NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do you dodge the bullet this way? So you wilfully refuse to acknowledge that Muslims can do wrong too, and have done so? "Hey, but them Euros did it too!" Yes, makes it perfectly okay... And by the way, if by Christian Europe you mean the Nazis, who are you trying to kid?

Oh yes muslims did wrong, the dhimmi tax was wrong, 100% I never denied that, and I don't deny it now.

The western world has largely moved away from our religious dark age. The muslim world hasn't. I don't see why events of the past should force us to crawl to their primitive culture.

I agree.

Oh yes muslims did wrong, the dhimmi tax was wrong, 100% I never denied that, and I don't deny it now.
The thing is, it seems you do - nowadays many revisionists claim that Muslim empires have been the shining example of tolerance, when in fact this was never so, and by contrast always castigate the European empires. This is why Federal Byzantium brought up the issue of tolerance, and this is why I criticized your counter-example. But at least you aren't practising a double standard.

The thing is, it seems you do - many nowadays claim that Muslim empires have been the shining example of tolerance, when in fact this was never so, and by contrast always castigate the European empires. This is why Federal Byzantium brought up the issue of tolerance, and this is why I criticized your counter-example. But at least you aren't practising a double standard.

Sultanates weren't shining examples of tolerance, NOTHING was a shining example of tolerance back in 1000 A.D. I blame the powers that be and the governments that used religion as an excuse to subjugate the populace, not the religion itself.

Sultanates weren't shining examples of tolerance, NOTHING was a shining example of tolerance back in 1000 A.D. I blame the powers that be and the governments that used religion as an excuse to subjugate the populace, not the religion itself.
Good, then at least we are arguing from a common perspective.

Bash him when he does that, but when he posts and intelligent piece, discuss it, rather than bash him personally.


Is ther something wrong with your browser that caused you to miss the entire article he posted? I don't like NN and think that he deserves what he gets when spouting racist bullshit, but that doesn't mean we should flame him whenever he opens his mouth.

This 'punishment' mentality is damaging to intelligent debate.

We addressed the article and many of his replies. His response has inevitably been to tell the responders that they are not permitted to reply.

So most Americans are European?


Except for all the rest of us yes .

Is there something wrong with my eyes that means I should pretend I don't see when he does post racist bullshit? And ALL of his articles are designed purely to push his white racist agenda. Every last one. If I wanted to argue with article writers, I would, but all I have is this fucking racist who, guess what, I'm gonna keep pointing out when he's a fucking racist.
If I had posted the article would you have reacted differently?

I am in favour of debating the article. The person who posted it is of little relevance.

So is Islamophobic bigotry.
So you want to sink to the level of an Islamophobic bigot?

If I had posted the article would you have reacted differently?

I am in favour of debating the article. The person who posted it is of little relevace.
THANK YOU! At least it seems I'm not alone here in that. The ad hominems are growing slightly tiring.

I'm glad that most of the Europeans on this thread are talking good sense on this subject. We are better equipped to talk about this, because we actually live in Europe and have better awareness of the problems and issues facing our society: calling us "racists" for showing concern on the issue of Islamification of our democratic societies seems to reveal little more than kneejerk anti-European views held among some Americans.

its pointless to say islam is a destructive or violent religion. all religions when taken to an extreme are violent and destructive.
when taken seriously most religions are peaceful.

For a very long time its been PC to criticise Christianity in any number of ways, and the sort of people I know who bleet about criticsim of Islam are the sort of people who would make a habit of criticising Christianity. So leave it be.

If I had posted the article would you have reacted differently?

You do not have a history of posting blatantly racist threads.

NY Nerdland does.


I am in favour of debating the article. The person who posted it is of little relevance.

Then debate the article.
However, the entire reason for its existance in to point out a racist agenda.
In the case of the poster, its very relevant.


How many articles does he/she/whatever post showing Muslims in a positive light?

Sigh...

Anyways, I have to think this is somewhat the fault of the media.
Sensationalism to sell magazines and newspapers.

"OMFG TEH TERRORISTS ARE THE SUXXORS!"

Keep the people afraid, and they will beg you to give you thier money.
Look at the American Media after 9/11.

Scare tactics to keep us afraid, and glued to the television.

Religious extremists are assholes, regardless of wich particular asshole God they worship.

For a very long time its been PC to criticise Christianity in any number of ways, and the sort of people I know who bleet about criticsim of Islam are the sort of people who would make a habit of criticising Christianity. So leave it be.

So..youre saying you dont care, as long as its not Christianity thats being ridiculed?

So..youre saying you dont care, as long as its not Christianity thats being ridiculed?

No. I'm saying that this sort of thing is normal, and to suggest otherwise is to ignore the mockery of Christians that has been made for a very long time.

There is bigortary in this debate, of course there is. In the same way there is in all debates of this kind. But there is also genuine criticsim and to tar it all with the brush of bigotry is to make a mistake. Of course it is also a mistake to gloss it all over with the primer of intellegent criticism.

Eternal vigilence, we practise it in Europe too.

No. I'm saying that this sort of thing is normal, and to suggest otherwise is to ignore the mockery of Christians that has been made for a very long time.

There is bigortary in this debate, of course there is. In the same way there is in all debates of this kind. But there is also genuine criticsim and to tar it all with the brush of bigotry is to make a mistake. Of course it is also a mistake to gloss it all over with the primer of intellegent criticism.

Eternal vigilence, we practise it in Europe too.


Admittedly, Im not the best person to tell you that Christianity isnt often mocked, as I indulge in the practice myself from time to time, but I really dont think its as bad as the currently light that is frequently shown on Islam.

A stereotypical Christian isnt associated with a "Terrorist", any more than a Catholic is often accused of being a pedophile.

Muslims are.

How often do you suppose that you, or any other European looks upon a Muslim, and wonders if he is going to plant a bomb on a bus, or in my case, being an American, blow up a building?

Do you think they look that way upon a Christian?

No.
Becuase you cant often tell a Christians faith by the color of thier skin.

Its a little easier to do that with a Middle Easterner, isnt it?

Christianity may get a few harsh words from some when they get particularly crazy, like Fred Phelps, or when the Catholic Church has another sex abuse scandal, but its nothing like the regular bashing Islam gets.

A stereotypical Christian isnt associated with a "Terrorist".

i was.

A stereotypical Christian isnt associated with a "Terrorist", any more than a Catholic is often accused of being a pedophile.

Muslims are.

Catholics are often steotyped as having pedophilic priests, I should know as it happens to many of my friends.


How often do you suppose that you, or any other European looks upon a Muslim, and wonders if he is going to plant a bomb on a bus, or in my case, being an American, blow up a building?

Do you think they look that way upon a Christian?

You cannot "look" at a Muslim. Islam is a faith not a race. Your not turning the issue into anti-arab racism and yes I would agree with you there, the situation is somewhat appaling.

Intellegent criticism of Islam is very diffrent to racial sterotyping of Arabs.

I know that you don't speak from experience. ;)


You do?


The muslims I know integrated perfectly. Some don't, but then again, some indigenous Europeans don't either.

The muslims you know? Will you say that majority of muslims integrated?

As Py said, how so? I quoted you explicitly stating everything I've said is your position. If I don't understand by regurgitating what you've actually said, then perhaps the failure is your ability to communicate what you believe.

Are you denying that you said that you hope for a majority white world?

Are you denying that when someone said that just because whites won't be in the majority that doesn't mean that some other group will become the majority, but instead that all groups would be less than the majority and your response was ... non-white will be the majority? Are you denying that you tried to claim that the division is whites and non-whites?

Are you denying that you've repeatedly dismissed the arguments of others not based on their merit but instead based on the color of someone's skin, their ethnicity, their religion or their location?


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11830479&postcount=179

How the fuck do you know?

STFU in a thread in which you didnt read all the posts:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826374&postcount=81


It found that 59 per cent of people supported a halt to all further immigration to the UK

Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=384167&in_page_id=1770)


Ipsos, a Paris-based polling firm, found 60 per cent believing that immigrants were a bad influence on Britain

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=602872004

And on top of this, every fucking Nazi party is making electoral gains due to said stupidity.

And I for one welcome our new fascist overlords as the best possible alternative to being killed or enslaved as infidels.

*goosesteps*

Die fahne hoch!

Strange definition in my mind, but no matter.

Then how would you define an indigenous European?


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=indigenous


:rolleyes:

I simply don't know what else to say. I won't even mention american muslims. Your lack of differentiation is astounding.

:rolleyes: x 100. Besides the differences in American muslims and say, pakistani muslims, muslims are like 1% of the American population. Besides, we were talking about "most Americans" with Laerod, not muslims. What is astounding is your lack of reading comprehension. I suggest you to read the posts I'm answering to, not just mine.

i was.

Irish then, so ye are.

What's integrated? Do define. Is having a restaurant/small business integrated? (Well, of course not, cos average Norwegian won't take a chance and go small business... it's just taxes and overheads). The average Muslim in Norway is more integrated than you are, NN, face it now.

Dont be silly. The more dosage we get, the less we want them here.


The number of Norwegian teenagers who are sceptical about foreigners and say they feel immigrants threaten Norway's national identity has nearly doubled in the past six years, according to a poll published on Monday.

Forty percent of Norwegian high-school students agreed with the statement that immigrants "pose a serious threat to our national distinctive character", according to the poll, which was taken in connection with a countrywide school vote ahead of Norway's general election on September 12.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1806705,00.html

Problem is, these mentalities are actually widespread! I've had friends in Sweden tell me how girls there do indeed often think it's partially their fault for not being "sensitive enough to the culture of immigrants." Scandinavians are in part conformists, and if you have an idiot elite telling you how to think, then such problems will arise.
<snip>


Consenssus understanding is widespread here, but Norway and Denmark are very different than Sweden when it comes to Muslims.

Catholics are often steotyped as having pedophilic priests, I should know as it happens to many of my friends.

Not the same thing at all.

Catholic churchgoers do not wear priest outfits.
Catholic churchgoers are not priests.

The PRIESTS are the ones who are stereotyped as child molesters.



You cannot "look" at a Muslim.

What?

Uhh...yes you can.



Islam is a faith not a race.

Uhh...yeah.
Thats been my point all along.
Thing is, you can look at look at someone from that region, and say "Hes probably a Muslim", and you'll probably be right.


Your not turning the issue into anti-arab racism

What?!

You do realise Ive been arguing AGAINST that very thing, right?


and yes I would agree with you there, the situation is somewhat appaling.

Intellegent criticism of Islam is very diffrent to racial sterotyping of Arabs.

Yes it is, and this thread in wich we are posting, was created to criticize Muslims, by a poster, known for his racism.
Ask him when he last created a thread about a Muslim, that portrayed the individual, or the religion, in a positive light.

And I for one welcome our new fascist overlords as the best possible alternative to being killed or enslaved as infidels.

*goosesteps*

Die fahne hoch!Mitläufer. Learn to spell.

Except for all the rest of us yes .I was asking him about that because he's shown a great disdain for letting Americans "return" to Europe. That and his definition of "indigenous" seems to bend whichever direction he needs it to.

http://www.globalconspiracyvideos.com/powerofnightmares/

:rolleyes:

Not the same thing at all.

Catholic churchgoers do not wear priest outfits.
Catholic churchgoers are not priests.

The PRIESTS are the ones who are stereotyped as child molesters.

And the catholics are the ones who are sterotyped as following them

And it isnt just that. Christians are portrayed as bible bashing hilbillys who ignore science and indoctrinate their children with their beliefs that cannot be logically defended, and all the evidence that supports it is rubbish. I've been a Christian long enough to know these things.


What?

Uhh...yes you can.

You misunderstand

When someone walks onto a bus you cannot tell by looking at them if they are a Muslim or not.


Uhh...yeah.
Thats been my point all along.
Thing is, you can look at look at someone from that region, and say "Hes probably a Muslim", and you'll probably be right.

It isn't anti-Muslim then, it is Anti-Arab. You are draging intellegent criticism of Islam and tarring it with the same brush as racisim against Arabs.


What?!

You do realise Ive been arguing AGAINST that very thing, right?.

Again you misunderstand

By saying that people look at people on buses and discriminate against them because of what they look like, what you are talking about is a racial prejudice, not a religious one.


Yes it is, and this thread in wich we are posting, was created to criticize Muslims, by a poster, known for his racism.
Ask him when he last created a thread about a Muslim, that portrayed the individual, or the religion, in a positive light.

You cannot criticise an individuals argument on her or his previous arguments record. You must weigh up each argument with the same scales.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11830479&postcount=179

I responed to what you actually said or did you not notice? You misused the word invasion and you misused intentionally to hyperbolize the situation. I reacted to it, a normal part of debate. Perhaps you don't know the difference between "it's ridiculous to suggest the Muslims are invading" and "you're black", but one is a response and one is you proving you're racist and incapable of addressing the actual posts.

Thank you for proving that you don't see a difference between a response to what is written and ad hominems. I think people have been suggesting exactly that pretty much the entire time.

Mitläufer. Learn to spell.

Hey, listen, I didn't get on the bandwagon. Le mouvement, c'est moi!

And what's wrong with my spelling?

And the catholics are the ones who are sterotyped as following them

And it isnt just that. Christians are portrayed as bible bashing hilbillys who ignore science and indoctrinate their children with their beliefs that cannot be logically defended, and all the evidence that supports it is rubbish. I've been a Christian long enough to know these things.



You misunderstand

When someone walks onto a bus you cannot tell by looking at them if they are a Muslim or not.



It isn't anti-Muslim then, it is Anti-Arab. You are draging intellegent criticism of Islam and tarring it with the same brush as racisim against Arabs.



Again you misunderstand

By saying that people look at people on buses and discriminate against them because of what they look like, what you are talking about is a racial prejudice, not a religious one.



You cannot criticise an individuals argument on her or his previous arguments record. You must weigh up each argument with the same scales.

Seriously, you can close your eyes and pretend like the majority of anti-Muslim sentiment isn't also racial prejudice but the fact is that it is. Anti-Arab sentiment=anti-Muslim sentiment for most people. Most people don't even know that some countries in the middle east aren't arab. There is a phenomenal amount of ignorance backing these types of arguments. You can close your eyes to it, but it doesn't make it go away.

And on that last point, patently untrue. Arguments don't exist in a vacuum. His/her previous arguments show us the context of the current argument. This isn't a debate club. These are people actually arguing what they believe. Unless what they believe has changed since yesterday, yesterday's arguments have bearing. Are you going to argue you can't judge this post on the last post in the same thread? You must weigh up each post individually? The fact is context is what allows us to make intelligent assessments of the direction of arguments.

I was asking him about that because he's shown a great disdain for letting Americans "return" to Europe. That and his definition of "indigenous" seems to bend whichever direction he needs it to.


Dude has issues ...:D



I have family in Bayern ( Germany ) And Palermo ( Sicily ) And Calabria and Naples in Italy ...


Do I disown them when I was born in the United States ?:D

The USA is a racist country..granted.... but so VERY ironic because so many came here to get away from the racist attitudes of Europe and other countries.;)

We wanted freedom of religion etc....but we also want to be able to put religion in places it doesnt belong...like a public school classroom ..
But all in all being an American seems to blend all the races and cultures and religions fairly successfully .

It must be hard to be in a country like Norway...everyone is Norwegian:D Except for the immigrants so its easily seen and easy to stand out as "different " and Oh so easy to be afraid of losing the National Identity through the dilution of the racial make up of that country...BUT in the USA we are all " mutts " so we hate everyone more or less equally...whatever the race du jour is..Mexicans right now ...was Asians for a while ...in one NJ town its too many Brazilians ....( how you can have TOO MANY Brazilians..especially women is beyond my ken ) .

I can easily see how European countries can have immigrant issues with Muslims . Its not like you are a true EU , your still made up of a bunch of different nationalities and cultures seperated by choice into your own little social groupings .;)

Just like in high school ...and the Muslims are the new kids....:D

Hey, listen, I didn't get on the bandwagon. Le mouvement, c'est moi!

And what's wrong with my spelling?Figure that one out for yourself. I charge for corrections.

Seriously, you can close your eyes and pretend like the majority of anti-Muslim sentiment isn't also racial prejudice but the fact is that it is..

Thats what I was saying. It is racial prejudice in some part, but you must avoid tarring intellegent criticism of Islam with racism agains Arabs.


And on that last point, patently untrue. Arguments don't exist in a vacuum. His/her previous arguments show us the context of the current argument. This isn't a debate club. These are people actually arguing what they believe. Unless what they believe has changed since yesterday, yesterday's arguments have bearing. Are you going to argue you can't judge this post on the last post in the same thread? You must weigh up each post individually? The fact is context is what allows us to make intelligent assessments of the direction of arguments.

You have to judge the individual arguments, IE the collected series of statements which are intended to establish a proposition. To judge the person making the argument is AdHomein.

Thats what I was saying. It is racial prejudice in some part, but you must avoid tarring intellegent criticism of Islam with racism agains Arabs.



You have to judge the individual arguments, IE the collected series of statements which are intended to establish a proposition. To judge the person making the argument is AdHomein.

We're not judging the person making the statements. To say his agenda is racist isn't about him, it's about his arguments. And in this case he has a history of being less than honest about his agenda. For example, he claims that it's not about race, but then says that he judges whether one is welcome in Europe by 'ethnicity and culture' and talks about Americans have 'good' Muslims that are welcome (because they're not from the middle-east) and how Turks are not welcome even if they become a part of the EU. He makes it very clear that it is about your genetic makeup, posts threads about how certain races are difficient, dismisses reasonable arguments made by people because they aren't the right KIND of person, posts things like 'yo, bro, wassup?' as bait to a guy he thinks is black, says that his goal is a majority white world, etc.

Again, without the vacuum one has to address the fact that when he posts and article and pretends like it's an even-handed analysis, that the article isn't representative of what he happened across, but of a biased argument he sought out to paint Muslims a certain way.

Without the vacuum, one has to address the FACT that reasoned arguments have been made and they are rarely addressed. Check this thread. NN always has time to respond to people suggesting he is racist or being absurd, but no time to respond to more substantive posts.

Without the vacuum, one cannot ignore that he has a particular style that inhibits debate on purpose. Threads used to go on for 100's of pages with him never addressing a single actual argument. Now, we make the arguments against his points, show how he is inconsistent and what his agenda is and move on.

Meanwhile, I'll let you know when I see an intelligent criticism of Islam. Any criticism that pretends like a small group of radicals represent Islam is not an intelligent criticism. His OP says things we've already debated. Debates he lost. He claims the native populations are declining in the OP but later makes a post himself that says that native populations are increasing just not as fast as he'd like. He has repeatedly ignored this simply to make the same arguments over and over. His intelligent criticism in the OP clearly states his concern that whites won't be in the majority.

Meanwhile, here is his intelligent criticism -
Then you cant be told what muslim-immigrants-in-europe is, you have to experience it yourself. ;)
Dismisses a person from the debate because they aren't in Europe.

Amazing. I'm answering to a irrelevant Brazillian.
Again, you're not the right KIND of person, you're not welcome to speak.

Of course given your incapacity at discussion
Again, I don't have to answer you because you're not capable of being involved here.

Keep in mind this is to three different posters, not just one.

I was right about you being black though, wasnt I?
Poster number four, again, as if their race or origin is significant to the discussion.

Need I go on. You let me know when the intelligent criticism of Islam begins in these posts. You let me know why a substantive reply gets no response while those that talk about the racism in his posts, he always has time for. Any positive attention he ignores, and any negative attention he thrives on and the proof is born out on these forums over and over.

Figure that one out for yourself. I charge for corrections.

What, are you talking about not capitalising the F? :rolleyes:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=indigenous

Good. Thank you.

So anyone who is an indigenous European but who cannot or will not be integrated into the European culture(s) - whatever that is - are suddenly immigrants? Even if their families have lived there for generations before them? So how would this work? Could you suddenly become an immigrant if you decided you would refuse to be a part of the European cultures, and somehow reversed the integration process?


:rolleyes: x 100. Besides the differences in American muslims and say, pakistani muslims, muslims are like 1% of the American population. Besides, we were talking about "most Americans" with Laerod, not muslims. What is astounding is your lack of reading comprehension. I suggest you to read the posts I'm answering to, not just mine.
Yay! That's the first reading-comprehension-failure you've given me. I feel so honoured. Though that basic defence is getting old, don't you think?









As for the question, anyone who isnt indigenous European is an immigrant in Europe. Anyone who is indigenous European but who can not be integrated into the European culture(s) (ex: some muslims) are immigrant in Europe as well. So basically I define immigrants based on ethnical and cultural grounds.So most Americans are European?If they can be integrated into European cultures. That requires living here for awhile.You can do the same with other immigrants.You know that I dont think that. Besides, Americans are light years closer culturally than, say, muslims...
I did read it all. And I stand by my statement. You didn't mention anything about american muslims and pakistani muslims in your statement. You claimed that those with american nationality are closer to europeans culturally then those who adhere to the islamic faith. The one does not exclude the other, and your failure to differentiate makes your arguement fatally flawed.

And 1% of the US population is still 3.000.000 people. That's quite a lot of people, really.

snip.
Superb post.
Well thought-out, well-reasoned, rational and very, very readable.
Shame it'll be ignored by the poster who needs above attributes the most (give you a clue: his forum name is alliterative).

If I had posted the article would you have reacted differently?

I guess that depends on whether your intention on posting it was to illustrate the "genocide" of "whites" by immigrants, specifically "inferior" Muslim immigrants, with the goal of perpetrating fear and bigotry. Would it?

I am in favour of debating the article. The person who posted it is of little relevance.

That's an awfully abstract way to look at things. People are very important in my way of thinking, people's motives and intentions, their desires and fears. And in this case, it's the fears (and desires) of the poster which made him post it in the first place. IMO I'm just getting to the heart of the matter, NN being afraid.

As for debate, I don't usually like to do it much on these forums anymore. Just doesn't seem to have a point. At least it doesn't in the case of people whose idea of 'reasoning' is, "Our birth rates are decreasing, theirs are increasing, THEY ARE COMMITTING GENOCIDE AND EVIL!"

So you want to sink to the level of an Islamophobic bigot?

I like to think that by not being an Islamophobic bigot, I'm not sinking to the level of one.

Consenssus understanding is widespread here, but Norway and Denmark are very different than Sweden when it comes to Muslims.
Are they? The professor I made mention of is Norwegian...

Dernmark is different, yes. On Norway I cannot comment without more information.

As for this debate, and any debate with NN, you know what would be most useful? If you actually ignored the ad-hominems and kept the debate focused. Instead, we have response in kind and equally prejudicial mindsets. If someone - God forbid - happens to single out good points NN made, they too are racist bigots! :eek:

I have a new policy - from now on, as much as possible, I will ignore any personal comment that is worthless to the argument. If need be, I'll argue in a vacuum ignoring personal prejudices.

Then debate the article.
I would like to. Would you?

However, the entire reason for its existance in to point out a racist agenda.
In the case of the poster, its very relevant.
So this article is, in your opinion, a piece of racist propaganda?

A stereotypical Christian isnt associated with a "Terrorist", any more than a Catholic is often accused of being a pedophile.

Depends on when and where. In the USA? Probably not. In 1970s Northern Ireland, Catholics often were associated with terrorism.

I guess that depends on whether your intention on posting it was to illustrate the "genocide" of "whites" by immigrants, specifically "inferior" Muslim immigrants, with the goal of perpetrating fear and bigotry. Would it?
Did the article mention anything about genocide, or immigrant inferiority? Or even "whites"?

That's an awfully abstract way to look at things. People are very important in my way of thinking, people's motives and intentions, their desires and fears. And in this case, it's the fears (and desires) of the poster which made him post it in the first place. IMO I'm just getting to the heart of the matter, NN being afraid.
If that's your concern then it would be more useful to dissect the motives of the journalist who wrote the article. NN did nothing more than cut and paste.

As for debate, I don't usually like to do it much on these forums anymore. Just doesn't seem to have a point.
Indeed, it seems to have been a good while since you made a reply more than three lines long and said something more than "you're a racist! racist Nazi racist!"

I like to think that by not being an Islamophobic bigot, I'm not sinking to the level of one.
Then don't use their 'debating' style.

If need be, I'll argue in a vacuum ignoring personal prejudices.
Arguing in a vacuum is not a good idea, because no-one can hear you.

Indeed, it seems to have been a good while since you made a reply more than three lines long and said something more than "you're a racist! racist Nazi racist!"


Then don't use their 'debating' style.
I don't know why you're bothering - I've tried to do this before as well, to actually get people to focus on the matter at hand. All it does is manifest itself into a crescendo of petty ad-hominem attacks. And it's sad, because most involved are actually quite good debators. By the end of this, do not be surprised if you too get labelled as a racist bigot.

Arguing in a vacuum is not a good idea, because no-one can hear you.
Haha, if you want to be literal about it, yeah. :)

Did the article mention anything about genocide, or immigrant inferiority? Or even "whites"?


I don't see how that's relevant to my point about the poster.

If that's your concern then it would be more useful to dissect the motives of the journalist who wrote the article. NN did nothing more than cut and paste.

And he did nothing more than cut and paste when he posted his Angry White Female thread too. I didn't think it was worth it to argue with his source material then and his motives since haven't changed. I don't feel like indulging him.

Indeed, it seems to have been a good while since you made a reply more than three lines long and said something more than "you're a racist! racist Nazi racist!"

That's odd, the very post you're responding to is more than three lines long, as is this one, but I guess you're exagerrating for the purpose of trying to paint me as stupid, much like you simplify the very valid fact that the people I call bigots ARE.


Then don't use their 'debating' style.

Which style would that be again, making threads designed to piss people off and highlight an agenda of bigoted fearmongering?

By the end of this, do not be surprised if you too get labelled as a racist bigot.

Oh, right. The slippery slope. Evil evil Greater Trostia, calling everyone a racist - watch out, he'll call you one too! :rolleyes:

I call it like I see it - much like your friend Nazi Norland - but it's interesting how his lack of self-censorship doesn't bother you and mine does.

I don't see how that's relevant to my point about the poster.
So when are you going to get on to debating the content of the article?

I don't think we need dozens of posts to point out NN's obvious racism.

That's odd, the very post you're responding to is more than three lines long, as is this one, but I guess you're exagerrating for the purpose of trying to paint me as stupid, much like you simplify the very valid fact that the people I call bigots ARE.
I didn't say post, I said reply.

I'm not denying that NN and New Mitani are bigots. I am denying your allegation that they favour genocide of Muslims.

Which style would that be again, making threads designed to piss people off and highlight an agenda of bigoted fearmongering?
Yes, and your posts do the same thing.

I call it like I see it - much like your friend Nazi Norland - but it's interesting how his lack of self-censorship doesn't bother you and mine does.
Way to prove Maxima's point!

His lack of self-censorship doesn't bother me because I don't expect him to say much if anything worthwhile. On the other hand I expect more of you.

Oh, right. The slippery slope. Evil evil Greater Trostia, calling everyone a racist - watch out, he'll call you one too! :rolleyes:
You do have the tendency though - like the other day when I claimed that I doubted the Holocaust originally being part of the Nazi's masterplan, you hinted at me being a bigot. As if my having doubts on something means my approval of their actions...

I call it like I see it - much like your friend Nazi Norland - but it's interesting how his lack of self-censorship doesn't bother you and mine does.
Because you seem to claim some moral high ground. It would help if you acted accordingly... That ad-hominem you just inserted, for instance, was uncalled for. Don't worry though, to the extent that all that is hurled about is personal attacks, I'll look upon no one involved as a serious debator.

I have nothing more to say on this matter. I've clarified how I will conduct myself in future debates. I won't hold others up to this.

Way to prove Maxima's point!

His lack of self-censorship doesn't bother me because I don't expect him to say much if anything worthwhile. On the other hand I expect more of you.
The point is my friendship with NN has nothing to do with how I debate - I have, for instance, gone against NN on issues I found him to be wrong on (e.g. Iceland's economics).

So when are you going to get on to debating the content of the article?

I don't think we need dozens of posts to point out NN's obvious racism.

I haven't made dozens of posts on that here, but you'd be optimistic to assume it was obvious to everyone. Not everyone has been on these forums since NN started posting or remembers just where he's coming from - and he'll lie about it, too. I just like people to know. ;)

As for debating the content of the article, others can play that game if they want, I don't feel like it.

I'm not denying that NN and New Mitani are bigots. I am denying your allegation that they favour genocide of Muslims.

Advocating things like genocide, or murder for that matter, tends to be frowned on by the mods, so they tend to shy away from stating that sort of thing outright. For me it's a matter of 2 and 2 equalling 4, and having been around to read the myriad 2's. I don't think you have, and I don't think either one of us wants to wade through each and every post via search just to debate this.

Yes, and your posts do the same thing.

Uh, okay. Fearmongering? Like when. Agenda of bigotry? Like what.

Way to prove Maxima's point!

His lack of self-censorship doesn't bother me because I don't expect him to say much if anything worthwhile. On the other hand I expect more of you.

o_O

I wonder why I have such high expectations earned, when apparently all I do is make three line posts calling everyone a nazi...

You do have the tendency though - like the other day when I claimed that I doubted the Holocaust originally being part of the Nazi's masterplan, you hinted at me being a bigot. As if my having doubts on something means my approval of their actions...

It was that you stated the Holocaust happened for purely economic reasons. That is a way of excusing it - after all if I can't get a job, for economic reasons alone, it's not really my fault. If I kill a few million people, for economic reasons alone....

There is also no real economic argument to be made for mass murder. It was extremely expensive all the same, it wasted military resources and human resources, etc.

Look, I don't just call any opponent I argue with a bigot - I do however, argue a lot with bigots and I don't hesitate to call them out on it. You see the difference, yes?

Because you seem to claim some moral high ground. It would help if you acted accordingly... That ad-hominem you just inserted, for instance, was uncalled for.

Well, there is a moral high ground in not being a complete asshole who labels a billion people as being inferior. I consider ad hominems to be poor debating tactics, not a sign of moral weakness.

And BTW, why is saying NN is your friend, an ad hominem? I mean you just said he was here:

The point is my friendship with NN has nothing to do with how I debate - I have, for instance, gone against NN on issues I found him to be wrong on (e.g. Iceland's economics).

It's perfectly natural for right-wing Europeans on a board full of left-wing Americans to foster some sort of friendship. Natural and healthy. :)

Advocating things like genocide, or murder for that matter, tends to be frowned on by the mods, so they tend to shy away from stating that sort of thing outright. For me it's a matter of 2 and 2 equalling 4, and having been around to read the myriad 2's. I don't think you have, and I don't think either one of us wants to wade through each and every post via search just to debate this.
NN is actually against genocide. I'm the cold-hearted one in the trio (TAI, NN and I), but firmly against genocide. :)

There is also no real economic argument to be made for mass murder. It was extremely expensive all the same, it wasted military resources and human resources, etc.
I think you mistook me - I said that the Holocaust was the favoured course of action mainly due to economic, reasons, yes. Not that it wasn't free of racist sentiments though, or that economics is the only reason it happened.

Look, I don't just call any opponent I argue with a bigot - I do however, argue a lot with bigots and I don't hesitate to call them out on it. You see the difference, yes?

The best way to deal with bigotry is to undermine the arguments driving it - not personal attacks.


Well, there is a moral high ground in not being a complete asshole who labels a billion people as being inferior. I consider ad hominems to be poor debating tactics, not a sign of moral weakness.
Then I'd suggest you didn't use them. Unless, of course, you don't mind being a poor debator.

And BTW, why is saying NN is your friend, an ad hominem? I mean you just said he was here:

Lol, It wasn't me who highlighted this - I was clarifying something with regard to it.

It's perfectly natural for right-wing Europeans on a board full of left-wing Americans to foster some sort of friendship. Natural and healthy. :)
For the most part, you and I disagree on little. My only bone to pick with you is that instead of addressing the matter of hand, you resort to ad-hominems. It then spirals downwards.

(I love the reverse reality in that - a board of left-wing Americans surrounding two right-wing Europeans. Total reversion of the cliche. :) ).

I think you mistook me - I said that the Holocaust was the favoured course of action mainly due to economic, reasons, yes. Not that it wasn't free of racist sentiments though, or that economics is the only reason it happened.

Huh, I'm pretty sure you said something contrary to that before. Well, I'll remove the bigotry charge for now. :p

Still, it would never have happened without the policy of hate and bigotry. I am not convinced it never would have happened without economic reasons.

But we're off topic now.

Then I'd suggest you didn't use them. Unless, of course, you don't mind being a poor debator.

I don't, actually. I mean, not that I am incapable of formal debate, but it's hardly my main reason for posting on NSG.

Huh, I'm pretty sure you said something contrary to that before. Well, I'll remove the bigotry charge for now. :p
As I said, it's most likely you mistook what I said. It's quite outlandish, and illogical, to suggest the only reason it happened is economics.

But you're right, it's off topic.

*snip*

I find it amusing that you complain that no one will debate the article, but you've only replied to posts that are not about the article. Here's a tip, if you want people to talk about something other than the poster, it's probably best not to focus all of your attention on discussing the poster or people's replies about the poster. You're forcing people to defend their reactions, and your complaint has by far been the biggest hijack so far and I'm sure NN is loving every minute of it.

Good. Thank you.

So anyone who is an indigenous European but who cannot or will not be integrated into the European culture(s) - whatever that is - are suddenly immigrants? Even if their families have lived there for generations before them? So how would this work? Could you suddenly become an immigrant if you decided you would refuse to be a part of the European cultures, and somehow reversed the integration process?


Yes they are immigrants, not natives. Similarly, white Americans whose descandents lived in USA for centuries arent native Americans. You know, native Americans are only indigenous Americans, i.e: Amerindans.



Yay! That's the first reading-comprehension-failure you've given me. I feel so honoured. Though that basic defence is getting old, don't you think?


I did read it all. And I stand by my statement. You didn't mention anything about american muslims and pakistani muslims in your statement. You claimed that those with american nationality are closer to europeans culturally then those who adhere to the islamic faith. The one does not exclude the other, and your failure to differentiate makes your arguement fatally flawed.

And 1% of the US population is still 3.000.000 people. That's quite a lot of people, really.


So most Americans are European?


Get it? What do you think he meant by most Americans? And those were the Americans I was talking about.

I responed to what you actually said or did you not notice? You misused the word invasion and you misused intentionally to hyperbolize the situation. I reacted to it, a normal part of debate. Perhaps you don't know the difference between "it's ridiculous to suggest the Muslims are invading" and "you're black", but one is a response and one is you proving you're racist and incapable of addressing the actual posts.

Thank you for proving that you don't see a difference between a response to what is written and ad hominems. I think people have been suggesting exactly that pretty much the entire time.

I laid out my concerns, supported by statistical data. You interpreted it as me having a "they are out to get me" thinking. That's moronic at best.
Then your claims that I dismiss people's opinion because they are black, jewish etc. I do dismiss a black person's opinions while discussing immigration to europe, but that doesnt mean I dismiss all of their opinions, ex: dismissing medical advice from a black doctor. This is a differentiation you seem to not make. And then you add "jews" there. The only reason I asked you if you are a jew was because of your nick, not because you had disagreed with me. But through your flawed understanding, it was added there with the "dismissed list." These are just 3 examples of your stupid understanding of what I had said. You make many more misunderstandings, maybe manipulate what I said intentionally, I dont know.
Frankly, I really dont care much about you so I'm not interested at further explanation of my thinking. And that's why I dont bother to answer most of your posts. But I kindly ask you that you do not give your funny version of my thinking to third parties. They should ask me what I think, you shouldnt jump in and make couple LONG posts about MY THINKING. Seriously, get a life.

Advocating things like genocide, or murder for that matter, tends to be frowned on by the mods, so they tend to shy away from stating that sort of thing outright. For me it's a matter of 2 and 2 equalling 4, and having been around to read the myriad 2's. I don't think you have, and I don't think either one of us wants to wade through each and every post via search just to debate this.


Discussing me on several lengthy posts? Seriously, you too, get a life.

As for 2+2:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826093&postcount=7

Discussing me on several lengthy posts? Seriously, you too, get a life.

Now didn't you make a decision several weeks and/or months ago to ignore me and what I had to say? You know, to preserve the delicate network of delusions which is all that kept your precarious mental health from plunging into the abyss of despair and humiliation. ;)



As for 2+2:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826093&postcount=7

Oh! So you're against genocide! Not because it's immoral, but because it's never been done right! There are still those pesky Jews around!

...yep. 2+2 indeed.

I laid out my concerns, supported by statistical data. You interpreted it as me having a "they are out to get me" thinking. That's moronic at best.
Then your claims that I dismiss people's opinion because they are black, jewish etc. I do dismiss a black person's opinions while discussing immigration to europe, but that doesnt mean I dismiss all of their opinions, ex: dismissing medical advice from a black doctor. This is a differentiation you seem to not make. And then you add "jews" there. The only reason I asked you if you are a jew was because of your nick, not because you had disagreed with me. But through your flawed understanding, it was added there with the "dismissed list." These are just 3 examples of your stupid understanding of what I had said. You make many more misunderstandings, maybe manipulate what I said intentionally, I dont know.
Frankly, I really dont care much about you so I'm not interested at further explanation of my thinking. And that's why I dont bother to answer most of your posts. But I kindly ask you that you do not give your funny version of my thinking to third parties. They should ask me what I think, you shouldnt jump in and make couple LONG posts about MY THINKING. Seriously, get a life.

I didn't manipulate what you said. You've repeatedly, repeatedly argued that certain people are not qualified to exponse the absurdity of your posts. If your posts are based on solid logic and evidence, then you'd never have a need to dismiss a black poster as unqualified, or anyone else. The fact that you need to do so is evidence that you cannot do so through other means.

Me, I address both. The fact that you're a racist who just said the problem with genocide is that it doesn't work and that black people aren't welcome to comment on immigration in Europe despite the fact that black people have as much right to be in Europe, vote in Europe and weigh their opinion on Europe as you are. There are mountains of cogent posts in this thread you've ignored, prefering to add comments like 'yo bro, wassup?' We all know that you can't address those cogent posts and that's why you dismiss them any way you can think. By WE, I mean we all. Everyone knows it.

So, hey, about you prove us all wrong and actually dismiss arguments using something that isn't an ad hominem fallacy.

Discussing me on several lengthy posts? Seriously, you too, get a life.

As for 2+2:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11826093&postcount=7

You couldn't have picked a better way to capture your argument -

I'm sure even the most racist people learned their lesson from 20th century. I.e: genocide doesnt work.

ex 1: Today's jews
ex 2: Armenians

Genocide isn't effective enough according to NN. Enough said.

καμία ένδειξη αιγών -αίγα-σχητ

I am in europe, sort of. Well britain, we don't really care about europe but we are lumped in with it.
I am also worried about islam. It seems mental. To be fair, I live in Scotland and I don't know any muslem guys. But down in england, they have set off bombs, walked about with inexplicable placards bearing the words, 'Behead anyone who says islam is violent' (I'm not joking), and taken up about 20% of the newspaper headlines even though they are like 1% of the population.

I don't hate them any more than I hate christian fucks. But there is no smoke without fire. And the new guy has to fit in or get messed up really. They are new and seem to stick out like sore thumbs because of their differentness. I don't want to be a harbinger, but I see bad times for them.
Christians are discreet and able to deny believing in nonsense if you ask them, muslems wear mad clothes and always argue if you call religion crap.

Apparently Al-Qaeda have identified britain as their main target. Do they think that is going to make their islamic brothers safer here? I'm scared for them because they are going to get dealt if they are not careful. Just because they occasionally do crazy stuff like suicide blasts, can't stop the majority ie: other religions/atheists etc from getting bored of them and taking inhumane retalliation. It might even happen soon.

You couldn't have picked a better way to capture your argument -



Genocide isn't effective enough according to NN. Enough said.

Yes it isnt effective enough. Violence never or almost never works.

Yes they are immigrants, not natives. Similarly, white Americans whose descandents lived in USA for centuries arent native Americans. You know, native Americans are only indigenous Americans, i.e: Amerindans.

I see... So you're using the widest definition possible of immigrants, and you're basically saying that almost all of the people in Europe are immigrants - except for the Basques and the Sami.

Now, a hypothetical: As the sami culture is an indigenous european culture... What happens to a sami that doesn't want to adapt to the sami/european culture for some reason? Maybe a sami who converts to Islam? He is suddenly re-classified as an immigrant under your definition, is he not?

Get it? What do you think he meant by most Americans? And those were the Americans I was talking about.
You still don't make sense. You're saying that [the inhabitants of this geographic area] are light years closer culturally to [the people of this geographic area] than [the followers of this religion] are.

Apples and oranges.

The point is my friendship with NN has nothing to do with how I debate - I have, for instance, gone against NN on issues I found him to be wrong on (e.g. Iceland's economics).

:rolleyes: I'm like impressed, or something.

I see... So you're using the widest definition possible of immigrants, and you're basically saying that almost all of the people in Europe are immigrants - except for the Basques and the Sami.


Yes and I'm not the only one. During American immigration debates, many people remind that "we are all immigrants", pointing to the immigrant status of white Americans and the fact that they arent natives.


Now, a hypothetical: As the sami culture is an indigenous european culture... What happens to a sami that doesn't want to adapt to the sami/european culture for some reason? Maybe a sami who converts to Islam? He is suddenly re-classified as an immigrant under your definition, is he not?


Perhaps. Or we can call it an exception since Sami population is in tens of thousands out of hundreds of millions in Europe. And they arent growing more than avarage like the muslims.

I do not understand why you are so eager to find exceptions. There are almost exceptions to anything. Despite, the fact that noble gasses participate in chemical reactions rarely, we still call their electron configuration stable. Exceptions dont change the rules. Just because USA is 1% muslim, it doesnt mean we cant talk about an American culture collectively different than muslims' as the main stream culture is much different than muslim cultures.



You still don't make sense. You're saying that [the inhabitants of this geographic area] are light years closer culturally to [the people of this geographic area] than [the followers of this religion] are.

Apples and oranges.

By discussing "most Americans", we were excluding the muslim Americans anyways. Besides, are you denying that geographical areas are correlated with religion? Like North America is mostly christian? Like the Mid East overwhelmingly muslim? I do not understand why you dont apply basic logic?

And then it's not even apples and oranges again. We are discussing people and culture. And religion is related with those concepts. I do not understand why this has been so hard for you to understand.

Yes it isnt effective enough. Violence never or almost never works.

So you're chief argument that you're not a racist because you're not violent is really a result of the fact that you're issue with violence is it doesn't work.

Genocide is a horrific act. the fact that it doesn't work is one of the better things about it.

Let me ask you this, Ny - are you saying that if it did work you'd consider genocide as a solution to Muslims?

Yes and I'm not the only one. During American immigration debates, many people remind that "we are all immigrants", pointing to the immigrant status of white Americans and the fact that they arent natives.

That's not really the point. You don't treat everyone like immigrants. You treat white people like they get special status in Europe, so much so that you called Samis an 'exception'.

Perhaps. Or we can call it an exception since Sami population is in tens of thousands out of hundreds of millions in Europe. And they arent growing more than avarage like the muslims.

I do not understand why you are so eager to find exceptions. There are almost exceptions to anything. Despite, the fact that noble gasses participate in chemical reactions rarely, we still call their electron configuration stable. Exceptions dont change the rules. Just because USA is 1% muslim, it doesnt mean we cant talk about an American culture collectively different than muslims' as the main stream culture is much different than muslim cultures.

Because exceptions disprove theories except when one is very eager to ignore them because it would poke a hole in one's blissful ignorance.

Valid theories incorporate exceptions not ignore them. Your theories pretend as if the Sami don't exist.


By discussing "most Americans", we were excluding the muslim mericans anyways. Besides, are you denying that geographical areas are correlated with religion? Like North America is mostly christian? Like the Mid East overwhelmingly muslim? I do not understand why you dont apply basic logic?

And then it's not even apples and oranges again. We are discussing people and culture. And religion is related with those concepts. I do not understand why this has been so hard for you to understand.

Actually, basic logic says that one should not generalize if evidence contradicts the generality. They should use terminology that actually removes the exceptions. Now here is what you said -
"If they can be integrated into European cultures. That requires living here for awhile."

Yep, nothing about what you said eliminates the people you are trying to eliminate.

"You know that I dont think that. Besides, Americans are light years closer culturally than, say, muslims..."

Again, you didn't actually word this so that there wasn't a contradiction. Logic would tell one that you don't consider Muslims to be Americans or Americans to be Muslims. You're statement is improperly worded if there is an overlap in groups. That's basic logic and grammar.

Next time you try to 'educate' someone on basic logic. How about you start by employing it? Unless you were trying to be a negative example.

Correllation doesn't make you're generalizing correct because you're not accounting for the exceptions. That makes your statements counter to logic.

:rolleyes: I'm like impressed, or something.
I really don't care. :)

I really don't care. :)

You do realize though, that your claim was pretty much equivalent to saying "I can't be racist because I have black friends."

Hey ...taking about American Muslims....what flavor Muslim are you refering to ? We have a large diversity of Muslims from different cultures and they do not all believe the same thing.

The Police commisioner of my city along with members of our city council are muslim..I live in the sixth largest city in the USA...Muslims are not the small minority you might think and they have been comming to the USA and assimilating for decades just like all the other cultures races and religions do..

In fact I believe thats what America is ,,..a great big melting pot...we are all Americans first then what ever flavor culture /religion/ cult/ race/ gender.

Europe doesnt work that way...:eek:

Hmmmm so thats why everybody runs to emmigrate to the USA !

Europe is like a social club that restricts membership.:p

You do realize though, that your claim was pretty much equivalent to saying "I can't be racist because I have black friends."

Like he said, he really doesn't care. More's the pity.

By the way, NN claimed that Muslims represent 1% of the US population. In 1990, there were 5 million Muslims in the US.

http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html

The US population at the time was around 250 Million. That makes 2%. Just thought I'd clarify that. It's debatable, so I'm not saying he's wrong, but most estimates have it higher than 1% but a considerable amount. It doesn't qualitatively change the argument.

By the way, NN claimed that Muslims represent 1% of the US population. In 1990, there were 5 million Muslims in the US.

http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html

The US population at the time was around 250 Million. That makes 2%. Just thought I'd clarify that. It's debatable, so I'm not saying he's wrong, but most estimates have it higher than 1% but a considerable amount. It doesn't qualitatively change the argument.

Except that now it's 2006, and the US population is 300 million.

Except that now it's 2006, and the US population is 300 million.


And more Muslims..:D

You do realize though, that your claim was pretty much equivalent to saying "I can't be racist because I have black friends."
So you assume, a priori, that because we are friends that this will change my own positions in a debate? And how is it the equivalent?

Like he said, he really doesn't care. More's the pity.
I honestly would like to know, what does it matter to you?

Except that now it's 2006, and the US population is 300 million.

Assuming not one more Muslim has been born or arrived in the US (an invalid assumption) then it would still be 1.7%.

So you assume, a priori, that because we are friends that this will change my own positions in a debate? And how is it the equivalent?

The truth is that it's really not evidence either way. That's my point. No more so than a black friend would prove someone wasn't racist. You made a claim that really has no bearing on the issue.

Meanwhile, were I you, I'd ignore the entire thing. You tend to agree with NN. You guys would tend to agree even if you'd never met. I know that and you know that. Why you'd bother with that line of argument is beyond me? And, no, I'm not attacking you. I get a lot of that with GnI, Dempublicents1, and various others who I tend to agree with. It's a distraction from the argument and not really worth addressing.

I only commented because your reply was funny and really didn't do anything to address the comment you were replying to.

I only commented because your reply was funny and really didn't do anything to address the comment you were replying to.
Fair enough - all is well then.

Now, a hypothetical: As the sami culture is an indigenous european culture... What happens to a sami that doesn't want to adapt to the sami/european culture for some reason? Maybe a sami who converts to Islam? He is suddenly re-classified as an immigrant under your definition, is he not?
No need, they're already quite badly oppressed in Norway.

And more Muslims..:D

I'm willing to wager that non-muslims have outgrown muslims in those 16 years.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,443751,00.html
Western politicians increasingly cite the growing radicalization of Muslim immigrants as a justification for policies that have seemed to many to herald the end of multiculturalism. But is this radicalization fact or fantasy?

[...]

The percentage of French Muslims who identify themselves as French first and Muslim second is twice the percentage of those in Britain who say they are British first and then Muslims.

According to a 2004 poll more than 90 percent of French Muslim respondents said that "gender equality and other French republican values were important to them."

A 2005 study of North Africans, sub- Saharan Africans and Turks found that roughly the same percentage call themselves religious as do members of the general population, and that French Muslims attend religious services no more frequently than French Catholics, Jews or Protestants; 68 percent of the Muslims interrogated support the separation of religion and state.

Also, an interview with a really smart guy, Bassam Tibi: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,440340,00.html
That one is worth having a look at.

Porn and Sex in the Muslim world: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,443678,00.html

And stories of ten different marriages in the Muslim world: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,438488,00.html

Seriously, you can close your eyes and pretend like the majority of anti-Muslim sentiment isn't also racial prejudice but the fact is that it is. Anti-Arab sentiment=anti-Muslim sentiment for most people. Most people don't even know that some countries in the middle east aren't arab. There is a phenomenal amount of ignorance backing these types of arguments. You can close your eyes to it, but it doesn't make it go away.

And on that last point, patently untrue. Arguments don't exist in a vacuum. His/her previous arguments show us the context of the current argument. This isn't a debate club. These are people actually arguing what they believe. Unless what they believe has changed since yesterday, yesterday's arguments have bearing. Are you going to argue you can't judge this post on the last post in the same thread? You must weigh up each post individually? The fact is context is what allows us to make intelligent assessments of the direction of arguments.


My sentiments exactly.

Albiet a bit more eloquently put than I can usually muster.

I would like to. Would you?

I have said my piece pertaining the actual article already, If you have issue with anything I have said, feel free to explain where you feel I am in error.
I will be happy to validate myself to any fool who cares to listen.


So this article is, in your opinion, a piece of racist propaganda?

The article itself?
No.

This thread, and its use of the article?

Yes.

Considering the poster, becuase I feel the person who did so is relevant to the point, yes.
Its another example of showing bad example after bad example of muslims, in an attempt to stereotype them.
Much like the propoganda the Germans spread about the Jews, that lead up to KrystralNacht.

Its displaying negative image after negative image about a culture, and implying that the entirety of that group are "evil", or otherwise deserving of hatred.


Depends on when and where. In the USA? Probably not. In 1970s Northern Ireland, Catholics often were associated with terrorism.

So were Protestants.
Your point?


Did the article mention anything about genocide, or immigrant inferiority? Or even "whites"?

Again, its not the article itself I have issue with.
A gun is simply a tool, until its used to kill someone.


If that's your concern then it would be more useful to dissect the motives of the journalist who wrote the article. NN did nothing more than cut and paste.

see above.

Finally Europe starts to wake up.
Alas Europe is doomed, as a race of different peoples they lack the moral fibre to do anything about the muslim problem.
Weakened by years of social engineering wrought by feminists, they have a huge lack of men who have any of the instilled courage their grandfathers had.
I see bad times looming for Europe including alot of raping of unprotected caucasian women by muslims.
Europe, a victim of its own stupidity, zero population growth, bringing in vastly different cultures that were never going to mix in with the native culture.
The future of 'Europe' will be prayertowers everywhere calling both the faithful and enslaved.

Finally Europe starts to wake up.
Alas Europe is doomed, as a race of different peoples they lack the moral fibre to do anything about the muslim problem.
Weakened by years of social engineering wrought by feminists, they have a huge lack of men who have any of the instilled courage their grandfathers had.
I see bad times looming for Europe including alot of raping of unprotected caucasian women by muslims.
Europe, a victim of its own stupidity, zero population growth, bringing in vastly different cultures that were never going to mix in with the native culture.
The future of 'Europe' will be prayertowers everywhere calling both the faithful and enslaved.

Whos puppet are you?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,443751,00.html


Also, an interview with a really smart guy, Bassam Tibi: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,440340,00.html
That one is worth having a look at.

Porn and Sex in the Muslim world: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,443678,00.html

And stories of ten different marriages in the Muslim world: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,438488,00.html

So it's imporatant to them but more important than their own cultural traditions?
And what is the actual % of muslims who call themselves french first, despite the fact that it is 2 times more than the % in UK, I wonder.


Samira Bellil would have much preferred to live a quiet life that didn't become the basis for a best-selling book. But after years of psychological torment caused by repeated gang rapes in one of the banlieues — the destitute public housing projects that ring most French cities — she penned Dans l'enfer des tournantes ("In the hell of the tournantes"; the last word is a slang term for gang rape). Published last month, the book has shocked France with its graphic accounts of the attacks and Bellil's impassioned denunciation of the increasing violence and sexual abuse committed against young women in the banlieues. Since 1999, rapes within the banlieue have increased by 15% to 20% every year. Dedicated to the countless "sisters in this hell, so they'll know there's a way out," Bellil shows precisely how and why sex crimes are surging in the projects. "As children of immigrants, we receive a strict upbringing and are judged very harshly if we stray from it," says the Algerian-born Bellil, 29, who was raised in a non-practicing Muslim household. "From the moment a girl steps outside, guys think they have the right to pass judgment and treat us differently. In extreme cases, this leads to violence or aggression."

" Your reputation is important in the projects. It follows you everywhere. A girl can be branded easy or a little slut even if she does nothing wrong."
— Samira Bellil, author of Dans L'Enfer des Tournantes


In Bellil's own case, it led to a horrific sequence of gang rapes, in which she was brutalized in fetid apartments and on the ground between filthy trash cans. When one attack was over, her assailants offered Bellil compensation in the form of breakfast and a 10-franc coin. Though the assaults occurred in the late 1980s, Bellil didn't speak up or press charges until three other girls attacked by the same gang appealed to her. Bellil decided to write about the experience now to call attention to the spate of banlieue gang rapes and the perverse attitudes toward sex that feed the crimes.


Reports of sexual assaults against women have risen across France, with court convictions for rape having soared by 61% between 1995 to 2000. But specialists and victims' groups say violence against women is especially acute in the banlieues because of cultural attitudes toward women. Banlieue males may adopt the lifestyles of other French youths — pop music, fast cars and pornography — but they also frequently embrace the traditional prejudices of their immigrant parents when it comes to women: any neighborhood girl who smokes, uses makeup or wears attractive clothes is a whore. Bellil's attackers targeted her because she dressed as she pleased, mixed with males and liked to dance — and had begun a romance with another teen. Owing to the fact that most rapes involve individuals known to victims, intimidation often suffices to ensure that charges are never lodged. "Victims know that they won't be protected by the police," says Bellil, "and that both they and their families will be threatened if they speak up."

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/1202/crime/bellil.htm




Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union

By David Rennie, Europe Correspondent
(Filed: 05/10/2006)

Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.

As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.

It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.


Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml)

Finally Europe starts to wake up.
Alas Europe is doomed, as a race of different peoples they lack the moral fibre to do anything about the muslim problem.
Weakened by years of social engineering wrought by feminists, they have a huge lack of men who have any of the instilled courage their grandfathers had.
I see bad times looming for Europe including alot of raping of unprotected caucasian women by muslims.
Europe, a victim of its own stupidity, zero population growth, bringing in vastly different cultures that were never going to mix in with the native culture.
The future of 'Europe' will be prayertowers everywhere calling both the faithful and enslaved.
Haha, look Ny Nordland, these are the kind of people on your side.

Haha, look Ny Nordland, these are the kind of people on your side.

And muslim immigrants are on your side. :)

Not to mention even animal rights activists have weird people on their side, like assasins (Pim Fortyn)...

I'm willing to wager that non-muslims have outgrown muslims in those 16 years.

Even if they have it will still stand to reason that the percentage is closer to 2%. Meanwhile, why would Muslims outgrow non-Muslims for the past 16 years? Or is the fact that you're willing to wager supposed to be enough for us?

And muslim immigrants are on your side. :)

Not to mention even animal rights activists have weird people on their side, like assasins (Pim Fortyn)...

Good. I prefer them to you.

I think this article from the Washington Post kinda ties into your point about Muslims not fitting in.

Clothes Aren't the Issue

By Asra Q. Nomani
Sunday, October 22, 2006; B01

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. When dealing with a "disobedient wife," a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of "the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost."

Such appalling recommendations, drawn from the book "Woman in the Shade of Islam" by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha, are inspired by as authoritative a source as any Muslim could hope to find: a literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran, An-Nisa , or Women. "[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them," reads one widely accepted translation.

The notion of using physical punishment as a "disciplinary action," as Sheha suggests, especially for "controlling or mastering women" or others who "enjoy being beaten," is common throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, I first encountered Sheha's work at my Morgantown mosque, where a Muslim student group handed it out to male worshipers after Friday prayers one day a few years ago.

Verse 4:34 retains a strong following, even among many who say that women must be treated as equals under Islam. Indeed, Muslim scholars and leaders have long been doing what I call "the 4:34 dance" -- they reject outright violence against women but accept a level of aggression that fits contemporary definitions of domestic violence.

Western leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, have recently focused on Muslim women's veils as an obstacle to integration in the West. But to me, it is 4:34 that poses the much deeper challenge of integration. How the Muslim world interprets this passage will reveal whether Islam can be compatible with life in the 21st century. As Hadayai Majeed, an African American Muslim who had opened a shelter in Atlanta to serve Muslim women, put it, "If it's okay for me to be a savage in my home, it's okay for me to be a savage in the world."

Not long after I picked up the free Saudi book, Mahmoud Shalash, an imam from Lexington, Ky., stood at the pulpit of my mosque and offered marital advice to the 100 or so men sitting before him. He repeated the three-step plan, with "beat them" as his final suggestion. Upstairs, in the women's balcony, sat a Muslim friend who had recently left her husband, who she said had abused her; her spouse sat among the men in the main hall.

At the sermon's end, I approached Shalash. "This is America," I protested. "How can you tell men to beat their wives?"

"They should beat them lightly," he explained. "It's in the Koran."

He was doing the dance.

Born into a conservative Muslim family that emigrated from Hyderabad, India, to West Virginia, I have seen many female relatives in India cloak themselves head to toe in black burqas and abandon their education and careers for marriage. But the Islam I knew was a gentle one. I was never taught that a man could -- or should -- physically discipline his wife. Abusing anyone, I was told, violated Islamic tenets against zulm , or cruelty. My family adhered to the ninth chapter of the Koran, which says that men and women "are friends and protectors of one another."

However, the kidnapping and killing of my friend and colleague Daniel Pearl in 2002 forced me to confront the link between literalist interpretations of the Koran that sanction violence in the world and those that sanction violence against women. For critics of Islam, 4:34 is the smoking gun that proves that Islam is misogynistic and intrinsically violent. Read literally, it is as troubling as Koranic verses such as At-Tauba ("The Repentance") 9:5, which states that Muslims should "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" or Al-Mâ'idah ("The Table Spread with Food") 5:51, which reads, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends."

Although Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman, it is also clear that Muslim communities face a domestic violence problem. A 2003 study of 216 Pakistani women found that 97 percent had experienced such abuse; almost half of them reported being victims of nonconsensual sex. Earlier this year, the state-run General Union of Syrian Women released a report showing that one in four married Syrian women is the victim of domestic violence.

Much of the problem is the 4:34 dance, which encourages this violence while producing interpretations that range from comical to shocking. A Muslim man in upstate New York, for instance, told his wife that the Koran allowed him to beat her with a "wet noodle." The host of a Saudi TV show displayed a pool cue as a disciplinary tool.

Modern debates over 4:34 inevitably hark back to a still widely used 1930 translation of the Koran by British Muslim Marmaduke Pickthall, who determined the verse to mean that, as a last resort, men can "scourge" their wives. A 1934 translation of the Koran, by Indian Muslim scholar A. Yusuf Ali, inserted a parenthetical qualifier: Men could "Beat them (lightly)."

By the 1970s, Saudi Arabia, with its ultra-traditionalist Wahhabi ideology, was providing the translations. Fueled by oil money, the kingdom sent its Korans to mosques and religious schools worldwide. A Koran available at my local mosque, published in 1985 by the Saudi government, adds yet another qualifier: "Beat them (lightly, if it is useful)."

Today, the Islamic Society of North America and popular Muslim Internet mailing lists such as SisNet and IslamIstheTruth rely on an analysis from "Gender Equity in Islam," a 1995 book by Jamal Badawi, director of the Islamic Information Foundation in Canada. Badawi tries to take a stand against domestic violence, but like others doing the 4:34 dance, he leaves room for physical discipline. If a wife "persists in deliberate mistreatment and expresses contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations," the husband "may resort to another measure that may save the marriage . . . more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body," he writes. "[B]ut never on the face," he adds, "making it more of a symbolic measure than a punitive one."

As long as the beating of women is acceptable in Islam, the problem of suicide bombers, jihadists and others who espouse violence will not go away; to me, they form part of a continuum. When 4:34 came into being in the 7th century, its pronouncements toward women were revolutionary, given that women were considered little more than chattel at the time. But 1,400 years later, the world is a different place and so, too, must our interpretations be different, retaining the progressive spirit of that verse.

Domestic violence is prevalent today in non-Muslim communities as well, but the apparent religious sanction in Islam makes the challenge especially difficult. Some people seem to understand this and are beginning to push back against the traditionalists. However, their efforts are concentrated in the West, and their impact remains small.

In his recent book "No god but God," Reza Aslan, an Islam scholar at the University of Southern California, dared to assert that "misogynistic interpretation" has dogged 4:34 because Koranic commentary "has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men." An Iranian American scholar recently published a new 4:34 translation stating that the "beating" step means "go to bed with them (when they are willing)."

Meanwhile, shelters created for Muslim women in Chicago and New York have begun to preach zero tolerance regarding the "disciplining" of women -- a position that should be universal by now. And some Muslim men appear to grasp the gravity of this issue. In Northern Virginia, for instance, an imam organized a group called Muslim Men Against Domestic Violence -- though it still endorses the "tapping" of a wife as a "friendly" reminder, an organizer said.

Yet even these small advances, if we can call them such, face an uphill battle against the Saudi oil money propagating literalist interpretations of the Koran here in the United States and worldwide.

Last October, I listened to an online audio sermon by an American Muslim preacher, Sheik Yusuf Estes, who was scheduled to speak at West Virginia University as a guest of the Muslim Student Association. He soon moved to the subject of disobedient wives, and his recommendations mirrored the literal reading of 4:34. First, "tell them." Second, "leave the bed." Finally: "Roll up a newspaper and give her a crack. Or take a yardstick, something like this, and you can hit."

When I telephoned Estes later to ask about the sermon, he said that he had been trying to limit how and when men could hit their wives. He realized that he had to revisit the issue, he told me, when some Canadian Muslim men asked him if they could use the Sunday newspaper to give their wives "a crack."

Yet even those doing the 4:34 dance seem to realize that there's a problem. When I went back to listen to the audio clip later, the offensive language had been removed. And when I asked Estes if he had ever rolled up a newspaper to give his own wife a crack, he responded without hesitation.

"I'm married to a woman from Texas," he said. "Do you know what she would do to me?"

asranomani@muslimsforpeace.net

Asra Q. Nomani is the author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam" (HarperSanFrancisco).
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

So it's imporatant to them but more important than their own cultural traditions?
And what is the actual % of muslims who call themselves french first, despite the fact that it is 2 times more than the % in UK, I wonder.


http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/1202/crime/bellil.htm




Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml)

Hilarious. Did you notice that your article doesn't even mention where the figures it claims come from? Editorials are bad enough, but editorials that don't bother to tell us where thier claims come from... It doesn't tell us what percentage of people were involved in those rapes. A 15 to 20% increase could be an increase from 5 to 6 and from 6 to 7. Are we to condemn an entire culture because of the actions of one or two people? Or of course it could be an increase from 50 to 60 and it would still be a small percentage of the actual immigrants. The increase in crime could be explained by a small percentage of the population. That's why they use percentages rather than hard numbers.

I think this article from the Washington Post kinda ties into your point about Muslims not fitting in.

<snip>


Thx for your contribution. You should check out this site for further news paper links to such stories:

http://www.amren.com/

Thx for your contribution. You should check out this site for further news paper links to such stories:

http://www.amren.com/

Keep exposing where you get these links from. Admit it, this is your big hope. If you can just help one up-and-coming racist become more like you, you'll be proud. Interesting how you're quite happy to link people up an American racist site, but when Americans comment on your threads you claim they have no right to comment? Why can you be involved in American politics but not the other way around? Or is it perhaps that you dismiss Americans because you simply need to limit your audience of critics since you don't have a reasoned reply?

From now on, every time you claim that Americans aren't 'qualified' to comment, I'm linking to this post and to the one complaining about ad hominems in moderation. Perhaps then you'll finally stop preaching and start fostering a discussion.

To the person you're trying to help become more racist, I say you search these links out yourself. You'll find the occasional news story about Muslims not fitting in but *gasp* you'll also happen across the same types of news stories showing that those news stories are not representative. Picking and choosing what evidence you choose to look at it, simply makes one ignorant of reality. A person truly interested in helping you to educate yourself on ANY subject would encourage you to look at the evidence on both sides and let it lead you where it may. I hope you'll do exactly that. Choosing to look for information in places that consciously skew the issue will only serve to help you lose arguments frequently. Need proof? Examine this thread and the many like it.

And muslim immigrants are on your side. :)

Not to mention even animal rights activists have weird people on their side, like assasins (Pim Fortyn)...
Yay, that means multiculturalism is working! :fluffle:

Meanwhile, why would Muslims outgrow non-Muslims for the past 16 years? Or is the fact that you're willing to wager supposed to be enough for us?

Mexicans. They breed and border cross like rabbits.

Yay, that means multiculturalism is working! :fluffle:

I'm amused that he said that like we'd be upset about it. The ones that argue that there shouldn't be muliculturalism are primarily the ones I'm not really interested in hanging out with and their argument very much resembles his.

Mexicans. They breed and border cross like rabbits.

I'm not a bully. I accept that you submit.

I'm not a bully. I accept that you submit.

I submit nothing. What I said was truth. There are large growth rates among latinos in the US.

Ah yeah...How we used to criticize their honour killings or veils.


you do realise that thats cultural not religious?

dudes relax the muslims are grand.
i was at a party last night with dutch people, they were ranting for ages about how much they hate muslims, i thought it was wierd. also there was a german shouting a pole about how she wanted east-prussia back.
people stop all fussin' and fuedin', cant we all get along? were is the love gone!
we should all learn how to love and forget about hate!

I submit nothing. What I said was truth. There are large growth rates among latinos in the US.

How does the growth rate of Hispanics affect the growth rate of Muslims... at all? Meanwhile, how did this change in 1990 that it would suddenly cause the Muslim population by percentage to drop to half in just 16 years? You're claiming that it changed somehow in the last 16 years and you've given no reason at all why it would. Your comment was so absurd that I assumed you were being facetious. The fact that you were serious is just sad. However, most sources have the number of Muslims by percentage in the US as increasing since 1990. However, feel free to provide a source that says Mexicans breeding like rabbits has caused Muslims to decrease in percentage or any similarly absurd notion.

How does the growth rate of Hispanics affect the growth rate of Muslims... at all? Meanwhile, how did this change in 1990 that it would suddenly cause the Muslim population by percentage to drop to half in just 16 years? You're claiming that it changed somehow in the last 16 years and you've given no reason at all why it would. Your comment was so absurd that I assumed you were being facetious. The fact that you were serious is just sad.

I'm saying that since non-muslims outgrew muslims in the 16 years since 1990, the population statistic would have skewed more slightly towards non-muslims.

Dumkopf.

I'm amused that he said that like we'd be upset about it. The ones that argue that there shouldn't be muliculturalism are primarily the ones I'm not really interested in hanging out with and their argument very much resembles his.
What did you expect? It's not like he even tries to look at it through the eyes of those who have an other opinion.

Let's use NN's logic as an exemple:
Ny Nordland should really integrate with the tolerant ways of the majority on this forum or leave. ;)

Yay, that means multiculturalism is working! :fluffle:
Do you then condone the murder of men like Pim Fortuyn?

I'm saying that since non-muslims outgrew muslims in the 16 years since 1990, the population statistic would have skewed more slightly towards non-muslims.

Dumkopf.

Flaming is illegal on this site. I would hope you expect better of yourself. Meanwhile, I know exactly what you're claiming and you've given no evidence logical or otherwise why that would suddenly occur from 1990 on.

Honestly, I don't know how much you enjoy this site or like your nation, but were I you, I'd refrain from the flames and stick to the really bad arguments.

By the way, it's spelled 'dummkopf'. Thanks for playing.
http://www.bartleby.com/62/03/D0490325.html

Do you then condone the murder of men like Pim Fortuyn?

What does that have to do with anything?

Flaming is illegal on this site. I would hope you expect better of yourself. Meanwhile, I know exactly what you're claiming and you've given no evidence logical or otherwise why that would suddenly occur from 1990 on.

Honestly, I don't know how much you enjoy this site or like your nation, but were I you, I'd refrain from the flames and stick to the really bad arguments.


what are flames?
i'm not a geek so i dont know all these terms, like trolling.

What does that have to do with anything?
I am just curious as to why this meritted a response to the effect of "Yay! this means multiculturalism is working", even if it weren't serious. If anything, assassinating someone out of disagreement is the ultimate sign of intolerance.

Do you then condone the murder of men like Pim Fortuyn?
No, I was ofcourse replying to the first part of the post. I tought that was clear, since animal rights activists hardly have anything to do with multiculturalism.

Ofcourse there are loonies on every side of a debate.

what are flames?
i'm not a geek so i dont know all these terms, like trolling.

You don't have to be geek. You just have to be aware of the rules when you enter a private site of your own volition.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573
Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc.)though it does to watch what you post IC as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. Flaming in the forums should be reported in the Moderation forum, in the game itself, through Getting Help Page.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380495&page=2&pp=30
This is an example from that thread. You'll notice that the quality of the response is almost identical.

I am just curious as to why this meritted a response to the effect of "Yay! this means multiculturalism is working", even if it weren't serious. If anything, assassinating someone out of disagreement is the ultimate sign of intolerance.

Except he wasn't talking about animal rights, that was a red herring that NN through in that was ignored. Honestly, EM, you certainly should know better than this. Nothing s/he said had anything to do with animal rights or the assassination you're turning into a strawman.

No, I was ofcourse replying to the first part of the post. I tought that was clear, since animal rights activists hardly have anything to do with multiculturalism.

Ofcourse there are loonies on every side of a debate.

Except he wasn't talking about animal rights, that was a red herring that NN through in that was ignored. Honestly, EM, you certainly should know better than this. Nothing s/he said had anything to do with animal rights or the assassination you're turning into a strawman.
I'd simply have erased the assassins comment from the quotation to begin with. And I was actually curious to see whether or not people condone Fortuyn's murder.

What did you expect? It's not like he even tries to look at it through the eyes of those who have an other opinion.

Let's use NN's logic as an exemple:
Ny Nordland should really integrate with the tolerant ways of the majority on this forum or leave. ;)

Doesn't matter how long he's been here, he's not a member. He disagrees with the administration and he doesn't 'fit in'. We need to stop all this racist immigration into NS.

I'd simply have erased the assassins comment from the quotation to begin with. And I was actually curious to see whether or not people condone Fortuyn's murder.

Then start a thread on it.

Then start a thread on it.
Actually, I might - later, when I have a bit more free time on my hands.

Wow what about it,
Europe?
Afraid and living in fear of the religious but also ,powermongers,and elitists dogmatisms...
There is nothing new here,we will all give our blood for the common good.
Like we did it with our colonial past and still do with economic war fare, people will be afraid,will be feared,the stranger will be put against the wall,finally we will all go against the wall like good sheep we are...
Anybody thinking it only can become worst,both sides runing amok?

Wow what about it,
Europe?
Afraid and living in fear of the religious but also ,powermongers,and elitists dogmatisms...
There is nothing new here,we will all give our blood for the common good.
Like we did it with our colonial past and still do with economic war fare, people will be afraid,will be feared,the stranger will be put against the wall,finally we will all go against the wall like good sheep we are...
Anybody thinking it only can become worst,both sides runing amok?
Your posts make me cry. Well, not really - but some translation would be handy!

Europeans are bullying their minorities because of their differences in race, religion, and culture that's it. What I never understand is, why Christians even want to discuss about Islam in a matter of trying to discredit the religion (something must be wrong with your religion in order for you to attack my religion-Islam). I'm not surprised that right wingers in Western nations are using the "Muslim threat" just to gain some votes. To all Western nations that show off how tolerant they are, why do you even question Muslims about their religious beliefs? And what do you expect in return? You just want to ridicule them and expect no resistance, will Muslims are passionate about their religion and would never sacrifice their moral beliefs for your ignorant insults. As I say this, I also am disappointed in Muslims who would express their differences through violent measures. It’s funny, Muslims see this way, how can they (Christians) tell me my religion is wrong when they don’t even practice their religion, with their hookers, strippers, drugs, blood-lust for imperialism and so on. As the West trench themselves with ignorance, so will Muslims with their moral beliefs. Muslims will become a sizable community within the European community in the near future, so what; they are also becoming sizable population within non-Muslim nations around the world. Islam is spreading faster than any other religion today and for the foreseeable future. Either you accept the changing times or foolishly face it but you cannot have it both ways :D . What do you expect from Muslims, they've known that the so called anti-terrorist wars taking place in Afghanistan and in Iraq don't seem to have even one Muslim nation among the coalition of the willing :eek:

Wow what about it,
Europe?
Afraid and living in fear of the religious but also ,powermongers,and elitists dogmatisms...
There is nothing new here,we will all give our blood for the common good.
Like we did it with our colonial past and still do with economic war fare, people will be afraid,will be feared,the stranger will be put against the wall,finally we will all go against the wall like good sheep we are...
Anybody thinking it only can become worst,both sides runing amok?

Hey, as a personal favor, can you spend, like, fifteen seconds on your posts instead of ten. This doesn't even close to resemble english grammar.

Europeans are bullying their minorities because of their differences in race, religion, and culture that's it. What I never understand is, why Christians even want to discuss about Islam in a matter of trying to discredit the religion (something must be wrong with your religion in order for you to attack my religion-Islam). I'm not surprised that right wingers in Western nations are using the "Muslim threat" just to gain some votes. To all Western nations that show off how tolerant they are, why do you even question Muslims about their religious beliefs? And what do you expect in return? You just want to ridicule them and expect no resistance, will Muslims are passionate about their religion and would never sacrifice their moral beliefs for your ignorant insults. As I say this, I also am disappointed in Muslims who would express their differences through violent measures. It’s funny, Muslims see this way, how can they (Christians) tell me my religion is wrong when they don’t even practice their religion, with their hookers, strippers, drugs, blood-lust for imperialism and so on. As the West trench themselves with ignorance, so will Muslims with their moral beliefs. Muslims will become a sizable community within the European community in the near future, so what; they are also becoming sizable population within non-Muslim nations around the world. Islam is spreading faster than any other religion today and for the foreseeable future. Either you accept the changing times or foolishly face it but you cannot have it both ways :D . What do you expect from Muslims, they've known that the so called anti-terrorist wars taking place in Afghanistan and in Iraq don't seem to have even one Muslim nation among the coalition of the willing :eek:


hey bud not all europeans are like that. in ireland you couldnt get away with bad mouthing muslims for very long, without getting attacked by the extreme left

What do you expect from Muslims, they've known that the so called anti-terrorist wars taking place in Afghanistan and in Iraq don't seem to have even one Muslim nation among the coalition of the willing :eek:
Your post is full of good points, and some rather poor ones. Too much of a rant. But, I will address this.

http://www.footnote.tv/f911chap6-7.html

Read the members list. Interesting, isn't it? Since when is Turkey not a Muslim nation?

Hey, as a personal favor, can you spend, like, fifteen seconds on your posts instead of ten. This doesn't even close to resemble english grammar.

ah its a grammar nazi. an american one at that.
i got one for ya, spell "centre". or "colour".

ah its a grammar nazi. an american one at that.
i got one for ya, spell "centre". or "colour".
Allers' posts are not even comprehensible. This isn't about grammar "nazism" - it's about understanding what he's trying to convey.

-snip-
Christians don't have a reputation of bad-mouthing Islam, I believe.
Don't try to lay the blame on one specific group.

@Gorias: LOL!

@Greater Somalia: "Either you accept the changing times or foolishly face it but you cannot have it both ways"... er, so we should just bend like reeds in the wind and accept everythging that happens to us? And as for the "racism" of us Europeans, ever heard of the concept of "dhimmi"?

Your posts make me cry. Well, not really - but some translation would be handy!

people will be afraid,the stranger will be put AGAISNT the wall,FINALLY, we will all go against the wall like good sheep we are...
Anybody thinking it only can become worst,both sides runing amok?
i think what we are seeing now is a direct consequense of colonialism,not only we didn't learn about it but we are still doing it ....
we had war"s" based on religious beliefs,crusades even in europa(cathar),2 popes claiming they are the one,kings pretending they are the sun...and more....
We the people fought to get rid of this plague only to believe now, we have to be afraid....
against wat ,wie,qui,?
Man at this rate,over 20 years i'll miss hypocracy.and the lies of democracy

*snip*
I will try and translate this - you are worried that (political and religious) extremism is on the rise in Europe, and that it is now paying for its past stupidity (with reference to colonialism)?

ah its a grammar nazi. an american one at that.
i got one for ya, spell "centre". or "colour".
centre or color

how do you know the color is red

Grammar nazi,what is that for BS,that i can do beter i can admit,but Nazi?
i didn't know they even had a alphabet.let alone a grammar
Does it have something to do with enigma?

centre or color
"Center" goes alongside the American spelling of "color".

Grammar nazi,what is that for BS,that i can do beter i can admit,but Nazi?
i didn't know they even had a alphabet.let alone a grammar
Does it have something to do with enigma?
It's a derogative term people use for those who constantly correct the grammar of others. Enough with this. It is off-topic.

I will try and translate this - you are worried that (political and religious) extremism is on the rise in Europe, and that it is now paying for its past stupidity (with reference to colonialism)?
Well yes,and that we are still very colonial.

Well yes,and that we are still very colonial.
The US is, to a degree. However, so are the so-called Asian tigers.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,443306,00.html

For now it might be seen as "imperialism" - in the future it will be seen as defensive measures against another form of imperialism.

The US is, to a degree. However, so are the so-called Asian tigers.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,443306,00.html

For now it might be seen as "imperialism" - in the future it will be seen as defensive measures against another form of imperialism.

I don't see why europa would not go with the us,after all they are the chiken and the egg all together,but it doesn't mean they are the only chiken around.

I don't see why europa would not go with the us,after all they are the chiken and the egg all together,but it doesn't mean they are the only chiken around.
Because Europe is no longer able to influence the world as much as the US is. That is why. The US is the world's de facto (quasi-imperial) superpower, and is soon to be joined by some others. Europe will be very lucky if it remains a power even, unless it makes drastic reforms.

BTW: See also Jocabia's response to you.

Yes and I'm not the only one. During American immigration debates, many people remind that "we are all immigrants", pointing to the immigrant status of white Americans and the fact that they arent natives.
Kinda makes it difficult to discuss modern immigration, doesn't it? And the expulsion of immigrants?

So it's not really a good definition to use when we're debating those issues.

Perhaps. Or we can call it an exception since Sami population is in tens of thousands out of hundreds of millions in Europe. And they arent growing more than avarage like the muslims.
Considering your definition, that would be quite a big exception. And I suspect you would make such an exception for the Basque, rendering vital parts of your definition useless.

I do not understand why you are so eager to find exceptions. There are almost exceptions to anything. Despite, the fact that noble gasses participate in chemical reactions rarely, we still call their electron configuration stable. Exceptions dont change the rules. Just because USA is 1% muslim, it doesnt mean we cant talk about an American culture collectively different than muslims' as the main stream culture is much different than muslim cultures.
Because the exceptions proves that your position is intenable and that the definitions you use are insufficient to this debate.

I seek clarity in your arguements, but find little.

By discussing "most Americans", we were excluding the muslim Americans anyways. Besides, are you denying that geographical areas are correlated with religion? Like North America is mostly christian? Like the Mid East overwhelmingly muslim? I do not understand why you dont apply basic logic?

And then it's not even apples and oranges again. We are discussing people and culture. And religion is related with those concepts. I do not understand why this has been so hard for you to understand.
It's hard to understand because you're doing a poor job discussing and explaining it.

By discussing "most americans" you're not by default excluding the muslim Americans - you'll have to say that explicitly. It's not as simple as "applying basic logic", since interpreting your statement the way you obviously meant for it to be interpreted flies in the face of logic. Contrary to your previous statements, I cannot read your mind nor anyone else's and can't see that Laerod somehow meant to eliminate all muslims when stating "most Americans" - something I'm still not convinced that he meant.

And religion is related to the people and the culture - but you're nowhere near clear enough in your arguments. And that's where the apples and oranges come in: Differentiate between the nationality, the spirituality, and anything else you're throwing into the mix.

To say that Americans are culturally closer to Europeans than muslims are doesn't make sense and is illogical.

Because Europe is no longer able to influence the world as much as the US is. That is why. The US is the world's de facto (quasi-imperial) superpower, and is soon to be joined by some others. Europe will be very lucky if it remains a power even, unless it makes drastic reforms.
why then do we need a powerful europa,to influence the world?(hence the colonial part).
reform needed? i'll listen.but first..
For me europa has alway been a familly matter,like all the king and queen fightng the french revolution,you know the later,we in france had to go trought few emperor,and king before we got a parliament(democratic),100 years later,now make it 100 years more then,then you have the PS comming with liberal reform in 1983 and go on and on,i forgot pasqua,and co,and everything i did here in the nederlands...
This europa is fu++=d and the rest of the world too,,,,
The revolution will not be voted

why then do we need a powerful europa,to influence the world?(hence the colonial part).
Not to influence the world - but to allow it to maintain its own values. Like I said, it has to be come a defensive power. It is no longer an imperial one.

reform needed? i'll listen.but first..
For me europa has alway been a familly matter,like all the king and queen fightng the french revolution,you know the later,we in france had to go trought few emperor,and king before we got a parliament(democratic),100 years later,now make it 100 years more then,then you have the PS comming with liberal reform in 1983 and go on and on,i forgot pasqua,and co,and everything i did here in the nederlands...
How is any of this related? And what is wrong with liberal reform? It seems to be moving in the same direction as those revolutions you mentioned.

This europa is fu++=d and the rest of the world too,,,,

Why?

ah its a grammar nazi. an american one at that.
i got one for ya, spell "centre". or "colour".

Asking one to use common forms of language in order to make one's ideas available to others is reason. However, if you'd prefer it, let me know what value the following adds -

I were colorless for the cringing area of the moth where I wached zorro but no butterfiles appeared when the shoes were on the wrong foot why is my girlfriend sleeping so late shoes are pretty i don't like coffee and creme de la creme where the couch is grey.

- We're having a debate. Common rules of language are a requirement to make debate sensical. We're simply asking for an attempt to use them. I know that upsets the lazy, but trust me, you'll need to practice if you ever plan to get a better job than McDonald's has to offer.

Not to influence the world - but to allow it to maintain its own values. Like I said, it has to be come a defensive power. It is no longer an imperial one.


How is any of this related? And what is wrong with liberal reform? It seems to be moving in the same direction as those revolutions you mentioned.


Why?

because we can not take care of people,the only thing that count is economy(for the few),rentability9for the most)-,and over equation and populaton statistic,but hey revolution won't work,but corrupt consensus is even worse
Tell me when you see a representative fighting for the people,tell me when all he says is not economiq,tell mee what means arbeits macht frei.

because we can not take care of people
Prove it.

the only thing that count is economy(for the few),rentability9for the most)-,and other equation and populaton statistic,but hey revolution won't work,but corrupt consensus is even worse
So long as nations come before individuals, it is only obvious that the economy will be their top priority. But hey, lest we forget, an economy is made up of the "people".

Tell me when you see a representative fighting for the people,tell me when all he says is not economiq,tell mee what means arbeits macht frei.
Given how central the economy is to the function of society, anyone who didn't make economic arguments would most likely be an idiot. To me a politician fighting for a freer market and individual liberties is fighting for the "people".

people will be afraid,the stranger will be put AGAISNT the wall,FINALLY, we will all go against the wall like good sheep we are...
Anybody thinking it only can become worst,both sides runing amok?
i think what we are seeing now is a direct consequense of colonialism,not only we didn't learn about it but we are still doing it ....
we had war"s" based on religious beliefs,crusades even in europa(cathar),2 popes claiming they are the one,kings pretending they are the sun...and more....
We the people fought to get rid of this plague only to believe now, we have to be afraid....
against wat ,wie,qui,?
Man at this rate,over 20 years i'll miss hypocracy.and the lies of democracy


Actually he's right about us reaping what we have sown. Almost all the wars and eextremism arond the wworld today can trace roots back to imperialism and colonialism and the abuse by the western nations of 3/4 's of the globe .

Be glad the people of Africa practice genocide on each other instead of US or
you could add them to the Jihadist who want us to be burned . And China ?

Vietnam and SE asia ? Indonesa and Maylasia ? the Phillipenes ...

Should I go on ?

Be glad the people of Africa practice genocide on each other instead of US or
you could add them to the Jihadist who want us to be burned .
If anything, they'd have hatred towards Europe and the Arabs, both of which colonized them.

And China ?


China has its own enemies to worry about already, and has contributed significantly to its own malaise. It's hardly been a silent little lamb throughout its history. Same with neighbouring Japan. Let's not even pretend that Europe and the USA are the only imperial powers in history.

Prove it.

History
long subject but worth it.


So long as nations come before individuals, it is only obvious that the economy will be their top priority. But hey, lest we forget, an economy is made up of the "people".
WELL YEAH BUT NOT IN PPLS HANDS,you could say they can choose their "representative",but it only happens under strict propaganda surveillance


Given how central the economy is to the function of society, anyone who didn't make economic arguments would most likely be an idiot. To me a politician fighting for a freer market and individual liberties is fighting for the "people".
for me he knows that later,he will get a good job,in the 1rst United Corporated Dominion,where people will wage wars and revolutions for a better economy

History
long subject but worth it.
Yes, but we're living in the present. And you'd have to be rather specific when you say "history".

WELL YEAH BUT NOT IN PPLS HANDS,you could say they can choose their "representative",but it only happens under strict propaganda surveillance
Again a strawman, and what would seem to be a conspiracy theory. Read Du Pouvoir and Sovereignty by Bertrand de Jouvenel.

for me he knows that later,he will get a good job,in the 1rst United Corporated Dominion,where people will wage wars and revolutions for a better economy
Strawman. This shows a huge misunderstanding of economics.

So it's imporatant to them but more important than their own cultural traditions?
[...]
You must live a very sheltered lifestyle. Ever been to a really poor urban neighbourhood?

It doesn't matter who lives there, women aren't treated very well, regardless of whether it's immigrants, black Americans, Hispanics or native Europeans.

Yes, but we're living in the present. And you'd have to be rather specific when you say "history".
yes that is true,i mean,what did we learn say for the latste 5000 years,
Did we saw people of the pacific claiming they came in the name of god?,Taking your cultuur away, and all that matters to you,only because they think you are a savage,and can be use to produce slaves,bananas end cacao.
It happens that now ,"deh moslim is the one",The savage one,the one ready to envade the empire...
Nothing new really

Again a strawman, and what would seem to be a conspiracy theory. Read Du Pouvoir and Sovereignty by Bertrand de Jouvenel.
no it is not a conspiracy,it is rather a life experience,the one who can not acces the mighty economic sphere,does not need power,he is the power,he is the one making it work not those arrogant representatives.

Strawman. This shows a huge misunderstanding of economics.

no this does show dat what happen with the state and the religions,must also happen with the economics.
The power of representative must not be held in the hand of one,neither in the hand of the few.

and to quote somebody jacques roux

Freedom is nothing but a vain phantom when one class of men can starve another with impunity. Equality is nothing but a vain phantom when the rich, through monopoly, exercise the right of life or death over their like. The republic is nothing but a vain phantom when the counter-revolution can operate every day through the price of commodities, which three quarters of all citizens cannot afford without shedding tears.

Dumkopf.Only an idiot would misspell "idiot", don't you think?

Dumkopf.Only an idiot would misspell "idiot", don't you think?

Dumkopf.Only an idiot would misspell "idiot", don't you think?

Dumkopf.Only an idiot would misspell "idiot", don't you think?

*snip*
Tell you what - I am assuming you're young - I'm going to give you a couple of years to grow up, mature and improve your grammar. Then we can have this discussion.

Tell you what - I am assuming you're young - I'm going to give you a couple of years to grow up, mature and improve your grammar. Then we can have this discussion.
Assuming you are not young,is not making,you appering more mature.the rest is up to you
lol i may be older than you