Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Oct 20 19:05:58 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Answers for Asgard
Seb
Member
Mon Oct 07 14:56:38
Btw, didn't notice how close we were to 100, or I'd have stitched those into one reply rather than doing them in bits during my commute.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 07 15:26:45
Its not so much baffling as the result of policy. Religion is really the last refuge of Arab nationalists.

It is very dangerous to counterbalance secular revolutionary movements with religious revolutionary movements.
Asgard
Member
Mon Oct 07 17:10:36
You know something major happens what jergumatics start to make sense. This is one of these occasions.


I may have started the thread in a bigotted manner, and I shouldn't have, as it damages the way I convey my thoughts.

To put it simply,
No Irish or Irish-sympathizer ever committed terrorism against "the west", or against "the east" for that matter. That is something unique to Muslims (not Arabs - Turks are Arab and have never did anything like it = however, Indonesians are Muslims and have made more than a few kills against Australian tourists in Bali)

Yes, there have been acts of terrorism done by average Joe's turned by radical islam to commit "random" ("random" only to the naive observer) attacks. There have never, ever, in the history of mankind, been attacks committed by an average Joe but a "turned" radical Celt.
Asgard
Member
Mon Oct 07 17:10:56
by* a "turned" ... etc
Asgard
Member
Mon Oct 07 17:11:42
turks are muslim*

I am tired.
Asgard
Member
Mon Oct 07 17:17:00
ok, let me explain a bit more about what I mean by a turned radical Celt.

There's lots of Irish people in the US east coast, traditionally, since the mass Irish migration following the potato famine.

None of these immigrants ever made terrorist acts against British targets in the US, nor against any American targets for speaking the same non-gaelic language as the British.

No Irish or Irish sympathizer ever wished a "Gaelic Druid" court to rule over the entire west instead of any current established rule of law.

No Irish or Irish sympathizer ever went crusading against the British in a place that is neither their own homeland, Ireland, N. Ireland or Britain (what am I alluding to? well, think of the Hijacking of El-Al flight during the 70's by a joint group of Palestinian terrorists + German Muslim-sympathizers group, from a European country to Uganda)
Asgard
Member
Mon Oct 07 17:21:10
You know what?


last example.


You have in the past made comments saying how European-Arab terrorists are almost always third-generation immigrants.


Well, allow me to retort (always wanted to say that).

Here are two nice examples that totally contradict you on that:

1) Third generation IRISH immigrant Bobby Kennedy: an all-American presidential candidate.

2) First generation Palestinian Immigrant: Assassinates Bobby Kennedy in the name of Jihad.
Seb
Member
Tue Oct 08 01:49:04
Asgard:

Palestinian terrorism isn't "against the West", it's against those it sees as occupying or enabling the occupation of their homeland.

Conflating it with Islamism is self serving nonsense whether it's al-quaeda and ISIS appropriating the issue, or Israel linking it to more easily dismiss the underlying issue that they need to settle regarding a long term solution to the conflict that allows Palestinians self determination.

Seb
Member
Tue Oct 08 01:49:30
No Palestinian organisation ever attacked, e.g. Australia.
Seb
Member
Tue Oct 08 02:00:48
Further, what does it matter from a UK perspective these things you raise?

All that matters is that to the UK, Irish Catholics pose a greater risk - as you calculate it - to the UK.

If you think we should stop taking refugees because they pose some sort of statistical risk of being terrorists, then we should logically do the same for Irish Catholics. The fact that these Irish Catholics pose no threats to, say, oh, Russians is irrelevant. We are talking about the UKs immigration policy, not Russia's.

In the case of Irish Catholics, we would rightly recognise this as rampant racism, even though on a statistical basis they pose more a threat.

The reason you don't immediately see this idea of viewing all Muslims as carrying an individual risk of terrorism as fundamentally racist is because you've internalised an approach where it is ok to see them as an undifferentiated alien horde rather than a collection of human individuals.

It's absolutely ridiculous to assume every Irish Catholic poses an individual risk of becoming an IRA bomber. Ditto for Syrian refugees. And there are much better proxies for assessing risk posed by individuals than their religion.
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 08 06:04:23
Asgard
Perhaps it would become clearer to you if you imagine the Republic of Ireland being treated by the UK like Gaza and the west bank are treated by Israel.

Does your mind's eye see any uptick in Catholic terrorism in the UK?
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 08 06:07:40
What then might happen if Israel treated Palestine like the UK treated Ireland after it gained independence?

Can you imagine any change in terrorism levels?

Or imagine a spectacular coup where Palestinians took over everything. Can you see a likelihood of Zionist (patriot) terrorism gaining any traction?
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 08 06:41:32
Seb, look, honestly...

2 British Muslims who originate from Pakistan blew up a pin in Israel... Which Homeland exactly do they want to liberate?
You really think it has nothing to do with Islamism?


Oh god
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 08 06:42:58
A pub* not a pin
Seb
Member
Tue Oct 08 06:49:05
Asgard:

You are citing an example of Islamist terrorism against Israel, which doesn't mean that Palestinian terrorism against Israel is all Islamist.

Nor does it disequate the Palestinian and Irish nationalist terrorism.

Nor does it disequate the link between relative threat and immigration policy.

Seb
Member
Tue Oct 08 06:50:26
There's also the issue that f.ex when Brits went abroad to fight with the Spanish fascists, were they not fighting for a free Spain?
Forwyn
Member
Tue Oct 08 08:13:50
Irish terrorism isn't "against the West", it's against those it sees as occupying or enabling the occupation of their homeland.

Conflating it with Islamism is self serving nonsense whether it's al-quaeda and ISIS appropriating the issue, or Downing St linking it to more easily dismiss the underlying issue that they need to settle regarding a long term solution to the conflict that allows the Irish self determination.

No Irish organisation ever attacked, e.g. Australia.
Seb
Member
Tue Oct 08 08:24:58
Forwyn:

Isis justifying attacks on the west because of Israel's occupation of Palestine is a different proposition from British Muslims joining Hamas and attacking Israel. At the very least one can draw a clear line between their started and actual target, even if it is somewhat self serving for people serving martyrdom to claim affinity with the Palestinian people.



Forwyn
Member
Tue Oct 08 08:31:02
"All that matters is that to the UK, Irish Catholics pose a greater risk - as you calculate it - to the UK."

I agree, no statistic is outdated. US counterterrorism efforts should be retooled to address the rampant issue of stagecoach robberies by perpetrators on horseback.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Oct 08 08:40:11
"Isis justifying attacks on the west because of Israel's occupation of Palestine"

A clear example of how Islam is far better at unifying disaffected would-be terrorists than Catholicism.l, or any other religion.

How many priests have been successful at turning the Irish issue into one of Catholic solidarity that leads to international attacks on British allies and interests.
Seb
Member
Tue Oct 08 09:39:51
Forwyn:

Ok, so if you are saying that the "threat" has dropped dramatically from Irish Catholics since 1997, then isn't that an admission that the whole idea of treating threat as an issue if ethnicity is absurd.

Secondly, you are saying up until 1997, Catholics of Irish descent should have been refused entry to the UK?

Stop dancing around the point and grasp it.

(Also, you probably haven't been following the uptick of violence in recent years)

"how Islam is far better at unifying"

Again, how is this relevant to the points Asgard is making?

It doesn't matter if Catholicism is better or worse at getting non Irish Catholics to join the cause. The point is whether it is reasonable to discriminate, then or now, against Irish Catholics on the basis that IRA terrorists were Irish Catholics, and killed lots of people.

You seem to be going down a rabbit hole where you can say that somehow Islam is a better terrorist religion, even though the statistical threat indicator would show Irish Catholics to be "responsible" for far more deaths right through to the 90s.

What this boils down to is special pleading. "Attributing all Islamic terror uniformly to all Muslims proves Muslims are a threat, and although the same approach applied to Irish Catholics isn't acceptable because Islam should be treated as more terroristy than Catholicism".

It's just attempts to justify prejudice.

You can screen out terrorists without blanket measures for all Muslims. Or even all refugees from Syria.
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 08 10:37:35
"There's also the issue that f.ex when Brits went abroad to fight with the Spanish fascists, were they not fighting for a free Spain?"


WTF
NO.
They were fighting for Communism
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 08 10:39:46
"workers of the world, unite!" is not that different than "islamists of the world, jihad?"
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 08 10:40:06
!*
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 08 11:20:56
Asgard
The popular front (Socialists, Communists, Left wing Republicans) won a democratic election, then went on to fight the fascists when they invaded from Morocco.

Seb
Seems to me more a justification for Israel's Apartheid system (no other term fits for as long as Israel has full security control). Particularly after Asgard's last post that equates secular nationalism with Islamist views.

There is something just evil about those Arabs that the west needs to understand so it will be better equipped to understand the unique circumstances Israel is facing.
Seb
Member
Tue Oct 08 11:49:35
Asgard:

I think that's a dubious proposition - not all the groups were communist. Are you saying it was wrong of them to fight Franco because they were communist?

Jergul:
That's his line.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Oct 08 13:43:37
"then isn't that an admission that the whole idea of treating threat as an issue if ethnicity is absurd."

Sure. I've been pretty consistent in my argument that the destructive ideology of Islam, more specifically Sunni Islam, is a far more predictive indicator than any more elementary classification like ethnicity. Arab Zoroastrians aren't blowing up subways. White Muslims are more likely to shoot up a venue than a white Pentecostal.

"Secondly, you are saying up until 1997, Catholics of Irish descent should have been refused entry to the UK?"

Yeah, sure. Why wouldn't widespreads attempts to foment civil war merit temporary changes to immigration?

"You seem to be going down a rabbit hole where you can say that somehow Islam is a better terrorist religion, even though the statistical threat indicator would show Irish Catholics to be "responsible" for far more deaths right through to the 90s."

This is why your IRA comparison is retarded. An uptick that lasts for a few decades due to an insurrectionist movement is a blip, not a trend. Revolutions come and go.

'"Attributing all Islamic terror uniformly to all Muslims proves Muslims are a threat, and although the same approach applied to Irish Catholics isn't acceptable because Islam should be treated as more terroristy than Catholicism".'

This is only contradictory if you continue to assume Catholicism and Islam are equal in these regards. They aren't.

Peruvian Catholics aren't blowing up subways, and Irish Catholics that emigrate to other nations aren't having kids that blow up subways.

"You can screen out terrorists without blanket measures for all Muslims."

There's really no obligation to do so, other than, "We should be better than muh Muslim nations that freely discriminate and enslave immigrants"
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 08 15:09:36
"
I think that's a dubious proposition - not all the groups were communist. Are you saying it was wrong of them to fight Franco because they were communist?"

I do not judge bad or wrong here
Just saying that both Franco and his opponent
S weren't absolutely not fighting for concepts such as freedom or oppression but rather it was a struggle between two opposing idealogoes: fascism and Communism. Both were assisted by outside forces (Germans for Franco, Communist idealists from all over for his opponents)
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 08 15:11:28
You play into my argument perfectly by bringing up Franco. You think Palestinians are not assisted by islamists and Islamic states only for being Muslims in their own right.
Seb
Member
Wed Oct 09 03:04:57
Forwyn:

Ethnicity doesn't mean what you clearly think it means.

On Ireland, the reason you wouldn't do it is because it is blatantly discriminatory against the individuals concerned. You ought not scapegoat an entire people for a miniscule subset. That way is the path to Stalins treatment of Cossacks etc.

"An uptick that lasts for a few decades due to an insurrectionist movement is a blip, not a trend"

1. If, as you say, these things come and go, then they aren't innately linked to the ethnicity of the participants. You can infer an Islamic terrorist identifies as Muslim, but not that a Muslim is likely to be a terrorist. Therefore security policies built in discriminating by ethnicity is bound to be both ineffective and unjust.

2. Islamic terror is precisely such a blip.

It sounds like actually you agree wholeheartedly with my IRA comparison in the detail - do why do you reject it in the totality?

Is it because you can't let go of a good reason to blanket discriminate against Muslims?

"This is only contradictory if you continue to assume Catholicism and Islam are equal in these regards."

You've yet to put together a compelling reason why they aren't. So far the only thing you've come up with is that Islamic terror identifies the West generally as the enemy rather than the UK specifically. Not wishing to sound selfish but from the UKs perspective, I couldn't give a shit that the IRA are fine with Americans and French.

Are you saying basically that the UK should apply your policies of treating the whole ethnic group as threatening because of a miniscule minority of criminals, but that it should discount the threat posed (Under this policy) by Irish Catholicism as less of a threat because the Irish Catholics are only blowing up people in the UK? That seems a remarkably odd policy for the UK to take. Could you maybe explain it again, more slowly this time?

"There's really no obligation to do so, other than, "We should be better than muh Muslim nations that freely discriminate and enslave immigrants""

I see, so you think there is no compelling reason not to adopt policies of e.g. enslaving immigrants other than to be better than countries that do? I mean to me that sounds like an excellent reason. Only I'd unpack "better" and probably lose the comparison.
Seb
Member
Wed Oct 09 07:18:26
Asgard:

It sounds to me then like you are accepting that there's a distinction between Palestinian terrorism, and Islam, with the latter coopting the former!
jergul
large member
Wed Oct 09 07:52:01
"it was a struggle between two opposing idealogoes: fascism and Communism."

Incorrect. The democratically elected government was fighting a fascist coup.

The two opposing ideologies here were democracy and fascism.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Oct 09 15:05:56
"Ethnicity doesn't mean what you clearly think it means."

Or it's been artificially broadened. Unless I can claim my gun club as part of my ethnicity now.

"the reason you wouldn't do it"

Yeah, except I said you could do it. If they're the statistical threat you say they were, literally mortaring 10 Downing, then a temporary restriction on immigration isn't a huge deal. It's not Stalinist to control your own immigration.

"these things come and go"

Geopolitical movements like secession come and go. Islam's embrace of violence against non-Muslims isn't a blip.

"Islamic terror is precisely such a blip.

It sounds like actually you agree wholeheartedly with my IRA comparison in the detail"

Lol. Islam has besieging your continent since it's inception. That you're not communicating via an Arabic-English translator hinges on just a few all-or-nothing battles.

But yeah, your IRA comparison works - in the very minute, specific instance of Palestinians. Doesn't really apply to the Moroccans massacring people at a Parisian concert.

"So far the only thing you've come up with is that Islamic terror identifies the West generally as the enemy rather than the UK specifically. Not wishing to sound selfish but from the UKs perspective, I couldn't give a shit that the IRA are fine with Americans and French."

It works both ways, and it's a pretty big difference. South American Catholics aren't traveling across the pond to bomb you, and they aren't bombing your allies, because of the Irish issue.

And again, Catholicism is only tied to the IRA insofar as Catholics developed a distinct identity through the decades of discrimination against them. One shouldn't be surprised that Catholics unite on that basis when all of the jobs and housing are given to Protestants, and they're underrepresented and gerrymandered against.

"enslaving immigrants"

Not allowing them in isn't enslaving them.
jergul
large member
Wed Oct 09 15:48:13
"Lol. Islam has besieging your continent since it's inception. That you're not communicating via an Arabic-English translator hinges on just a few all-or-nothing battles."

Arabic-Arabic translator perhaps. Through I would think secularism would have done far better everywhere and Arabic would be as relevant in most countries as Latin is.

There would just be a few more quaint historical mosques in places there are current quaint historical churches.
Seb
Member
Wed Oct 09 16:09:53
Forwyn:

Gosh you sound like one of those people who said if you allowed hat marriage you could marry your own children.

Ethnicity means what it has always meant: belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

Religion is a cultural tradition.

"Islam's embrace of violence against non-Muslims isn't a blip."

So, where was all the Islamic terrorism in the first half of the 20 th century?

"Islam has besieging your continent since it's inception"

Lol. Really? Last I checked the borders of Iran, Iraq and Syria were drawn up by a Frenchman, two Brits and a Russian; and the Al Sauds plucked from obscurity by a Brit.

Point is, almost nobody agrees with you that it is sane, proportionate, or even useful to apply immigration controls to Irish Catholics on the 1970s because the IRA. Including those specifically tasked with securing the UK.

So great that you are an equal opportunity racist (yes, pre judging an entire ethnic group in this way is exactly what racism is), but you are also from a purely technocratic point incompetent. And of course, racist.

"allowing them in isn't enslaving them"
You were the one that suggested the only reason not to adopt regressive policies was to "be better" than other societies and raised the issue of enslavement.
Seb
Member
Wed Oct 09 16:17:05
I can't get over Forwyns bizarre catheterisation of Europe having been besieged by Muslims since inception.

Poor little Europe. Just minding it's own business. Suddenly besieged by Arabs and Muslims.

Ah woe. Ah woe is us.

This perspective basically whitewashes the enormously successful colonisation and expansion of European civilizations over a period of what, 2400 years?

But sees Arab cultures vastly less successful behaviour (ultimately tragically so as they were subjugated by European empires) as some extraordinary threat.


Mental.



Rugian
Member
Wed Oct 09 16:21:17
"Poor little Europe. Just minding it's own business. Suddenly besieged by Arabs and Muslims."

Um, how is that not an accurate representation of Western history from 632 to 1683?
Forwyn
Member
Wed Oct 09 17:02:22
"Religion is a cultural tradition."

Okay, shithead. Sub in the word, "race" if it makes you feel better. Ethnicity is widely used as a substitute for it already, so hopefully you won't be too confused.

"So, where was all the Islamic terrorism in the first half of the 20 th century?"

They were busy genociding each other and being steamrolled by your ilk, who had leapfrogged a technological generation or two ahead.

"Lol. Really? Last I checked..."

"We finally gained a firm upper hand in the last 200 years, ignore the previous 1200"

"racist"

Religion is not race. Bring on the Coptic Christians and Aleppo Jews. You know this, but you're being purposefully obtuse.

"You were the one that suggested the only reason not to adopt regressive policies"

Yeah, sure. Not importing violent ideologies en masse as a matter of course, in comparison to host nations that don't import competing ideologies, unless to enslave them. You know this, but you're being purposefully obtuse.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Oct 09 17:07:14
lol @ Seb's ahistorical rant.

Ignores centuries of Ummayyad and Ottoman incursions and conquests, terrorizing the land and sea, but he got lucky enough to not get rolled over by the Mongols and pulled ahead technologically, so now it's "2400 of expansion and colonization".
Seb
Member
Wed Oct 09 17:22:31
Forwyn:

*I* said ethnicity, I meant ethnicity. Not my fault if you are an idiot.

"They were busy genociding each other and being steamrolled by your ilk, who had leapfrogged a technological generation or two ahead."

I.e. like you said, ebbs and flows.

But the point is, these cultures have behaved no differently from European cultures. So arguing they are somehow uniquely dangerous is absurd.

"Religion is not race"
Ah, the old "Its not racism of I just hate people of a particular religion" bullshit.

Forwyn
Member
Wed Oct 09 17:29:47
"I meant ethnicity"

Right, because you want to continue conflating religion with race - again ignoring centuries of Islam's precedent of unifying thousands of various races and cultures against opposition.

"I.e. like you said, ebbs and flows."

Except not. All that changed is the mode of delivery of violence. When Islamic empires were the norm, they were happy to utilize conventional violence and brutality against the "others".

'"Its not racism of I just hate people of a particular religion" bullshit.'

Yeah, that very clearly doesn't fit the definition of racism, you fucking clown. Hating Scientology doesn't make you a racist.
Seb
Member
Thu Oct 10 02:27:30
Forwyn:

No, because I meant ethnicity. Like systematically discriminate against Belgians on the basis of them being Belgian would be racist, and people doing so saying "oh, Belgians are not a race, I'm not racist" would be laughed at.

What you are trying to do is explain how discriminating against Muslims because they are Muslim (not that anyone stops to check that are actually a practicing Muslim) is ok because it's a religion.

"Except not. All that changed is the mode of delivery of violence."
Bullshit. Lots of evidence to show Europe was a far more violent place and far more violent in its organised expansion.

Again, special pleading. European settlers plundering there way across the Americas mass slaughtering the local population - ohb that's just the way of things. Ottoman Empire expanding into Europe? Just proves that they are inherently violent savages.

Spot the enormous double standards?
Seb
Member
Thu Oct 10 07:00:41
Forwyn:

Scientology isn't an ethnicity though is it.

Or to put it another way, when you say immigration restrictions for Muslims, you don't have in mind checking every person to see if that white chap from Norway has converted to Islam and is a practicing Muslim. What you mean is people who come from an Islamic culture. At which point you are talking about an ethnicity, not peoples religion.

Asgard
Member
Thu Oct 10 13:02:31
Seb,


let me just summarize this:

have ever two non-anglo/non-celtic people ever blew up a pub in London, in the support of a pan-celtic struggle against the British?

I know you have a severe case of missing the point, so i refer you again to the 2 british pakistanis who blew up in the name of a global islamist struggle against the west, fully knowing and understanding the basic thing that you do not - that the palestinian/israeli conflict represents the entire struggle between islam and the rest of the world since Crusader times
jergul
large member
Thu Oct 10 14:17:14
Asgard
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does indeed have powerful symbolism that is used and obused for propaganda purposes.

It is beyond understanding that Israel is not under a rigerous sanction regime until such a time full voting rights are given to all Palestinians.

As it stands, Israel simply represents a form of unseemly colonialism where the colonists are inflicting their will on a population it has oppressed and enclaved.


Forwyn and Ruggy
Are you seriously arguing that it matters what particular flavour of the prophetic Abramic faith became dominant in Europe before it was displaced by secularism?

Or what mediterranian power had what degree of success before nationalism broke Royalist/Calliphat "by the grace of god" "inshallah" control around the basin and beyond?

Who fucking cares if Carl von Linné used Latin or Arabic for his binomal nomenclature?
jergul
large member
Thu Oct 10 14:20:10
There are cultural barriers that can be invoked. The Hindus are for example a bit odd once you start chipping away at their world view.

But cultures arising around the Med are virtually indistinguishable.
Seb
Member
Thu Oct 10 15:13:44
Asgard:

"have ever two non-anglo/non-celtic people ever blew up a pub in London, in the support of a pan-celtic struggle against the British?"

Why is that relevant? Certainly they got support from Czech socialists and Libya as they saw Irish Republicanism as part of a global anti-imperialist movement.

I refer you to my previous answer though: the fact that two Pakistani guys might have been Islamists co-opting Palestinian nationalism doesn't make all Palestinian terror about global Islamic theocracy.

You accept the point, not all terrorism committed by Muslims is Islamist in nature.
Asgard
Member
Thu Oct 10 17:35:47
You think it's a negligible minority even in it is an overwhelming majority.

Let me ask you this:


Before 1967, when what we know today as the West Bank was controlled by Jordan, - and when Gaza was controlled by Egypt...

Did the patience every blew up Jordanian or Egyptian nightclubs?


No. Cause it's not about nationalism
Asgard
Member
Thu Oct 10 17:36:23
Did the Palestinians*
Forwyn
Member
Thu Oct 10 23:02:04
"Like systematically discriminate against Belgians on the basis of them being Belgian would be racist"

Belgian isn't a race, so the people laughing are retarded.

Why don't you just call people bigots instead of trying to stretch the label of racism to be all-encompassing?

"is ok because it's a religion."

Sure. Ideologies are freely discriminated against all the time. For instance, racist ideologies. lulz. Not many people have a problem discriminating against Nazis.

"Lots of evidence to show Europe was a far more violent place"

I'd love to see this "lots of evidence. In any case, I don't think anyone debated that virtually every society in the world has had incredibly violent times. What I stated is that Islam is superior historically to virtually any European ideology, specifically Catholicism since you honed in on it, at subsuming various competing groups, tribes, nations, of various races, languages, and cultures, and uniting them under a dedicated cause of expanding the Caliphate.

"European settlers plundering there way across the Americas mass slaughtering the local population"

Vast majority of Native deaths in the Americas were attributable to disease - 90%+. Hard to call genocide on smallpox. Early Spanish/Portuguese were particularly brutal in South America, and early US containment protocols e.g. Trail of Tears, would certainly count as genocidal actions.

And we own up to it. Perhaps not as much as we should, but certainly more than genocidal Turks.

"Ottoman Empire expanding into Europe? Just proves that they are inherently violent savages."

Inherently? Have you even been paying attention to the conversation?

"Scientology isn't an ethnicity though is it."

Okay. So brown people religions are ethnicities, white people religions aren't. Got it.

"you don't have in mind checking every person to see if that white chap from Norway has converted to Islam and is a practicing Muslim"

Why not? As I've said before, bring on the Coptic Christians, and the Aleppo Jews, and the secular Arabs. Clearly we know that muh white people are just as susceptible to violent ideologies like Islam or white supremacy, that lead to them lashing out against society, especially civilians.

"What you mean is people who come from an Islamic culture."

Nah, apostates are welcome. They also tend to be more Islamophobic than anyone else.

@jergul:

"Are you seriously arguing that it matters what particular flavour of the prophetic Abramic faith became dominant in Europe before it was displaced by secularism?"

Lulz. How many Islamic countries have freely become secular?
jergul
large member
Fri Oct 11 03:19:25
Asgard
The Jordanian solution? Go for it!

"Today, most Palestinians and their descendants in Jordan are fully naturalized, making Jordan the only Arab country to fully integrate the Palestinian refugees of 1948"

Why are you surprised that portions of your enclaved and colonized populations engage in armed resistance?

Is that not what you wished happened during the deportation from Hungary?
jergul
large member
Fri Oct 11 03:23:39
Forwyn
Why do you expect that secularization would not have happened if a different branch of the same fucking thing (boy are you weight prophet accreditation is an outlandishly heavy way, while at the same time completely disregarding the adverse impact of imperialism in countries not at the core of the industrial revolution) had medeival domonance?
jergul
large member
Fri Oct 11 03:24:02
dominance*
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 11 09:24:20
Forwyn:

"Belgian isn't a race"

Thanks Forwyn for demonstrating my point.

There's no need to call someone a bigot (which sounds like something my dead grandfather would say) when the convoy understood term for such discrimination is racism.

Put it another way, is your objection to describing such people that way really about the technical distinction between nationality, religion, race or ethnicity?

"Ideologies are freely discriminated against all the time"

We have laws that protect religion because we accept in general that it is perfectly possible to practice religion privately. There's a perfectly good way of drawing a distinction between violent Islamism and Muslims in general, as there is between militant Christian terrorist forces like the Lord's Army etc. Why do you choose not to do so?

"specifically Catholicism since you honed in on it, at subsuming various competing groups, tribes, nations, of various races, languages, and cultures, and uniting them under a dedicated cause of expanding the Caliphate."

*Takes a long hard look at the Americas, Africa and large chunks of Asia* - so it seems you are saying whereas Islam converts and assimilates, Christianity historically annihilated? I mean that's not even accurate - all those Black Christians didn't voluntarily convert you know.

"Okay. So brown people religions are ethnicities, white people religions aren't. Got it."

No. E.g. White Anglo Saxon protestant; Irish Catholic / Protestant. Arguably Mormons.

Scientology on the other hand isn't identified as a group where the religion and cultural heritage are conflated.

And like I said, when you say Muslim, you don't really intend to be polling people at the border for their religion irrespective of their skin colour.
Asgard
Member
Fri Oct 11 12:25:10
"There's a perfectly good way of drawing a distinction between violent Islamism and Muslims in general, as there is between militant Christian terrorist forces like the Lord's Army etc. Why do you choose not to do so?"

Basically because the support for Islamism in the street by the average Muslim is very high, while the support for "Lord's Army" is pretty much non existent by the average Christian?

Also because the average Muslim school in Britain teaches pupils to hate the west, while the average Christian school is... well, just a school?
jergul
large member
Fri Oct 11 13:17:57
Asgard
Protip - Don't keep oppressed people in huge ghettos. See if not doing that changes anything.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 11 13:32:15
Asgard:

As I've pointed out, all the anti terrorist authorities agree community support for Irish terrorists was much greater than Muslims for Islamists in the UK.

So basically you are talking bullshit.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Oct 11 13:51:39
Irish were defending against legitimate oppression and often targetted legitimate targets.

Muslims are simply filth who target civilians for no good reason.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Oct 11 13:52:15
I see one of your migrants stabbed up manchester.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Oct 11 14:29:43
"There's no need to call someone a bigot (which sounds like something my dead grandfather would say) when the convoy understood term for such discrimination is racism."

Other than, y'know, being correct. If someone says women shouldn't leave the house, the correct term to label them isn't a racist.

"There's a perfectly good way of drawing a distinction between violent Islamism and Muslims in general, as there is between militant Christian terrorist forces like the Lord's Army etc."

When the Lord's Army starts blowing up subways in Madrid and shooting up concerts in Paris and you poll Western Christians and find out that 15% of them support those attacks, get back to me.

*Takes a long hard look at the Americas, Africa and large chunks of Asia*

Ah yes, I missed the part where the disparate European monarchies formed a united caliphate, completely subsumed the Americas, Africa, and large chunks of Asia, taxing and oppressing non-Christians, capturing them on the seas, and conscripting them into militaries to further their conquests into Islamic lands.

"Scientology on the other hand isn't identified as a group where the religion and cultural heritage are conflated."

The conflation is arbitrary, and it's pretty unwoke of you to treat ethnic groups as monolithic and ignore the existence of religious minorities.

"you don't really intend to be polling people at the border for their religion irrespective of their skin colour."

And again I say, why not? It's just a thought exercise anyway. If you're seeking to ban the import of Islam, you wouldn't make exceptions for white Muslim converts - if anything, you would devote extra resources to rooting them out, as they tend to be even more susceptible to extremist teachings than their peers.


"all the anti terrorist authorities agree community support for Irish terrorists was much greater than Muslims for Islamists in the UK"

I can't imagine why. Irish spent decades in forced poverty, which fomented an independence movement.

The valid comparison is to Palestinians; there should be zero support for Islamist attacks in the UK, not "less than the IRA fighting for independence".
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 11 17:26:31
Sam:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-50014205

Detained under the mental health act.

Yeah, he looks totally like an immigrant.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 11 17:27:49
Interestingly, the Arndale centre was bombed by the IRA, that totally legitimate organisation fighting against the terrible repression of having the vote, but not having a majority support.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 11 17:32:20
Forwyn:

Far too tedious to respond to your post right now, but I'd be interested to hear what you think is the specific term for discrimination against someone on the basis of their cultural or national identity.

Because everyone else uses the term racist. Exempt the perils who don't like being called racist and start saying bullshit Like "but Jew is a religion" or "I'm not anti Semitic, Palestinians are Semitic too" or "I'm not against Arabs, just Muslims, like that brown guy with a turban, what? What's a Sikh?"
Forwyn
Member
Fri Oct 11 18:58:52
Curious that you think that Islam is so intrinsically tied to Arabs that:

A) There are no Muslims who aren't Arab, and
B) There are no Arabs who aren't Muslim.

"Religion is ethnicity but only if I say it is"

Lulz
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 12 02:32:22
What nationality has killed most westerners over the last century anyway?

1. Germany
2. Japan
3. North Korea
4. Vietnam

Something like that?

Seb
Member
Sat Oct 12 07:26:27
Forwyn:

You might have forgotten, but Arabs were the ones Asgard specifically singled out. You I think have been defending that on the basis that Arabs are Islamic. Which is kinda why I'm rather doubting your claim you'd let in Christian Coptics as there's no way they'd be able to prove that weren't Muslim.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Oct 12 14:14:49
Eat some bacon while petting a dog.
Asgard
Member
Sat Oct 12 14:53:39
I will amend your question Jergul,

What nationality has killed most westerners over the last century during peace time?

1. Germany
2. Japan
3. North Korea
4. Vietnam
5.Islamic nations
Asgard
Member
Sat Oct 12 14:56:30
Sec,
Are you familiar with the South Lebanon Army?
They are a group of Christian Lebanese who were Israel's allies during the first Lebanon-Iarael war.
Anyway, after Israel withdrew from Lebanon I. 2000, Israel took in the entire army and their families into Israel, and naturalized then. They are model citizens. They don't blow up anything, mostly because they're Christian, and not Islamists Muslims.
Asgard
Member
Sat Oct 12 14:56:42
Seb*
Asgard
Member
Sat Oct 12 14:59:02
Oh and they're definitely Arabs.
Paramount
Member
Sat Oct 12 16:14:17
”a group of Christian Lebanese who were Israel's allies
They don't blow up anything, mostly because they're Christian”

No, mostly because they (as you said first) are allies with Israel and massacred Palestinians at the so called The Sabra and Shatila massacre. Why would they blow up things in Israel? You are very dishonest, Astard.

”They are model citizens”

Nice to hear that you are embracing murderers. Naturally, Israel took in these murderers and baby killers and gave them shelter.
Asgard
Member
Sat Oct 12 17:05:50
I said, their families too. Are you blaming their families for the massacre?
Hell, Para, even I don't blame the grandchildren of SS officers of any wrong doing in the deaths of my family
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 13 02:52:14
Asgard
The US and UK are certainly way above Islamic nations. 4000 were killed in Norway alone by them. That is more than an entire world trade center from a much, much smaller population base.

Even the free french killed more french people than the Islamic world has killed westerners.

What do you figure Israels K/D ratio is btw?
Asgard
Member
Sun Oct 13 06:42:28
I think you missed the point. I said peace-time.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 13 06:43:02
Forwyn:

Dog aversion is a specifically Arab thing. Turks are fine with dogs. Thought you were fine with Arabs, just not the Muslim ones.

Also, your year excludes Jews, vegetarians and vegans.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 13 06:44:53
Asgard:

Given your defence of bulldozing the homes of the families of suicide bombers, it's a bit rich to be accusing Paramount of visiting the sins of the father in the son.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 13 06:52:12
Asgard:

I'm perplexed. You are talking about a group that committed noted war crimes in camps (in which Isael was complicit).

What's the point you are making? That they haven't attacked Israel (their allies) ergo they are peaceful?

I think it rather supports my point: all peoples have the capacity for violence and atrocity, so singling out an entire ethnic group as being particularly dangerous is a totally fallacious argument.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 13 08:07:37
Asgard
My, that was a rather arbitrary distinction. The method is also rathe awkward, as you would have to discount all Islamist killings that happened outside of peace-time.

My point remains. Islamist do not by any measure kill very many westerners.

And what did you reckon Israel's K/D ratio is?
Asgard
Member
Sun Oct 13 11:41:11
"Given your defence of bulldozing the homes of the families of suicide bombers, it's a bit rich to be accusing Paramount of visiting the sins of the father in the son."

Right, because my country's actions are my own arguments? fuck you.
No, I don't support blowing up bombers' houses.
No, I don't support the occupation itself, and I have repeatedly said that.
Nice deflection though, I'd give you that.

"I'm perplexed. "

Again, forget about their men who fought. The families is my point. Israel took in thousands of Lebanese Arabs without question nor hesitation and naturalized them in a heartbit, and they are model citizens. Christian Arabs.
What other point did you miss entirely in the previous thread? here: 25% of Israel's population are muslim arabs who are also model citizens who don't blow shit up - because they want to integrate, which is in stark contrast to the muslim arabs in London and Paris who really get off by blowing people up.
Asgard
Member
Sun Oct 13 11:43:56
"Dog aversion is a specifically Arab thing."

no, no. no!

Dog aversion is a religious thing.
Religious jews see my dog and walk to the other side of the street, each and everyone of them, not one excluded. Same as the random Arab. However, some arabs are fine with dogs, and when you see them and talk to them you realize they're....secular.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 13 12:25:41
Who has blown more people up? Israel since 1948 or all Islamists that have ever lived since the birth of that branch of Judeo faith?
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 13 12:39:02
Asgard:

"Right, because my country's actions are my"

No, but your defence of it - and you have defended it in the past - is yours.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 13 12:41:42
"Israel took in thousands of Lebanese Arabs without question nor hesitation and naturalized them in a heartbit, and they are model citizens. Christian Arabs."

So what? That's actually quite normal thing to do.

"25% of Israel's population are muslim arabs who are also model citizens who don't blow shit up - because they want to integrate, which is in stark contrast to the muslim arabs in London and Paris who really get off by blowing people up"

Hold on, do you actually think most or even anything more than a handful of Muslim Arabs in London or Paris blow people up?

You can't possibly be that stupid.
Asgard
Member
Sun Oct 13 15:37:29
"No, but your defence of it - and you have defended it in the past - is yours."

Lying won't get you anywhere. I've never defended it.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 13 16:19:12
I fairly sure you have Asgard, but you don't get to call that a lie unless you are willing to accept you saying I'm obsessively creating posts about Israel are.

I note you dodged the issue of you apparently believing that most British muslims are wanting to blow things up.
Asgard
Member
Sun Oct 13 16:40:00
"(24 vs 70) 70% of Muslims in the UK believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 15% thought it could be justified often or sometimes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Islamism
I know it's wikipedia, but it's fairly OK.

Holy shit, 24%.
Asgard
Member
Sun Oct 13 16:44:49
well, ok, you're not creating threads, but you are present in them. Maybe it is Parafreak who makes them.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 13 17:42:39
Asgard:

"9% believed it could be justified rarely, 15% thought it could be justified often or sometimes."

The question being " whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified"

This is a highly abstract and somewhat ambiguous question.

Firstly, this is not the same as "Would you be willing to participate in an attack on UK civilians".

Secondly, you said 25%, it's 15%.

Thirdly, the question comes down to how narrowly you want to read "ever" "defend" and "Islam". If "Islam" is perceived to be "Muslims" i.e. "are there extenuating circumstanced where it would be ok to attack civilians if Muslim Civilians were themselves under attack" a 70% "never" is either massively dishonest or shows that Islam truly is the religion of peace.

What do you think the answer to the following question in the UK population is:

"Could violence against Civilian targets ever be justified to defend our democracy?"

Because if the answer is less than 20%, I bet the answer to the following question:

"Was it right to deliberately bomb civilian targets specifically to kill civilians to defend our democracy during WWII?"

The answer will surely be above 80% yes.

You have several times defending the buldozing of houses.

I haven't commented on Israel in over five years, except when you raise it directly. It simply hasn't been worthwhile.

Israel is going to keep murdering Palestinians and stealing the land, Palestinians are going to keep murdering Israelis, and Iran is going to keep meddling.

Since fracking took off, there really is no incentive for the great powers to care enough to impose peace. So there is nothing to say.

One day, unfortunately, you will probably all kill each other in a nuclear war. Of all the actors, the country with the greatest potential to alter this inevitability remains Israel. It doesn't care to. It thinks it can keep the land and marginalise the Palestinians forever. It will ultimately fail. There will be a bloody war, and everyone will die in fire, and those that don't will come as refugees to Europe. There's really not much more to discuss. It's been done to death in the 90's and 2010's. It's deeply tragic, but it's not worth commenting on anymore.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Oct 13 18:22:32
Did you marry a Muslim, Seb? Do you seriously believe that, "whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified" is a vague question? And that it's acceptable for a quarter of your Islamic imports to hold these beliefs?
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sun Oct 13 21:50:07
Prophet Seb has spoken!

"Everyone will die in fire."

Yikes.
Seb
Member
Mon Oct 14 01:32:25
Forwyn:

What in this context does "defend Islam" mean?

It's asking "is total war ever justified to defend *something poorly defined*".

Does that mean Islam as an idea, or Muslims in general? The first implies it would be ok to use force to prevent an idea being eroded. The second implies that Muslims are already under attack (so an act of self defence) - but doesn't specify the nature of the attack.

Would total war be justified to defend "democracy". Does "defend democracy" mean from an ideological attack like, well, by alt right but jobs like you convinced my soft stance on refugees is undermining democracy?

Or does it mean against an external attack? Like how do many US figures interpreted 9/11 as an attack on "our freedom"?

Or does it mean a broad and existential attack on our democratic state?
Well, we have thousands of nuclear weapons that until recently were pointed at Russian cities for that eventuality with the explicit intent of killing as much of their population as possible.

So quite hard to claim on the latter case that it can "never be justified".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Oct 14 05:30:09
"the country with the greatest potential to alter this inevitability remains Israel"

Thus confirming in principle what Asgard has been ranting about. That this is Israels problem to fix. The Arabs countries who for decades refused to recognize Israel, Iran and Syria today are minor actors in this.

There is a severe lack of understanding for the position you are in with adversaries who more than peace or anything else simply want to undo you.

There is a simple way to learn something by looking at how this conflict is "taught" to little children (institutionally) in the respective countries. 6 year old me who was stomping a burning Israeli flag in the schoolyard can explain it for you. Where are the Israeli analog to the stories in my Farsi textbook from first grade?
Seb
Member
Mon Oct 14 06:20:06
Nim:

No. Asgard's charges are that I'm obsessed with Israel and constantly attacking it. This is demonstrably false.

His second charge is that I must stop supporting acceptance of Syrian refugees because... well he first said Arabs were more prone to terror so good knows what his argument is now.

Israel is in occupation of Palestine and I don't see why granting Palestinians self determination and at the very least stopping progressive annexation involves Iran, Syria etc.

That's just a convenient excuse to continue to pursue the progressive settlement that elements of Israel have always wanted to do.

"Where are the Israeli analog to the stories in my Farsi textbook from first grade?"

What's your point? That because they don't have racist school text books they aren't aggressively colonising the Palestinians lands? The very lands that must be set aside for a future Palestinian state if any kind of peace that doesn't involve genocide, apartheid or ethnic cleansing is ever to be achieved?
Seb
Member
Mon Oct 14 06:21:09
You can rightly criticise neighbouring countries exploitation of the issue, but the fact remains successive Istaeli govts since 1967 have continually embarked on policies that make peace almost impossible to attain now.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Oct 14 09:00:29
>>No. Asgard's charges are that I'm obsessed with Israel and constantly attacking it. This is demonstrably false.<<

He is wrong on that and I think he would say this. He is conflating your absurd ideas about religion not affecting behavior and reductionist views on religions and culture with Israel/Palestine, which in his defence religion is a big part of that conflict.

>>good knows what his argument is now.<<

Anyone who has bothered reading what he has responded knows. He even made an effort to say that he was "bigoted" with how worded the first thread, it is the third post in this thread. I often wonder what the "end game" is when you engage, it isn't "understanding" in any shape or manner it seems.

>>What's your point? That because they don't have racist school text books they aren't aggressively colonising the Palestinians lands?<<

Once we get passed the imaterial stuff, you believe that Israel carries the reponsibility for setting this straight.

I wonder, why do believe this?

I think alot can be said from how and what you teach your children about your national adversery/enemy. The fact that Israel does not in a systematic way foster hatred for Arabs is an important nuance.

Israel could wipe out Palestine tomorrow, they don't. Would you feel confident nothing atrocious would happen if you handed 100 nukes to the Palestinians?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Oct 14 09:07:57
>>Istaeli govts since 1967 have continually embarked on policies that make peace almost impossible to attain now.<<

I would like to hear more on what has lead you to this position, certainly these policies did not take shape in a vacuum. There was an undeniable shift in power after 67.
Seb
Member
Mon Oct 14 09:08:35
Nim

"you believe that Israel carries the reponsibility for setting this straight."

Do you think there is any peace settlement that can be achieved without Israeli withdrawal?

You are trying to turn "obligation" into some strange, abstract and non specific thing - which is just handwaving bullshit.

Brass tacks: there can be no just peace without Israel withdrawing from the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The only other solutions are: an apartheid state, ethnic cleansing or genocide.

There is a moral and legal obligation on them to do so at at some point. The settlement policy frustrates that. Stopping the settlement policy, even reversing the settlements would not have any direct negative effect Vis a vis Syria, Iran etc. So what Iran teaches it's six year olds is, for the purposes of this conversation, immaterial.

Do you not agree?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Oct 14 09:16:28
>>Do you think there is any peace settlement that can be achieved without Israeli withdrawal?<<

All this will lead us to, there are two sides to a conflict. There are counter question in the same vein. Can there be peace when the other actors refuse to acknowledge Israels right to exist? Why would I even show up for such a meeting?

>>So what Iran teaches it's six year olds is, for the purposes of this conversation, immaterial.<<

Quite important actually for not reaching the naive conclusion that Israel somehow sits on all the cards to bring about peace.
Seb
Member
Mon Oct 14 09:21:36
Nim:

" Would you feel confident nothing atrocious would happen if you handed 100 nukes to the Palestinians?"

No. Because the Palestinians would seek to use them to drive Israel out of the West Bank.

If the Palestinians had an automous state and a military force equal to the Israelis, I'd think they'd coexist.

It'd be quite normal though, wouldn't it, for a people subjected to a lifetime of occupation, daily humiliation, poverty and sporadic violence delivered by high explosives from fast jets, to hate your occupier?

It took a heroic effort to accept Germans weren't the enemy for many of the occupied countries. And that was after Germany was destroyed, split in two, and it's people reduced to poverty.

If I'd given a hundred nukes to the French resistance, what do you think they'd have done with them? Germany would be a crater.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share