Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

Here is an edited list of islamic attacks, just since 1983. And it's not Jihadwatch.

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

For some reason, lists like that never seem to include "honor" killings. They should.

In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in ‘honor killings’ annually. Why is this happening?

Hmm... in all fairness. That's not a Muslim thing. That's a Middle-Eastern thing. It's a widespread practice in the region. Especially the northen part of the region, along the Hindu-Kush mountains and from there into Turkish Kurdistan. The Christians in that region do it to, just as much as the Muslims. As for support from scripture, it's in all the holy texts. In Iran, ethnic Persians aren't doing it. Ritualised honour killings is only happening in minority tribal areas. Note, women being beaten to death by their spouses of course happens all over Iran, as it does in every society on the planet (and is distressingly common).

So it's complicated. I think it's dodgy to pin this on religion. I think it's more just a cultural practice. It's also linked to poverty and rural life. These groups are more conservative. What this tells us is that the practice will in time die out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There have been over 25.000 islamic attacks just since 9/11 in the world. Since this death cult was founded, over 270 million deaths. Any other figures from all religions combined pale against these numbers.

Not the invasion of Iraq. Done because GW's Christian god told him to kill people.

The largest act of terrorism in the 21st Century.

Far bigger than anything done by any Muslim.

And the direct cause of the empowerment of ISIS.

Take away US terrorism and nobody ever hears of ISIS.

The real problem in the world is US terrorism, not the blowback we get in response.

Saddam killed more in Iraq than we did.

Iran killed more in Iraq than we did.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There have been over 25.000 islamic attacks just since 9/11 in the world. Since this death cult was founded, over 270 million deaths. Any other figures from all religions combined pale against these numbers.

No matter how you twist around the numbers and try to compensate for birthrates and whatnot could you possibly reach the conclusion that Islam has caused more deaths than any other religion. First off, the exponential growth of human populations following the industrial revolution means that the later the war the more deaths. The wars that caused the most deaths ever was WW2, with WWI as a close runner upp. No Islam to be found anywhere. If we adjust for sizes of populations, ie relative deaths, the Mongol hordes win hands down. What religion did the Mongols have? They were Buddhist, animist and Christian. Yes, Christian. About half the Mongol army under Genghis Khan were Christian. The most brutal army in history. If we instead look at what regimes killed the most people. Communism wins here. Not so much out of malice as just a failure to run the economy. No religion to be found anywhere. The most brutal campaign ever was the first Crusade. They pretty much just killed everybody that came near them. Total carnage. When Saladin retook Jerusalem so few people died it doesn't even register in the statistic.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/the-death-toll-comparison-breakdown.html

And if you look at deaths by terrorism compared to any other way to die it's not even worth worrying about. You're more likely to die from taking a shit. Or die being accidentally shot by your toddler.

Can you please stop just making shit up? You've been called on your bullshit now so many times. Please stop.

And what's an infographic that doesn't even address the issue supposed to prove? They have a few Islamist actions on there but there's no circle for Islam-driven conflict.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait what. No. Look at the numbers. Islam isn't even on the list. It's not even in the top 20 of killers. Even Buddhists have a more bloody history than Islam.

Islam not being on the list simply means they didn't put it on the list. There are multiple examples of Islamist deaths on that list and they're a drop in the bucket compared to the total.

 

[untermensche]

Not the invasion of Iraq. Done because GW's Christian god told him to kill people.

The largest act of terrorism in the 21st Century.

Far bigger than anything done by any Muslim.

And the direct cause of the empowerment of ISIS.

Take away US terrorism and nobody ever hears of ISIS.

The real problem in the world is US terrorism, not the blowback we get in response.

Saddam killed more in Iraq than we did.

Iran killed more in Iraq than we did.

You left out some things.

Saddam killed more Iranians than the US, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE US and other Western powers.

We don't know if he killed more Iraqis because the US didn't even try to count the Iraqi's it killed. It just killed and tortured whoever it wanted, as terrorists are inclined to do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Saddam killed more in Iraq than we did.

Iran killed more in Iraq than we did.

You left out some things.

Saddam killed more Iranians than the US, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE US and other Western powers.

We don't know if he killed more Iraqis because the US didn't even try to count the Iraqi's it killed. It just killed and tortured whoever it wanted, as terrorists are inclined to do.

The deaths from Saddam's playing games with the sanctions exceeded the total war deaths. Since Saddam didn't even spend all the money he had available we can't be blamed for that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You left out some things.

Saddam killed more Iranians than the US, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE US and other Western powers.

We don't know if he killed more Iraqis because the US didn't even try to count the Iraqi's it killed. It just killed and tortured whoever it wanted, as terrorists are inclined to do.

The deaths from Saddam's playing games with the sanctions exceeded the total war deaths. Since Saddam didn't even spend all the money he had available we can't be blamed for that.

There are all kinds of arguments but the imposition of the sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of people and were aimed at the Iraqi people, particularly the poor. A few years ago Saddam was at war with Iraq, and supported by the West, then our ally in the Middle East.

 

[untermensche]

You left out some things.

Saddam killed more Iranians than the US, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE US and other Western powers.

We don't know if he killed more Iraqis because the US didn't even try to count the Iraqi's it killed. It just killed and tortured whoever it wanted, as terrorists are inclined to do.

The deaths from Saddam's playing games with the sanctions exceeded the total war deaths. Since Saddam didn't even spend all the money he had available we can't be blamed for that.

The deaths from the Sanctions are the responsibility of the people who instituted them.

They were murderous and everyone knew they were murderous yet they remained in place.

The resignation of two senior United Nations officials this month, in protest against the continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq, has caused political embarrassment to the US and British governments and their policy of maintaining the embargo on the Persian Gulf nation. It has once again brought to public attention the enormous suffering being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the administrations of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/iraq-f25.html

 

[whichphilosophy]

The deaths from Saddam's playing games with the sanctions exceeded the total war deaths. Since Saddam didn't even spend all the money he had available we can't be blamed for that.

The deaths from the Sanctions are the responsibility of the people who instituted them.

They were murderous and everyone knew they were murderous yet they remained in place.

The resignation of two senior United Nations officials this month, in protest against the continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq, has caused political embarrassment to the US and British governments and their policy of maintaining the embargo on the Persian Gulf nation. It has once again brought to public attention the enormous suffering being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the administrations of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/iraq-f25.html

This was genocide of course. Originally imposed after the invasion of Kuwait, they were extended to the end of Saddam's rule because of WMDs which have still not been found. Hence needless deaths based on a falsehood.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No matter how you twist around the numbers and try to compensate for birthrates and whatnot could you possibly reach the conclusion that Islam has caused more deaths than any other religion. First off, the exponential growth of human populations following the industrial revolution means that the later the war the more deaths. The wars that caused the most deaths ever was WW2, with WWI as a close runner upp. No Islam to be found anywhere. If we adjust for sizes of populations, ie relative deaths, the Mongol hordes win hands down. What religion did the Mongols have? They were Buddhist, animist and Christian. Yes, Christian. About half the Mongol army under Genghis Khan were Christian. The most brutal army in history. If we instead look at what regimes killed the most people. Communism wins here. Not so much out of malice as just a failure to run the economy. No religion to be found anywhere. The most brutal campaign ever was the first Crusade. They pretty much just killed everybody that came near them. Total carnage. When Saladin retook Jerusalem so few people died it doesn't even register in the statistic.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/the-death-toll-comparison-breakdown.html

And if you look at deaths by terrorism compared to any other way to die it's not even worth worrying about. You're more likely to die from taking a shit. Or die being accidentally shot by your toddler.

Can you please stop just making shit up? You've been called on your bullshit now so many times. Please stop.

And what's an infographic that doesn't even address the issue supposed to prove? They have a few Islamist actions on there but there's no circle for Islam-driven conflict.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait what. No. Look at the numbers. Islam isn't even on the list. It's not even in the top 20 of killers. Even Buddhists have a more bloody history than Islam.

Islam not being on the list simply means they didn't put it on the list. There are multiple examples of Islamist deaths on that list and they're a drop in the bucket compared to the total.

Ok. I'm listening. How about producing some examples and numbers?

BTW, I reject the idea of religion driven violence. Whenever I learn about any "religious" conflict the core contention is always something pretty mundane, like control over a scarce resource or just ethnicity. Religion may influence how that violence is carried out (which minority is used as a scapegoat) but I don't think religion is an engine behind violence. Religion is more the colour of the car. Rather than the actual car.

 

[angelo]

Here is an interesting article, and no, it's not from Jihadwatch!

https://charliehebdo.fr/en/edito/how-did-we-end-up-here/

 

[bigfield]

Here is an interesting article, and no, it's not from Jihadwatch!

https://charliehebdo.fr/en/edito/how-did-we-end-up-here/

Did you understand the point of the author's argument?

The author is claiming that the Brussels attack could not have happened if it weren't for the political correctness of Europeans.

Do you agree with that ridiculous position?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here is an interesting article, and no, it's not from Jihadwatch!

https://charliehebdo.fr/en/edito/how-did-we-end-up-here/

You're conflating things. You're putting yourself in the shoes of Charlie Hebdo. You're conflating political correctness with criticising the lies you are spreading. Having an issue with people lying isn't political correctness. It's a healthy debate.

Charlie Hebdo tests the limits of free speech. That's what they do. Sometimes with tasteless, racist and Yes, Islamophobic humour. Fun. I like Charlie Hebdo. I think this stuff is important and healthy for a society. I don't think you and Charlie Hebdo have anything in common.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And what's an infographic that doesn't even address the issue supposed to prove? They have a few Islamist actions on there but there's no circle for Islam-driven conflict.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait what. No. Look at the numbers. Islam isn't even on the list. It's not even in the top 20 of killers. Even Buddhists have a more bloody history than Islam.

Islam not being on the list simply means they didn't put it on the list. There are multiple examples of Islamist deaths on that list and they're a drop in the bucket compared to the total.

Ok. I'm listening. How about producing some examples and numbers?

BTW, I reject the idea of religion driven violence. Whenever I learn about any "religious" conflict the core contention is always something pretty mundane, like control over a scarce resource or just ethnicity. Religion may influence how that violence is carried out (which minority is used as a scapegoat) but I don't think religion is an engine behind violence. Religion is more the colour of the car. Rather than the actual car.

I often say religion is a vehicle (sometimes to herd the masses or to serve as the opiate of the some of the people). It needs a driver.

 

[angelo]

Here is an interesting article, and no, it's not from Jihadwatch!

https://charliehebdo.fr/en/edito/how-did-we-end-up-here/

Did you understand the point of the author's argument?

The author is claiming that the Brussels attack could not have happened if it weren't for the political correctness of Europeans.

Do you agree with that ridiculous position?

Agree 1000%.

 

[bigfield]

Did you understand the point of the author's argument?

The author is claiming that the Brussels attack could not have happened if it weren't for the political correctness of Europeans.

Do you agree with that ridiculous position?

Agree 1000%.

And how, exactly, would a lack of political correctness have prevented the attack? What would have been done differently, and by whom?

I'm eager to see your reasoning, because the Charlie Hebdo article makes no attempt to explain the connection between PC and the Brussels attack.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Agree 1000%.

And how, exactly, would a lack of political correctness have prevented the attack? What would have been done differently, and by whom?

I'm eager to see your reasoning, because the Charlie Hebdo article makes no attempt to explain the connection between PC and the Brussels attack.

There is a problem with right wing conservatives whining about political correctness. I agree that it is a problem. But not in the way right wing conservatives think, or even that guy who wrote the Charlie Hebdo article insinuated. People today mainly inform themselves via social media. Places like this. It's no longer just teenagers. It's people of all ages. The existence of this forum proves that political correctness isn't stopping anybody from voicing any opinion. The Internet is full of openly racist blogs. Political correctness isn't stopping them.

The problem with political correctness is that lefty types are trying to use it in order to censor. But they've failed. They've not managed to do fucking anything in the name of political correctness, other than in the most rudimentary ways. Like getting trigger warnings put on academic papers. So that doesn't really add any weight to the argument that political correctness is to blame for... well.... anything. Political correctness hasn't yet been allowed to do any damage.

The fact that news reporting is bland and avoiding to step on any toes... I'm sorry... but mainstream media has always done this. This is not being politically correct. It's just having a mass market appeal. Anything that aims for mass market will be self censored and dull.

 

[TSwizzle]

There is a problem with right wing conservatives whining about political correctness. I agree that it is a problem. But not in the way right wing conservatives think, or even that guy who wrote the Charlie Hebdo article insinuated. People today mainly inform themselves via social media. Places like this. It's no longer just teenagers. It's people of all ages. The existence of this forum proves that political correctness isn't stopping anybody from voicing any opinion. The Internet is full of openly racist blogs. Political correctness isn't stopping them.

The problem with political correctness is that lefty types are trying to use it in order to censor. But they've failed. They've not managed to do fucking anything in the name of political correctness, other than in the most rudimentary ways. Like getting trigger warnings put on academic papers. So that doesn't really add any weight to the argument that political correctness is to blame for... well.... anything. Political correctness hasn't yet been allowed to do any damage.

Wrong again. Woe betide the person that expresses a view contrary to the new orthodoxy of political correctness. Heaven forbid somebody express an old fashioned view re marriage. A hapless tennis tournament director has just been hounded out of his job for stating the obvious but contravenes the new theocracy. And tread carefully when speaking of climate change or saying out loud that you have your doubts about a religion of peace.

 

[Bomb#20]

For some reason, lists like that never seem to include "honor" killings. They should.

In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in ‘honor killings’ annually. Why is this happening?

Hmm... in all fairness. That's not a Muslim thing. That's a Middle-Eastern thing. It's a widespread practice in the region. Especially the northen part of the region, along the Hindu-Kush mountains and from there into Turkish Kurdistan.

What's your point? An honor killing is terrorism by any reasonable definition. It's an attack on a non-combatant, the point of the practice is to terrorize women into compliance, and what they're being terrorized into complying with is systematic male power over women. That means it's a political goal. Honor killings should be included in terrorism statistics. Got a problem with that?

If you're trying to argue that importing hundreds of thousands of Middle-Eastern Muslims into Europe is a good idea because honor killing is a Middle-Eastern thing and Indonesian Muslims don't go in for honor killing at the same rate, well, so what if they don't? The mass imports aren't coming from Indonesia.

The Christians in that region do it to, just as much as the Muslims.

Do you have statistics confirming that, or is it just something you believe because you want to?

In Iran, ethnic Persians aren't doing it.

You don't have statistics confirming that; it is just something you believe because you want to. Ethnic Persians may well do it less often than people in the tribal areas, but some of them do it. That's not the same thing as "Ethnic Persians aren't doing it."

Ritualised honour killings is only happening in minority tribal areas.

No doubt when a Tehran girl is murdered by her uncle, or father, or mother, or brother, for bringing shame on the family by making eyes at an unapproved boy or refusing an arranged marriage, she can take comfort in the killer being too enlightened and modern to kill her in a ritualized way.

What this tells us is that the practice will in time die out.

So will terrorism in general. On a time scale of thousands of years the better angels of our nature will no doubt keep winning. That's not a reason not to count honor killings as terrorist attacks.

 

[barbos]

Agree 1000%.

And how, exactly, would a lack of political correctness have prevented the attack? What would have been done differently, and by whom?

I'm eager to see your reasoning, because the Charlie Hebdo article makes no attempt to explain the connection between PC and the Brussels attack.

Without PC muslims would have been forced to integrate into secular society better, instead of letting themselves to live in ghettos.
The truth is, people don't like other people who are too different (this is an established scientific fact).
This is especially true for Europeans.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a problem with right wing conservatives whining about political correctness. I agree that it is a problem. But not in the way right wing conservatives think, or even that guy who wrote the Charlie Hebdo article insinuated. People today mainly inform themselves via social media. Places like this. It's no longer just teenagers. It's people of all ages. The existence of this forum proves that political correctness isn't stopping anybody from voicing any opinion. The Internet is full of openly racist blogs. Political correctness isn't stopping them.

The problem with political correctness is that lefty types are trying to use it in order to censor. But they've failed. They've not managed to do fucking anything in the name of political correctness, other than in the most rudimentary ways. Like getting trigger warnings put on academic papers. So that doesn't really add any weight to the argument that political correctness is to blame for... well.... anything. Political correctness hasn't yet been allowed to do any damage.

Wrong again. Woe betide the person that expresses a view contrary to the new orthodoxy of political correctness. Heaven forbid somebody express an old fashioned view re marriage. A hapless tennis tournament director has just been hounded out of his job for stating the obvious but contravenes the new theocracy. And tread carefully when speaking of climate change or saying out loud that you have your doubts about a religion of peace.

An organisation with mass market appeal, (like the French open) doesn't want a director unable to communicate intelligently. His job is to sell French Open and he won't do that by antagonising a part of the potential ticket-buyers. Imagine if a waiter would have said the same to a restaurant guest. He would be fired. That's not political correctness gone amok. That's the price of incompetence. I'm guessing you mean the French Open director getting fired. You weren't specific as to which director it was.

As for Climate Change, I really don't know what you mean? We're over run by climate change deniers and they stand unopposed. Carbon emissions just keep going up and up. This is a world of climate change deniers. The scientific community stand unified on this issue and nobody gives a shit. So not sure what you're talking about?

As for Islam. Are you really having difficulty finding people speaking up against Islam? Is anybody trying to shut you up here? You seem to be welcome to voice your opinion as much as you wish. The fact that mainstream media isn't chiming in.. well.... they've always been politically correct. What the fuck do you expect? Why would they now suddenly stop being politically correct and start bashing religion? What's your thinking here? They're politically correct for the same reason the French Open director got fired. If your product is a mass market product you don't want to risk annoying those who're paying your lunch.

The fact that every media outlet isn't coming across as if they have Tourettes isn't evidence of censorship. Censorship is when no media dares speak up. Well... I don't have to try hard to find fringe magazines bashing anything.