Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

The very same rules apply here my friend! The Huff Post as you imply the Daily Mail, are not neutral news sources!

You are absolutely correct. But the Huff post includes sources (it's pretty much just a list of sources) which you can check yourself. Which is why I chose to use it anyway. It was a good collection.

But it's easy to do this research yourself. Just pick any mosque at random. They'll have a page "about Islam". Search for the term "terrorism" on the page and you'll see a statement condemning it. Never fails.

But you've got to pick it at random. If you go out of your way to find one of the very few extremist mosques, you'll of course get your views validated. But if you pick a mosque at random the chances of that one being an extremist one is infinitesimally small.

Forgetting about bias in news sources for the moment. Condemnation of Islamic terrorist atrocities is not what I see here in Australia. For every one condemnation, I see five that are either silent or at best saying : it has nothing to do with Islam! In that case, who are these delusional murderers? Catholics, Jews perhaps. That's what I've heard from a couple of so called moderate muslims. That's it's all a giant Jew conspiracy to make Muslims take the blame!

 

[bilby]

You are absolutely correct. But the Huff post includes sources (it's pretty much just a list of sources) which you can check yourself. Which is why I chose to use it anyway. It was a good collection.

But it's easy to do this research yourself. Just pick any mosque at random. They'll have a page "about Islam". Search for the term "terrorism" on the page and you'll see a statement condemning it. Never fails.

But you've got to pick it at random. If you go out of your way to find one of the very few extremist mosques, you'll of course get your views validated. But if you pick a mosque at random the chances of that one being an extremist one is infinitesimally small.

Forgetting about bias in news sources for the moment. Condemnation of Islamic terrorist atrocities is not what I see here in Australia. For every one condemnation, I see five that are either silent or at best saying : it has nothing to do with Islam! In that case, who are these delusional murderers? Catholics, Jews perhaps. That's what I've heard from a couple of so called moderate muslims. That's it's all a giant Jew conspiracy to make Muslims take the blame!

The two most recent press releases from the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) are both condemnations of terrorist acts. http://muslimsaustralia.com.au/category/afic-press-releases/

That you don't hear these condemnations says more about where you get your "information" than it says about reality.

 

[angelo]

Are you referring to this " council?'' Their first priority is to the Islamic Ummah, to establish an Islamic caliphate throughout the world, and as this deceptive Australian branch points out in their manifesto, is pure bunkum!

http://muslimsaustralia.com.au/

 

[DrZoidberg]

Forgetting about bias in news sources for the moment. Condemnation of Islamic terrorist atrocities is not what I see here in Australia. For every one condemnation, I see five that are either silent or at best saying : it has nothing to do with Islam! In that case, who are these delusional murderers? Catholics, Jews perhaps. That's what I've heard from a couple of so called moderate muslims. That's it's all a giant Jew conspiracy to make Muslims take the blame!

Them saying that it has nothing to do with Islam is condemning it. It's a one True Scotsman argument. We can laugh, but what matters is whether or not they condemn terrorism. If they say they are that means they're condemning it. It's also a strong condemnation. That means they think it cannot be justified. They're claiming that engaging in terrorism means that you can't be in the Islamic club any more no matter what. A strong condemnation!

If you look at Islamic radical propaganda they're expecting every westerner to take responsibility for the "Christian" "crusade" against Taliban Afghanistan and in Iraq. They hold everybody in the west collectively responsible. Laughable and absurd. But you're doing the same.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are you referring to this " council?'' Their first priority is to the Islamic Ummah, to establish an Islamic caliphate throughout the world, and as this deceptive Australian branch points out in their manifesto, is pure bunkum!

http://muslimsaustralia.com.au/

All those words are vague. The problem with comparing Islamic institution 1:1 with Christian institutions is that Christianity is highly hierarchical with imposed authority. A Christian priest actually has power over members of the congregation. An Imam has no power. If you don't like your local mosque and their imams you go to another. Christianity has in later years started to become more and more like Islam in this regard. Especially evangelical Christianity.

Strictly speaking, being an imam means you are in the instant you call to prayer and recite from the Quran. When you're not you're, according to Islam, just a regular person. Islam is highly democratic with power distributed. That doesn't prevent people who regularly hold mass to call themselves Imams even at other times. But the title is pretty vague. It's a similar thing with a mullah. Any loser on-line can call themselves an Islamic scholar. There's no shortage of Islamic diploma mills if you want to have a phd in Islamic law. Or dodgy Islamic schools in the sticks.

In the west we have a bad habit of assuming that the Islamic religious titles are the same as their Christian counterparts. But they're just not. Shia Islam is different though. Shia Islam is quite similar to Catholicism. But they're hardly in the majority.

Angelo, you clearly don't understand what the words mean.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not supporting ISIS is not the same as not supporting terrorism.



That's 30k terrorist supporters in the US alone.

Or more. Saying suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians are never justified is not the same as not supporting terrorism. You just have to define whichever civilians you're okay with murdering as "non-civilians".

You misunderstand.

Not supporting ISIS is as you say not proof they're not terrorist supporters. However, supporting suicide bombings against civilians is proof they are terrorist supporters.

- - - Updated - - -

Not supporting ISIS is not the same as not supporting terrorism.

Most Muslims don't support terrorism either.

But if we look more narrowly. If you look at what Jihadi's say they see Islamic terrorism as nothing but retaliation for Western terrorism. You can all you want argue the case that western military interventions isn't terrorism. The fact remains that the western press systematically play down the suffering in the countries where we're "helping".

Even if you grant their position (which is based on the fake news released by the terrorists) it's still not justified. The other side committing terrorism is no reason for you to do so also.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Even if you grant their position (which is based on the fake news released by the terrorists) it's still not justified. The other side committing terrorism is no reason for you to do so also.

CNN, BBC NEWS, New York Times is not fake news. Trump, is it you?

There's a well known psychological effect of the further away, the less serious. We all play down what happens far away.

When 20 people close to us are killed in a terrorist attack we get a seemingly endless stream of in depth interviews with how this has effected their lives and how traumatised they are. There's no level of detail about the attack deemed irrelevant to report. There will be full page pictures where we see suffering faces.

When the same attack happens in some "-istan" we basically just get a summary of casualties and the focus isn't on the trauma, but the political background that led to the attack.

And it works in the reverse to. When 20 people are killed in a terrorist attack in London somebody in India might wonder what all the fuss is about since more people day everyday from drowning in their swimming pools.

There's also the factor of that when somebody close to us has been killed, by lets say an invasion, we will stop thinking rationally about it. Just a normal psychological reaction that doesn't really help things.

 

[Bomb#20]

Or more. Saying suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians are never justified is not the same as not supporting terrorism. You just have to define whichever civilians you're okay with murdering as "non-civilians".

You misunderstand.

Not supporting ISIS is as you say not proof they're not terrorist supporters. However, supporting suicide bombings against civilians is proof they are terrorist supporters.

I didn't say anything about ISIS and you're missing my point. Counting only people who believe attacks on civilians are justified gives you an undercount of terrorism supporters. You also have to count those who believe attacks on civilians are unjustified, but who have bigoted beliefs about which people are civilians. The "There's no such thing as an Israeli civilian" folks are terrorism supporters too, even the ones who sincerely believe it's wrong to attack civilians and who condemn terror attacks in the U.S.

 

[Jayjay]

You misunderstand.

Not supporting ISIS is as you say not proof they're not terrorist supporters. However, supporting suicide bombings against civilians is proof they are terrorist supporters.

I didn't say anything about ISIS and you're missing my point. Counting only people who believe attacks on civilians are justified gives you an undercount of terrorism supporters. You also have to count those who believe attacks on civilians are unjustified, but who have bigoted beliefs about which people are civilians. The "There's no such thing as an Israeli civilian" folks are terrorism supporters too, even the ones who sincerely believe it's wrong to attack civilians and who condemn terror attacks in the U.S.

By that definition I'm probably a terrorist supporter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You misunderstand.

Not supporting ISIS is as you say not proof they're not terrorist supporters. However, supporting suicide bombings against civilians is proof they are terrorist supporters.

I didn't say anything about ISIS and you're missing my point. Counting only people who believe attacks on civilians are justified gives you an undercount of terrorism supporters. You also have to count those who believe attacks on civilians are unjustified, but who have bigoted beliefs about which people are civilians. The "There's no such thing as an Israeli civilian" folks are terrorism supporters too, even the ones who sincerely believe it's wrong to attack civilians and who condemn terror attacks in the U.S.

I know it's an undercount--so what? I'm saying even an undercount shows there's a big issue.

 

[TSwizzle]

CNN, BBC NEWS, New York Times is not fake news. Trump, is it you?

There's a well known psychological effect of the th interviews with how this has effected we e background that led to the att{snip}

What the fuck has any of that garbage got to do with the price of halal lamb in Sweden ?

 

[DrZoidberg]

CNN, BBC NEWS, New York Times is not fake news. Trump, is it you?

There's a well known psychological effect of the th interviews with how this has effected we e background that led to the att{snip}

What the fuck has any of that garbage got to do with the price of halal lamb in Sweden ?

ha ha. WTF are you on about now?

 

[Bomb#20]

That's nonsense. DrZoidberg makes stuff up and fails to fact check with depressing regularity.

"Regularly", you say? If that would be true you could perhaps come up with an example of me making something up? Or several. That should be easy if it's something I regularly do.

No problemo!

without moral stable family you CAN NOT educate your children

sexual immorality = death of family = death of nation = death of civilization

I totally agree. But I doubt we have the same view of sexual immorality. To me sexual immorality is neglecting to give your wife orgasms the way she needs them. That means taking your time to understand her and going out of your way to make her sexually fulfilled...

Do you really truly think neglecting to give your wife orgasms means you CAN NOT educate your children and equals death of nation and death of civilization? Men have been neglecting to give their wives orgasms since before nations and civilization existed.

You are obviously pretending it didn't happen, or ignoring the thousands of Arabs that were dancing in the streets straight after 9/11!

Perhaps the most classic piece of fake news produced. No, they didn't. Here's an article about the source of the film footage.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp

A film of people dancing in the streets is just that. People dancing in the streets. In this case They were dancing in 1991 about Kuwait being invaded by Saddam.

Good god, man! Your own link says the opposite of what you claim in your post. You have to go to a special effort to fail to fact-check that hard!

Not supporting ISIS is not the same as not supporting terrorism.

That's 30k terrorist supporters in the US alone.

Ok, but a majority of US voters voted for a president who's main campaign promise was to build a wall on the US-Mexican borders.

Clinton got 2.9 million more votes than Trump. She got the votes of 48.2% of US voters; Trump got only 46.1%. That is not a majority.

The author of Eiger Sanction explained, in another book, why Mid Eastern men were so hung up about virgins.
They cannot stand competition because they cannot stand up to competition.

Well... obviously.

That's an ethnic stereotype. Well... obviously, you didn't fact-check it.

Every cultural expression which is about reigning in sexual "deviancy" is ultimately just about sexual insecurities. Which of course is the result of that people in that culture aren't trained to connect with their partners emotionally.

That's not only something you obviously didn't fact-check; it's also an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. It's clear from evolutionary psychology that reigning in sexual "deviancy" is at least partly about "mommy's baby daddy's maybe". There is selective pressure against allowing yourself to be tricked into raising a baby that isn't genetically your own. And it's clear from ecological considerations that reigning in sexual "deviancy" is at least partly about preventing the spread of STDs.

That's the haul from only the last two days: page 1 of your "View Forum Posts" listing. Do you want me to go on?

Finally, let's not forget what started this little kerfuffle:

That doesn't explain why you post things that you know are just make belief?

You did not fact-check whether TSwizzle knows what you claimed he knows.

 

[Warpoet]

By that definition I'm probably a terrorist supporter.

And if the bar for being a terrorist supporter is approving of attacks on civilians, then there are far more non-Muslim terrorist supporters. But you won't see the axe-grinding dickheads in this thread harping on about that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"Regularly", you say? If that would be true you could perhaps come up with an example of me making something up? Or several. That should be easy if it's something I regularly do.

No problemo!

without moral stable family you CAN NOT educate your children

sexual immorality = death of family = death of nation = death of civilization

I totally agree. But I doubt we have the same view of sexual immorality. To me sexual immorality is neglecting to give your wife orgasms the way she needs them. That means taking your time to understand her and going out of your way to make her sexually fulfilled...

Do you really truly think neglecting to give your wife orgasms means you CAN NOT educate your children and equals death of nation and death of civilization? Men have been neglecting to give their wives orgasms since before nations and civilization existed.

You are obviously pretending it didn't happen, or ignoring the thousands of Arabs that were dancing in the streets straight after 9/11!

Perhaps the most classic piece of fake news produced. No, they didn't. Here's an article about the source of the film footage.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp

A film of people dancing in the streets is just that. People dancing in the streets. In this case They were dancing in 1991 about Kuwait being invaded by Saddam.

Good god, man! Your own link says the opposite of what you claim in your post. You have to go to a special effort to fail to fact-check that hard!

Not supporting ISIS is not the same as not supporting terrorism.

That's 30k terrorist supporters in the US alone.

Ok, but a majority of US voters voted for a president who's main campaign promise was to build a wall on the US-Mexican borders.

Clinton got 2.9 million more votes than Trump. She got the votes of 48.2% of US voters; Trump got only 46.1%. That is not a majority.

The author of Eiger Sanction explained, in another book, why Mid Eastern men were so hung up about virgins.
They cannot stand competition because they cannot stand up to competition.

Well... obviously.

That's an ethnic stereotype. Well... obviously, you didn't fact-check it.

Every cultural expression which is about reigning in sexual "deviancy" is ultimately just about sexual insecurities. Which of course is the result of that people in that culture aren't trained to connect with their partners emotionally.

That's not only something you obviously didn't fact-check; it's also an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. It's clear from evolutionary psychology that reigning in sexual "deviancy" is at least partly about "mommy's baby daddy's maybe". There is selective pressure against allowing yourself to be tricked into raising a baby that isn't genetically your own. And it's clear from ecological considerations that reigning in sexual "deviancy" is at least partly about preventing the spread of STDs.

That's the haul from only the last two days: page 1 of your "View Forum Posts" listing. Do you want me to go on?

Finally, let's not forget what started this little kerfuffle:

That doesn't explain why you post things that you know are just make belief?

You did not fact-check whether TSwizzle knows what you claimed he knows.

At least make an effort. You're not even trying.

 

[angelo]

Are you referring to this " council?'' Their first priority is to the Islamic Ummah, to establish an Islamic caliphate throughout the world, and as this deceptive Australian branch points out in their manifesto, is pure bunkum!

http://muslimsaustralia.com.au/

All those words are vague. The problem with comparing Islamic institution 1:1 with Christian institutions is that Christianity is highly hierarchical with imposed authority. A Christian priest actually has power over members of the congregation. An Imam has no power. If you don't like your local mosque and their imams you go to another. Christianity has in later years started to become more and more like Islam in this regard. Especially evangelical Christianity.

Strictly speaking, being an imam means you are in the instant you call to prayer and recite from the Quran. When you're not you're, according to Islam, just a regular person. Islam is highly democratic with power distributed. That doesn't prevent people who regularly hold mass to call themselves Imams even at other times. But the title is pretty vague. It's a similar thing with a mullah. Any loser on-line can call themselves an Islamic scholar. There's no shortage of Islamic diploma mills if you want to have a phd in Islamic law. Or dodgy Islamic schools in the sticks.

In the west we have a bad habit of assuming that the Islamic religious titles are the same as their Christian counterparts. But they're just not. Shia Islam is different though. Shia Islam is quite similar to Catholicism. But they're hardly in the majority.

Angelo, you clearly don't understand what the words mean.

Islam is highly democratic with power distributed.


Any faction of Islam is NOT compatible to democracy or Western culture!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Islam is highly democratic with power distributed.


Any faction of Islam is NOT compatible to democracy or Western culture!

Because you say so? Christianity is overtly opposed to democracy. They only encourage submission to the church. Islam only encourages submission to God. How do you explain that the "Christian" world is democratic? If religion is as important as you say the west should be the region with the least democracy in the world.

I can't see you have any arguments here.

 

[Bomb#20]

At least make an effort. You're not even trying.

Are you quibbling about the difference between you making something up and somebody else making it up and you uncritically parrotting it without any attempt to find out if it's true? Fair point -- you only made up three or four of the claims in my list. You made up the claim that you think neglecting to give your wife orgasms means you CAN NOT educate your children and equals death of nation and death of civilization. You didn't make up the rumor about the film footage of Palestinians dancing not being from the 9/11 attack -- that lie was half way round the world before the truth had its boots on -- but you did make up your implication that the site you linked endorsed the rumor. Whether you made up "Every cultural expression which is about reigning in sexual "deviancy" is ultimately just about sexual insecurities. Which of course is the result of that people in that culture aren't trained to connect with their partners emotionally." or copied that drivel from someone else, I couldn't say. And of course nobody else made up your claim about TSwizzle, so that one has to have been made up by you.

So I guess I owe you a couple more examples. Here's one:

I always fact check everything I post here out of respect for my fellow forum members.

No, you don't -- amply demonstrated -- and nobody else claimed you do, so you can hardly have been repeating what somebody else made up. You just made it up yourself.

And here are another two:

That claim is not merely wrong. It's not merely not fact-checked. It's ridiculous. It's impossible on its face. It's just ignorant.

Saddam invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990.

Yeah, sorry. Of course. They were of course celebrating the other way around, Kuwait being liberated.

Thanks for pointing that out.

No, it was not footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets to celebrate the Americans kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. The notion is ludicrous. You just made up that new hypothesis on the spot, in an attempt to preserve what you could of your preexisting conviction that the above-mentioned rumor was basically right, and you claimed it as fact even though you didn't fact-check it any more than you'd fact-checked your earlier claim. And in addition, you just made up the claim that I was pointing out that they were celebrating Kuwait being liberated, when I was doing nothing of the sort. Here's what your own link had to say about the footage:

"No, CNN did not air decade-old footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets. Eason Jordan, CNN’s Chief News Executive, confirmed that the video used on CNN was in fact shot on Tuesday, 11 September 2001, in East Jerusalem by a Reuters TV crew, not during the Persian Gulf conflict of 1990-91 — a fact proved by its inclusion of comments from a Palestinian praising Osama Bin Laden (whose name was unlikely to have come up ten years earlier in connection with the invasion and liberation of Kuwait) as well as the appearance in the video of post-1991 automobiles. The person who made the claim quoted above has since recanted."​

(Source: snopes.com)

You appear to have linked this page without reading it, thoughtlessly assuming it backed up what you already believed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I always fact check everything I post here out of respect for my fellow forum members.

No, you don't -- amply demonstrated -- and nobody else claimed you do, so you can hardly have been repeating what somebody else made up. You just made it up yourself.

Stop talking shit.

I could have read the Snopes article more carefully. But that doesn't explain why TSwizzle repeatedly keeps posing Daily Mail articles?

Daily Mail BTW is famous for posting pugilistic bullshit articles since it's inception. They've never been a reliable source. It's always been absolute crap. What reason to we have to believe that now suddenly they've become a serious news agency?

 

[Derec]

More rapefugees:
An 18 year old Somali sexually assaulted a disabled man and an old men and an old woman, killing the woman.
Seniorin in Neuenhaus getötet: Mordanklage gegen 18-Jährigen
He should certainly be deported after serving his sentence, but I doubt he will. "Asylum seekers" are virtually untouchable, even if vast majority of them are economic migrants with bogus asylum claims (and many lying about their age).
Calais aid workers admit migrants are lying about their age – but Home Office claims it’s just ‘war has toughened them up

As to lack of deportations, this rapefugee in Austria for example was not deported and only received a 20 month sentence.
Asylum seeker found guilty of rape will not be deported
Also, what is it with these "asylum seekers" (so called) and "gray fever"? Did they hear about 50 Shades of Grey and misunderstood what it was about?

Speaking of Austria, eight Iraqis (five of which are officially rapefugees) were convicted in Vienna.
Austrian court convicts 8 Iraqi men in tourist’s gang rape
I doubt they will be deported either.

Meanwhile, the fifth columnists...

According to people like Zoidberg, Europe should be taking many more millions of these migrants, boatload by boatload ...
Migrants saved from winter waves as boat timbers began to splinter
When these migrants (the article calls them "refugees", but most of them aren't - for example, there is no war in Bangladesh or Nigeria!) are "rescued" they should be deposited back where they started from. As it stands now, these rescue ships are doing nothing but helping out the smugglers. The smugglers do not need to bring the mass migrants to Europe anymore, they only need to send them on their way in flimsy boats and deluded European do-gooders bring them the rest of the way. Great deal for smugglers, they make money hand over fist because their costs are low, but disastrous for Europe as this merely fuels more demand for crossings. That's why the numbers of migrants crossing the Mediterranean keeps increasing with no end in sight.
Europe cannot be the overflow tank for overpopulation from Asia and Africa! Therefore, the mass migration routes must be cut off, and not aided.