stop digging.
Jonb ... you and I are part of the special relationship more than you realize ;-) Like brothers who don't quite like each other ... but since 1913 (FedRes and Income Tax as prep for WW I) inseparable ;-) France was a nice lay, but you can't marry her ;-)) If the West has to go down in flames ... I would rather do it with GB than with anyone else ... felt this way all my Cold War life. But The Day After and Threads ... are potentially real. Don't poke the Bear or the Dragon.
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 10:20:47 AM
Joe - Iraq 91 wasn't just because the Saudis asked us nicely. They ordered us.
Not necessarily. The Bushes and the Royal Saudis knew each other for over 30 years before Iraq 1991 through multiple oil deals. A simple request on the phone with most likely the right tone of voice would have done the job. :pirate:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 25, 2015, 11:34:15 AM
Not necessarily. The Bushes and the Royal Saudis knew each other for over 30 years before Iraq 1991 through multiple oil deals. A simple request on the phone with most likely the right tone of voice would have done the job. :pirate:
The dance that President George W did for his Saudi hosts was a tell. The Bush family is slavish to any autocracy that pays well, Nazi or Saudi.
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 11:41:51 AM
The dance that President George W did for his Saudi hosts was a tell. The Bush family is slavish to any autocracy that pays well, Nazi or Saudi.
Difficult to decide who is the ventriloquist and who is the puppet. I'm hoping that Jeb doesn't get the nomination.
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 11:41:51 AM
The dance that President George W did for his Saudi hosts was a tell. The Bush family is slavish to any autocracy that pays well, Nazi or Saudi.
[spoiler](http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/obama.bows_.to_.saudi_.king_.jpg)[/spoiler]
Yes, Obama is a "house n****r" just as Zawahiri said when Obama was elected. He is also George W version 3 and 4. But he isn't a Muslim ... just a quisling. The Clintons are Bush wannabes.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 25, 2015, 11:52:30 AM
Difficult to decide who is the ventriloquist and who is the puppet. I'm hoping that Jeb doesn't get the nomination.
I agree, but they have Georg P, son of JEB ... as their backup plan. They aren't debauched enough to run Neil ... the third son. Neil's crooked bank was responsible for my first mortgage ... and I have never forgiven him underwriting the company I bought my first property from (false valuation ... which is what Silverado specialized in).
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 12:08:04 PM
I agree, but they have Georg P, son of JEB ... as their backup plan.
One thing at a time. Nix Jeb, than see what happens next.
QuoteThey aren't debauched enough to run Neil ... the third son. Neil's crooked bank was responsible for my first mortgage ... and I have never forgiven him underwriting the company I bought my first property from (false valuation ... which is what Silverado specialized in).
Interesting...
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 11:09:32 AM
Jonb ... you and I are part of the special relationship more than you realize ;-) Like brothers who don't quite like each other ... but since 1913 (FedRes and Income Tax as prep for WW I) inseparable ;-) France was a nice lay, but you can't marry her ;-)) If the West has to go down in flames ... I would rather do it with GB than with anyone else ... felt this way all my Cold War life. But The Day After and Threads ... are potentially real. Don't poke the Bear or the Dragon.
If you meet two Englishmen don't trust them. If you find one that you agree with the other one is getting ready to shaft you. It is the basic problem when dealing with democracies about every five years they go back on any agreement they make. Bears and dragons have learnt to distrust us and rightly so. Then even worse there are people like me who's very reason for existence seems to be the enjoyment of poking sleeping giants.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 25, 2015, 12:16:21 PM
One thing at a time. Nix Jeb, than see what happens next.
Interesting...
I would like a look at the true accounting books of Harken Oil ... not ;-( Involved MIT ... so probably CIA money laundering.
Quote from: jonb on October 25, 2015, 12:19:18 PM
If you meet two Englishmen don't trust them. If you find one that you agree with the other one is getting ready to shaft you. It is the basic problem when dealing with democracies about every five years they go back on any agreement they make. Bears and dragons have learnt to distrust us and rightly so. Then even worse there are people like me who's very reason for existence seems to be the enjoyment of poking sleeping giants.
See stone giant scene-cut at the end of the preview ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmostC1o7dk
My daughter's god-father is a Jones, and the Jones family are descendants of the Lady of the Lake. I am a descendant of Vortigern myself, the early employer of Merlin of Carmarthen. And you don't believe in magic?
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 12:21:26 PM
I would like a look at the true accounting books of Harken Oil ... not ;-( Involved MIT ... so probably CIA money laundering.
Martha Stewart paid her price in jail for insider trading. George W escaped that only because his father was vice-president (then president) at the time. It pays to have connection in higher places.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 25, 2015, 12:30:49 PM
Martha Stewart paid her price in jail for insider trading. George W escaped that only because his father was vice-president (then president) at the time. It pays to have connection in higher places.
Telling an un-truth and lying are not the same. Martha Stewart was caught lying to the FBI ... she wasn't as clever ... or as well connected. If someone seriously investigated Harken ... or BCCI ... I think one wouldn't have long to live. Mexican drug cartels have nothing on other long standing crime families.
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 12:38:47 PM
Telling an un-truth and lying are not the same. Martha Stewart was caught lying to the FBI ... she wasn't as clever ... or as well connected. If someone seriously investigated Harken ... or BCCI ... I think one wouldn't have long to live. Mexican drug cartels have nothing on other long standing crime families.
I'm not sure where the conspiracy is with Harken (or BCCI). Where is the evidence? I can see Bush father, having been the director of the CIA for a number of years, asking a CIA agent for a personal favor to get his son out of trouble. But that is far from a conspiracy - though admittedly it would give fodder to Conspiracy theorists like you.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 25, 2015, 08:44:19 AM
You say--To me ideals are a beacon, something to strive for and to guide your way, but should never be held dogmatically and never imposed on others without reason. I wholeheartedly agree.
But when you say-- And also we should recognize that against objective reality many of our ideals are meaningless, since they are mainly centered around our subjective concerns. I say, wait a moment. We do need to be aware of the realities of the world--fully aware. But we should not resign ourselves to them. Yes, we have to act upon those realities. But we need not disregard our ideals to do that. I ideals are never meaningless. It was a reality that in the 50's in the South that Negros (they were not Blacks, then) we at the bottom of the pile and at the back of the bus in all respects. That was objective reality--and had been since they arrived on these shores. Yet, the ideal of actual freedom was still present. Rosa Parks found that one day, the Zeitgeist of that particular moment was such that an ideal broke through. This was not the first time Rosa or others had done what she did. And not the last. It was, however, a time when an objective state gave way to an ideal. One cannot predict when that will happen. It just does. So, I see that as a reason not to give up our ideals. For if we do, and submit to the objective reality of the times, those objective times will last forever. What I regard as an ideal will take a long, long time to come to pass (if ever), but that does not mean I have to just give up.
what I meant is that reality might not line up with our ideals, because they are derived from our individual or human preferences. We may desire safety and we should strive for it, but maybe struggle is a fundamental aspect of life. Living things tend to grow and need more resources, this is the cause of much suffering (disease/war/depredation). Maybe after we consolidate the control of our planet and find peace between our populations and we get rid of virus and bacteria and other lifeforms that harms us, we will still grow since that is our biological imperative (thought we could completely change our nature) and we will expand to other planets for more resources. There we might find ourselves in a new galactic struggle with other forms of life or being. If we don't struggle and come on top we will be left behind like many other lifeforms before us. Of course we should not give up on our ideals at the first sign of trouble, but we should always be skeptical of them in order to not find ourselves clinging on them merely on emotion or blind faith and dying the worthless dead of a martyr.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 25, 2015, 02:07:42 PM
I'm not sure where the conspiracy is with Harken (or BCCI). Where is the evidence? I can see Bush father, having been the director of the CIA for a number of years, asking a CIA agent for a personal favor to get his son out of trouble. But that is far from a conspiracy - though admittedly it would give fodder to Conspiracy theorists like you.
There is no evil or communication in the world. So there are no evil doers, and even if they were, they couldn't communicate. Are you related to Zeno of Elea?
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 03:36:39 PM
There is no evil or communication in the world. So there are no evil doers, and even if they were, they couldn't communicate.
The question is not about evil communication, but evidence of your alleged conspiracy. Why don't you admit you have no evidence whatsoever and make it easy on you?
QuoteAre you related to Zeno of Elea?
Zeno was disproved with the invention of calculus, about 250 years ago. Get with the program.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 25, 2015, 03:49:17 PM
The question is not about evil communication, but evidence of your alleged conspiracy. Why don't you admit you have no evidence whatsoever and make it easy on you?
Zeno was disproved with the invention of calculus, about 250 years ago. Get with the program.
I was alluding to reductio ad absurdum ... the original (and negative use of logic). Of course Zeno wasn't the only classic times user to use this ... but sometimes the absurd is simply absurd, it doesn't prove anything. Keep on worshipping the chief alchemist of England ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2015, 06:03:17 PM
I was alluding to reductio ad absurdum ... the original (and negative use of logic). Of course Zeno wasn't the only classic times user to use this ... but sometimes the absurd is simply absurd, it doesn't prove anything. Keep on worshipping the chief alchemist of England ;-)
Do you know how many theists have to come to this forum? All of them, when asked "where's the evidence that supports your beliefs", they inevitably end up like you, evading the question with some mumbo-jumbo rhetoric. When put to the task, you have no evidence of this conspiracy, just a bunch of unrelated suspicions which with $1.95 will buy you a coffee at Starbuck.
Quote from: mauricio on October 25, 2015, 03:27:27 PM
what I meant is that reality might not line up with our ideals, because they are derived from our individual or human preferences. We may desire safety and we should strive for it, but maybe struggle is a fundamental aspect of life. Living things tend to grow and need more resources, this is the cause of much suffering (disease/war/depredation). Maybe after we consolidate the control of our planet and find peace between our populations and we get rid of virus and bacteria and other lifeforms that harms us, we will still grow since that is our biological imperative (thought we could completely change our nature) and we will expand to other planets for more resources. There we might find ourselves in a new galactic struggle with other forms of life or being. If we don't struggle and come on top we will be left behind like many other lifeforms before us. Of course we should not give up on our ideals at the first sign of trouble, but we should always be skeptical of them in order to not find ourselves clinging on them merely on emotion or blind faith and dying the worthless dead of a martyr.
All of that is true. One thing is certain--we do not have a clue as to the future and what it will bring. If all of your ideas are fully grounded in 'reality', you will still get the future wrong. Standing in 1950, looking toward 2015, could you with all the reality and objectivity you could command, know what 2015 would look like? Of course not--nobody told us what 2015 would look like or feel like. Just look at a simply thing as the black cradle phone--who could have predicted what they are like today?
On the other hand, ideals are the exact same thing. You have an ideal (or anybody), and you cling to it like it is life itself. You bend your every waking moment to making it work. Can you predict when or if your ideal will be realized? No a chance. Can you envision what your ideal will even look like? Not a chance. One thing we do know--it will not be exactly as you envision it.
So, should we get rid or ignore the 'objective' evidence we have or abandon or not even bother having an ideal? No. For that is all we can do at this point (or any point) is to be as objective as we can (and nobody can be totally objective) and build and hold to our ideas as best we can--but not be shackled to either. We always have to leave room to 'roll with the punches' and make the best of what has just happened.
So, I have my ideal world and a feel for what can be and should be. I also realize that that will change with time. It always has. And it always will. But I still have an ideal.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 26, 2015, 07:29:03 AM
Do you know how many theists have to come to this forum? All of them, when asked "where's the evidence that supports your beliefs", they inevitably end up like you, evading the question with some mumbo-jumbo rhetoric. When put to the task, you have no evidence of this conspiracy, just a bunch of unrelated suspicions which with $1.95 will buy you a coffee at Starbuck.
If you can't distinguish one theist from another ... and I am not at all like the others ... that is your problem, not mine. Go slay some other dragon, save some other virgin maid.
Quote from: Baruch on October 26, 2015, 12:29:46 PM
If you can't distinguish one theist from another ... and I am not at all like the others ...
Well that's it, you haven't distinguished yourself... you're just another cat with a different fur color, but still a cat.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 26, 2015, 12:45:17 PM
Well that's it, you haven't distinguished yourself... you're just another cat with a different fur color, but still a cat.
Thanks for the praise ... I like cats ;-)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 26, 2015, 12:45:17 PM
Well that's it, you haven't distinguished yourself... you're just another cat with a different fur color, but still a cat.
And we all know here that cats just can't be herded in one direction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 26, 2015, 01:06:39 PM
And we all know here that cats just can't be herded in one direction.
No, but if you raise them yourself you can get a group of them to follow you like ducklings.
Source: have a couple of 4-year-olds I raised.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 26, 2015, 01:13:43 PM
No, but if you raise them yourself you can get a group of them to follow you like ducklings.
Source: have a couple of 4-year-olds I raised.
I envy you. I've not had the opportunity to raise a kitten. But I do love cats; have had a couple of adult cats in my life and they were a joy.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 26, 2015, 01:06:39 PM
And we all know here that cats just can't be herded in one direction.
I apologize to all cats of this world. Initially, I wanted to use cockroach, should have gone with that...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 26, 2015, 02:29:22 PM
I apologize to all cats of this world. Initially, I wanted to use cockroach, should have gone with that...
Well, what the hell.................can't herd those, either.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 26, 2015, 04:48:53 PM
Well, what the hell.................can't herd those, either.
Maybe not but I can shoo them in here:
[spoiler](http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/original_186113_nBvSL5wg7m9HoOOb1ZjDWCZj81.jpg) (http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/original_186113_nBvSL5wg7m9HoOOb1ZjDWCZj81.jpg.html)[/spoiler]
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 26, 2015, 02:29:22 PM
I apologize to all cats of this world. Initially, I wanted to use cockroach, should have gone with that...
To whomever - So you are liking characters out of that Jewish book by Franz Kafka ... Metamorphosis? And here I didn't think you were an entomologist ;-)
Maybe you would prefer scorpions. They are hardy .. can be frozen in a block of ice and survive .. be heated out of a block of ice with a blow torch and survive ... are you species-ist?
I liked Kafka….good stuff.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 06:24:24 PM
Why would you even think that I thought that they were different than us? Or any human is. I haven't said or even implied anything of the sort. Is that even a fact anyone here would bother to present as an extra under normal circumstances? No. Why would it be tough? What does it have to do with it at all?
What does even "they were as bad as other humans" mean? What kind of a twisted bullshit logic is that?
I just reacted to normalising an unrecognised genocide that went on hundreds of years by saying 'they were equally vicious' (?) out of nowhere, because someone expressed an anachronistic thought, something like "it would be interesting to watch what would happen if Europans got drowned on the way and America wasn't even touched".
Nobody got drowned, they annihilated people and their culture. It already happened. If you are getting back to that with a bullshit statement of 'they were equally vicious and if you do not think that you are unrealistic and idealising natives" AND calling that these poeple being human as much the other 'a fact', you are trying to normalise genocide and miserably failing at it.
They had issues? What does this even mean? Is there a place or a country or a culture that doesn't/didn't have issues? Almost every soverign country is guilty of genocide. More, the criteria depends on political power, not what happens to people in reality.
My mistake, I thought you were talking about their respective natures.
I believe someone else mentioned they were inferior, but that just wasn't the case either.
There were something like 30 million people in Mexico when the Spaniards arrived, which is no meagre accomplishment. They had a green revolution before anyone else had a term for it, and made advances in engineering that were genuinely unique and ingenious.
The only reason Europeans were able to colonize the world is because of where Europe is situated. Advantageous in almost every way. Moderate climate, and good access to a variety of trade routes, which meant access to the latest technologies as well.
So sure, in a grander sense the Mesoamericans were basically like any other human in terms of temperament and intelligence.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on October 27, 2015, 10:40:06 PM
My mistake, I thought you were talking about their respective natures.
I believe someone else mentioned they were inferior, but that just wasn't the case either.
There were something like 30 million people in Mexico when the Spaniards arrived, which is no meagre accomplishment. They had a green revolution before anyone else had a term for it, and made advances in engineering that were genuinely unique and ingenious.
The only reason Europeans were able to colonize the world is because of where Europe is situated. Advantageous in almost every way. Moderate climate, and good access to a variety of trade routes, which meant access to the latest technologies as well.
So sure, in a grander sense the Mesoamericans were basically like any other human in terms of temperament and intelligence.
MesoAmericans before Columbus are a difficult people to get to know. Reading positive fiction about them, in addition to facts ... helped me get over the strangeness.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on October 27, 2015, 10:40:06 PM
The only reason Europeans were able to colonize the world is because of where Europe is situated. Advantageous in almost every way. Moderate climate, and good access to a variety of trade routes, which meant access to the latest technologies as well.
Or could an explanation be the Europeans did not have total state control with central state planning, but a strong sense of individuality?
China built a huge fleet which sailed from China to explore the world, it was so vast it carried ten thousand horsemen.
Columbus had three tiny boats.
It was easy for Columbus to bring back enough strange things to pay for the voyage, so the Europeans could repeat the experiment. Can you imagine how much the Chinese would have to bring back to make their voyage profitable? Unsurprisingly the Chinese never repeated their experiment.
It is therefore funny how our societies elites seem to be moving ever nearer to centralised state control and international planning as the way forward.
Quote from: jonb on October 27, 2015, 11:15:36 PM
Or could an explanation be the Europeans did not have total state control with central state planning, but a strong sense of individuality?
China built a huge fleet which sailed from China to explore the world, it was so vast it carried ten thousand horsemen.
Columbus had three tiny boats.
It was easy for Columbus to bring back enough strange things to pay for the voyage, so the Europeans could repeat the experiment. Can you imagine how much the Chinese would have to bring back to make their voyage profitable? Unsurprisingly the Chinese never repeated their experiment.
It is therefore funny how our societies elites seem to be moving ever nearer to centralised state control and international planning as the way forward.
Well we are drawing closer to China ... which is never the less Confucian. I feel a greater need to read the messages in cookies, every day ;-)
Quote from: jonb on October 27, 2015, 11:15:36 PM
China built a huge fleet which sailed from China to explore the world, it was so vast it carried ten thousand horsemen.
Can you imagine how much the Chinese would have to bring back to make their voyage profitable? Unsurprisingly the Chinese never repeated their experiment.
In one of Boorstins books, I believe the "Discoverers" he tells us that the Chinese had built the worlds largest wooden ships ever sailed, their armada was thousands of boats, but they did not go around conquering, their emperor, and I can't remember the name, believed that China was the center of the world and god/earth had given them everything they need and needed nothing else. He actually gave away gold and gems to other countries to show them how rich they were. When a time came that the emperor was told they were actually running out of wealth, he had his armada destroyed and China withdrew back into the confines of the country. Pick up all of Boorstins books, really really great reading: The Discoverers. The Creators, The Seekers... lots of fascinating stuff
The story is generally right, but I would say a little romanticised. The Chinese extracted tribute, and although getting to India and arabia did not think there would be worthwhile trade!
Incidentally the Admiral of the fleet was muslin or at least of a muslin family
Zheng He
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_voyages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_voyages)
The next Emperor outlawed sea going junks with two masts and foreign voyages. Central control has always been suspicious of the outside.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on October 27, 2015, 10:40:06 PM
The only reason Europeans were able to colonize the world is because of where Europe is situated.
Unlikely. Before 1500 CE, Europe was behind China, India, and the Middle East. It was only with the advent of science, and the technological upshot, that Europe became the superpower of those days.
Quote from: jonb on October 28, 2015, 03:03:17 PM
The story is generally right, but I would say a little romanticised. The Chinese extracted tribute, and although getting to India and arabia did not think there would be worthwhile trade!
Incidentally the Admiral of the fleet was muslin or at least of a muslin family
Zheng He
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_voyages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_voyages)
The next Emperor outlawed sea going junks with two masts and foreign voyages. Central control has always been suspicious of the outside.
I won't argue but I might defer to Boostin over wiki. He really does a good job.
Aitm
I know wiki is a bit lazy of me, but I just wanted to show an alternative vision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2eukDRZ4B0
National geographic version.
Jose
I don't think it was the technology, but what drove the technology and science. Individualism.
Quote from: jonb on October 28, 2015, 04:55:41 PM
Aitm
I know wiki is a bit lazy of me, but I just wanted to show an alternative vision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2eukDRZ4B0
National geographic version.
Jose
I don't think it was the technology, but what drove the technology and science. Individualism.
Thanks. I'll take a look at it.
Ooh..jonb, just saw it was an over an hour vid……I read…. I could read that shit in 15 minutes…is there a written version?
Books I found these, but I cannot vouch for any of them. I cannot remember the ones I read, and my knowledge just covers the basics probably a little less than has already been covered. I only picked up what I did because I was working on a project of Islamic influence in China for a client years ago and basically even then I was only looking for pictures.
Dreyer, Edward L. Zheng He: China and the Oceans in the Early Ming Dynasty, 1405-1433, New York: Pearshon Longman, 2007.
Hadingham, Evan. "Ancient Chinese Explorers," PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/explorers.html
Levathes, Louise. When Ming China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
I think though, that Mr Menzies may have gone too far along this line ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3557568/Gavin-Menzies-mad-as-a-snake-or-a-visionary.html
What I have read, is that the explorations were indeed, a loss leader ... and that eunuch intrigue moved the Chinese court ... the first thing the Republic of China did in 1911, was move out of the Forbidden Palace and their influence ... all the way to Nanking in the south.
Later trade, involved moving Latin American silver across the Pacific to Manila and then Macao. The Chinese economy was silver based ... and was always short. This produced a conflict with GB in the 19th century, also silver based ... to extract the silver from the Chinese economy, the Opium Wars were started and the silver expatriated from Chinese drug addicts back to London ... though much may have originally come from Mexico, shipped out from Acapulco.
Forgive me if this was already addressed in the 29 pages of this thread, but didn't Mohammed write that it acceptable to treat infidels (ie people who do not follow his teachings) harshly? The Jews don't have anything like that in their religious texts. Of course, there are peaceful Muslims who I'm sure ignore the bigoted teachings of the founder of their religion, but I think there's a reason why Muslims have such a high tendency for violence around the world.
Specifically, Muhammad said it was OK to use violence if the Muslims were attacked (as they were in Mecca and Medinah before they were victorious). Muhammad also probably considered his natural area of operations to include all Arabs, including those in the north, under the control of Byzantium and Ctesiphon (Turkey and Iraq). Some things never change ... the current civil war in Syria is a direct continuation of the situation in the early 7th century CE. The Caliphs particular #1 - #4 (the Rashidun) then analogized these verses to imply this initial ethnic consolidation (see Hitler 1938 regarding Austria, Sudetenland and Danzig) was authorized, via evangelism initially, and then using violence when evangelism didn't work. Conditions in Byzantium and Ctesiphon were such, that Muslim victories extended well beyond their initial goal, into other arid and semi-arid regions, including Egypt, Turkey and Persia. This led to the dilemma of a few Arabs ruling a large non-Arab population ... who initially were not Muslim.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 30, 2015, 11:46:22 AM
Forgive me if this was already addressed in the 29 pages of this thread, but didn't Mohammed write that it acceptable to treat infidels (ie people who do not follow his teachings) harshly? The Jews don't have anything like that in their religious texts. Of course, there are peaceful Muslims who I'm sure ignore the bigoted teachings of the founder of their religion, but I think there's a reason why Muslims have such a high tendency for violence around the world.
A. Like the bible and Torah, the Quran contradicts itself. Sometimes it says wage war, other times he is promoting peace.
B. yes, God telling the Israelis to murder and rape opposing tribes sure isn't harsh.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 30, 2015, 01:15:06 PM
A. Like the bible and Torah, the Quran contradicts itself. Sometimes it says wage war, other times he is promoting peace.
B. yes, God telling the Israelis to murder and rape opposing tribes sure isn't harsh.
A command for a specific instance is different than a blanket statement authorizing treating all nonbelievers like animals. And I don't recall rape ever being authorized in the Torah. There were times when they were permitted to choose wives from the survivors, but they were also commanded to leave them alone for a while and allow the to grieve. That was very different from the typical rape and pillage that was common at the time. It wouldn't be acceptable in modern society, of course, but the women were still treated with a considerable measure of humanity.
Quote from: Baruch on October 30, 2015, 12:51:26 PM
Specifically, Muhammad said it was OK to use violence if the Muslims were attacked (as they were in Mecca and Medinah before they were victorious). Muhammad also probably considered his natural area of operations to include all Arabs, including those in the north, under the control of Byzantium and Ctesiphon (Turkey and Iraq). Some things never change ... the current civil war in Syria is a direct continuation of the situation in the early 7th century CE. The Caliphs particular #1 - #4 (the Rashidun) then analogized these verses to imply this initial ethnic consolidation (see Hitler 1938 regarding Austria, Sudetenland and Danzig) was authorized, via evangelism initially, and then using violence when evangelism didn't work. Conditions in Byzantium and Ctesiphon were such, that Muslim victories extended well beyond their initial goal, into other arid and semi-arid regions, including Egypt, Turkey and Persia. This led to the dilemma of a few Arabs ruling a large non-Arab population ... who initially were not Muslim.
So is there nothing in the Quaran that says you're allowed to lie to infidels, or that infidels should be treated like enemies?
QuoteSo is there nothing in the Quaran that says you're allowed to lie to infidels, or that infidels should be treated like enemies?
Lying in Islam (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm) According to the Quran and hadiths.
according to Islamic Law (Sharia)
QuoteReliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...
Shiranu is a social warrior fond of Islam and Muslims.
His favorite fallacy is Tu Quoque. Because two wrongs always makes one right.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 30, 2015, 11:46:22 AM
Forgive me if this was already addressed in the 29 pages of this thread, but didn't Mohammed write that it acceptable to treat infidels (ie people who do not follow his teachings) harshly? The Jews don't have anything like that in their religious texts. Of course, there are peaceful Muslims who I'm sure ignore the bigoted teachings of the founder of their religion, but I think there's a reason why Muslims have such a high tendency for violence around the world.
who knows?
i wasn't taught this.
i was taught that muhammad acted pretty much like jesus other than being a hobo and was a warrior.
in our school an incident was taught, where apparently, he used to go through an alley and resident old jewish women used to throw shit at him. on one day, there was no shit. so muhammad asked what happened to the women. they told him she was sick. he apparently went and nursed her and er probably prayed for her.
what do you think are reasons
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 30, 2015, 01:26:13 PM
So is there nothing in the Quaran that says you're allowed to lie to infidels, or that infidels should be treated like enemies?
not that i heard of.
the first time i heard about this was from person on internet who adored islam just as much as pr does soooo
however, muslim can lie to save their life. allah doesn't mind that
@ CloneKai
The best book about Muhammad is his biography by Ibn Ishaq: Sirat Rasool Allah.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Sirat_Rasul_Allah.
Here you find the downloadable .pdf book.
Quote from: pr126 on October 30, 2015, 03:39:00 PM
@ CloneKai
The best book about Muhammad is his biography by Ibn Ishaq: Sirat Rasool Allah.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Sirat_Rasul_Allah.
Here you find the downloadable .pdf book.
most religious people don't like to read stuffs :32:
especially provided by other people
Quote from: CloneKai on October 30, 2015, 05:05:12 PM
most religious people don't like to read stuffs :32:
especially provided by other people
Why is that?
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 30, 2015, 05:17:41 PM
Why is that?
i would guess they don't want their preconceived notions being challenged
Quote from: CloneKai on October 30, 2015, 06:01:56 PM
i would guess they don't want their preconceived notions being challenged
Yeah, that's what I have found, too.
Quote from: pr126 on October 30, 2015, 01:45:01 PM
Lying in Islam (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm) According to the Quran and hadiths.
according to Islamic Law (Sharia)
Shiranu is a social warrior fond of Islam and Muslims.
His favorite fallacy is Tu Quoque. Because two wrongs always makes one right.
Everyone agrees that two wrongs always makes one right ... because the first wrong is by the Them ... and the second wrong is by Us. The subject of the aphorism is binary, not singular. If you exclude all liars from the world, there won't be anyone left. We are all brothers, because we are all liars (among other characteristics).
Quote from: pr126 on October 30, 2015, 03:39:00 PM
@ CloneKai
The best book about Muhammad is his biography by Ibn Ishaq: Sirat Rasool Allah.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Sirat_Rasul_Allah.
Here you find the downloadable .pdf book.
I found the biography of Muhammad by Karen Armstrong to be good. It is both scholarly and apolitical. Modern Salafist material is suspect ... and even the earliest biographies are colored by the need to make Muhammad more than a man, and to satisfy the contemporary politics of the Caliphs.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 30, 2015, 01:24:19 PM
And I don't recall rape ever being authorized in the Torah.
, of course, but the women were still treated with a considerable measure of humanity.
of course it is, the men were instructed to go into the "village" and slaughter everyone except the young women who had "known a man" those they were allowed to "keep" for themselves…..what exactly to you think that means?
well, I have to ask, have you ever actually read the "torah" also generally known as the first five books of the OT? I mean, lets face it, women in the OT are pretty much holes you fuck and then put outside in a tent when they bleed or whom you kill if you don't like them.
Correct, ancient writings generally aren't about feminism. How was Hypatia of Alexandria killed by the Christian monks? Her antagonist, Cyril, not only promoted Marianism (to support Isis worship) but also got a sainthood out of it. This is why feminists dismiss all of history, culture and literature prior to feminist writers ... as "dead White men walking".
Baruch wrote:QuoteI found the biography of Muhammad by Karen Armstrong to be good.
Karen Armstrong is paid by the Saudis to put Islam, Muhammad in the best possible light.
She has earned that money by lying.
Karen Armstrong: The Coherence of Her Incoherence (http://www.newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fitzgerald/Karen_Armstrong:_The_Coherence_of_Her_Incoherence/)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 28, 2015, 03:37:16 PM
Unlikely. Before 1500 CE, Europe was behind China, India, and the Middle East. It was only with the advent of science, and the technological upshot, that Europe became the superpower of those days.
Well, I'll admit I'm being presumptuous anyways. I can't say I genuinely know what I'm talking about, because its been such a long while since I've thought about this idea, and I'm not sure if any general consensus has been made.
Several years ago I heard a very compelling case made by Jared Diamond in his book "Guns, Germs and Steel", which was later made into a television series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
QuoteThe book attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations (including North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while arguing against the idea that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral, or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops. When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures (for example, by facilitating commerce and trade between different cultures) and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes.
A few points I found interesting:
Humans have only domesticated a handful of animals, and almost all are native to Eurasia. It meant we had plenty of help working and transporting, as well as a reliable food source (I figure the horse has to be the most important, domesticated in ancient Ukraine, or Sarmatia, or whatever the land was called north of the Black Sea at that time)
Since we worked in close tandem with animals, and with Europe being an integral part of a massive trade network, (in particular the Byzantines I would guess) we developed an immunity to a lot of diseases, which I suppose is an advantage provided you aren't completely wiped out.
It is also suggested that what held countries like China back may have been too much stability strangely enough, while in Europe bitter rivalries and constant war made them desperate to try anything to get an advantage.
Many a year ago, and I can't remember if this was a subject taught in school, university or something I read because it has been that long, but the "theory" was that the vast percentage of technological and scientific inventions, which influenced every aspect of the culture from with it was part of, was located within the 25th to 55th latitude. The argument being the climate being the main reason for such necessities. The upper latitude presented too many obstacles for extra time to spend on even the idea of inventing as simple existence took up most the time, and the equatorial region food was readily available and rather abundant and no "need" to invent anything. Whereas the temperate zones gave us both needs and time to invest in the idea of inventing.
So supposedly, in the arctic, food freezes thus it doesn't get wasted and there was no need to worry about preserving it, in the equatorial region, you can get what you need when you need it so there is no need to preserve, but in the temperate where food was not as abundant and could not be easily stored had to be processed in different ways to preserve it. Thus, salting, smoking, jerky etc up to refrigeration. Don't remember if it was thoroughly debunked or not. Too many beer ago.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on October 31, 2015, 07:40:51 AM
Well, I'll admit I'm being presumptuous anyways. I can't say I genuinely know what I'm talking about, because its been such a long while since I've thought about this idea, and I'm not sure if any general consensus has been made.
Several years ago I heard a very compelling case made by Jared Diamond in his book "Guns, Germs and Steel", which was later made into a television series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
A few points I found interesting:
Humans have only domesticated a handful of animals, and almost all are native to Eurasia. It meant we had plenty of help working and transporting, as well as a reliable food source (I figure the horse has to be the most important, domesticated in ancient Ukraine, or Sarmatia, or whatever the land was called north of the Black Sea at that time)
Since we worked in close tandem with animals, and with Europe being an integral part of a massive trade network, (in particular the Byzantines I would guess) we developed an immunity to a lot of diseases, which I suppose is an advantage provided you aren't completely wiped out.
It is also suggested that what held countries like China back may have been too much stability strangely enough, while in Europe bitter rivalries and constant war made them desperate to try anything to get an advantage.
My post was not meant to mean that Europeans are superior genetically. Jared Diamond explored in his well-known book as to why Europe was more advanced at some point in times. What we do know is that civilizations are born,shine and then fade. It so happened that science and technology gave Europeans an advantage after 1500's. And this was done in spite of religion. To some, that was bad as Europeans went on to colonize and stifle other civilizations. But that has always happened since homo sapiens left Africa to conquer other lands. Some have difficulties in recognizing that there is really no morality, except the one you believe and you think incorrectly that it should apply universally. But reality says otherwise: those countries/tribes/groups who were in position of imposing their will did just that. Whether that is morally wrong or right is a matter of opinion.
Quote from: pr126 on October 31, 2015, 12:49:38 AM
Baruch wrote:Karen Armstrong is paid by the Saudis to put Islam, Muhammad in the best possible light.
She has earned that money by lying.
Karen Armstrong: The Coherence of Her Incoherence (http://www.newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fitzgerald/Karen_Armstrong:_The_Coherence_of_Her_Incoherence/)
Is your link a UKIP website? I also read the article of Watergate (different author, but it seemed John Birch to me). Seems if the essay were American, it is right out of Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of what you think of Ms Armstrong's politics or religion (and that would be ad hominem) ... she is a fairly good writer ... and anti-to-your-position ... she is a peacemaker, not a war-maker. For you, it is Pope Urban 126 at Claremont.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 06:46:58 PM
Jews who died of disease and starvation are counted among the victims of the Holocaust. That's how the numbers of genocide is calculated. Same with the Armenian Genocide...etc.
I don't get how is that it is suddenly a rule that Mesoamerican Genocide death toll shouldn't be calculated withe same criteria.
You criticize the US as a proud citizen of the former Ottoman Empire, which was so legendary for its violence and government corruption rooted in its culture that it made the last days of Roman power look sensible - fuck you for your rambling, drunken hypocrisy!