Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

View attachment 16152

Just thought I'd add a picture from Stockholm Pride a couple of years ago. This is a friend of mine. He's not gay. Just very passionate about supporting freedom of expression for everybody. He is also a Muslim.

Have you ever asked your friend what he thinks about xtians and in particular Jews?

He's passionate about freedom of expression and freedom of religion. One could say... militantly liberal. Very Swedish in his outlook on life. His girlfriend (And wife) of many years is an atheist and she is very much bisexual and is free to fuck women on the side. He got along fine with my Jewish ex-wife.

He's a liberal Muslim. Arguably... like most Muslims in the west. He observes Ramadan but also drinks alcohol. You know... like normal westernized Muslims

 

[angelo]

then he's not a real Muslim! and in danger of getting knocked off by a real follower of the profit!

 

[angelo]

I see that the traitor of Western European culture Merkel is in danger of getting knocked off by her own immigration minister who wants to expel economic immigrants.

 

[Jokodo]

then he's not a real Muslim! <snip>

That's what an ISIS preacher would say. Normal people, Muslim or not, realise that one can be a Muslim in many different ways.

No go in the corner and be ashamed of yourself for spreading ISIS propaganda.

 

[DrZoidberg]

then he's not a real Muslim! and in danger of getting knocked off by a real follower of the profit!

Then there's hardly any Muslims in Europe. Which makes this entire thread moot, right?

 

[angelo]

then he's not a real Muslim! and in danger of getting knocked off by a real follower of the profit!

Then there's hardly any Muslims in Europe. Which makes this entire thread moot, right?

The last Pew Research poll found that most Muslims believe that jihad, or violence against non believers is justified! Only a blind Freddie, or persons who turns a blind eye to Islamic violence wherever they concentrate in large numbers. Recently a top police officer in Sweden admitted that yes there are no go areas in his country as are elsewhere in Europe. Then There is that pesky
grooming Muslim gangs that just won't go away.

 

[DrZoidberg]

then he's not a real Muslim! and in danger of getting knocked off by a real follower of the profit!

Then there's hardly any Muslims in Europe. Which makes this entire thread moot, right?

The last Pew Research poll found that most Muslims believe that jihad, or violence against non believers is justified! Only a blind Freddie, or persons who turns a blind eye to Islamic violence wherever they concentrate in large numbers. Recently a top police officer in Sweden admitted that yes there are no go areas in his country as are elsewhere in Europe. Then There is that pesky
grooming Muslim gangs that just won't go away.

So where's the links for this? What's your sources? What top police officer? Is it possibly Peter Springare you are talking about? He's a Swedish ex cop who's made all kinds of bizarre statements about immigrants. None of which has survived closer scrutiny. He's a total clown. Also... not a cop any longer.

ISIS or Al Qaeda/Taleban style Islamism has never had widespread support, even in the core Islamic countries. So that's obviously not a worry. So what Islamic opinions are you actually worried about?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

 

[ZiprHead]

then he's not a real Muslim! and in danger of getting knocked off by a real follower of the profit!

Then there's hardly any Muslims in Europe. Which makes this entire thread moot, right?

The last Pew Research poll found that most Muslims believe that jihad, or violence against non believers is justified! Only a blind Freddie, or persons who turns a blind eye to Islamic violence wherever they concentrate in large numbers. Recently a top police officer in Sweden admitted that yes there are no go areas in his country as are elsewhere in Europe. Then There is that pesky
grooming Muslim gangs that just won't go away.

There are actually two distinct definitions of the word Jihad.

Definition of jihad
: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty;
also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline

Without defining which of the two meanings, your poll above is fairly useless.

 

[repoman]

For me, Islam has a pent up dangerous energy to it coming from the Quran itself and traditions and group identity. Same for many aspects of Christianity - especially the type that John Hagee leads. Even when it does get milder, there is a way for it to rather quickly become a major (not sole) source of radicalization and violence.

Reminds me of this poem

"The crowd at the ball game"


BY WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS


The crowd at the ball game
is moved uniformly

by a spirit of uselessness
which delights them—

all the exciting detail
of the chase

and the escape, the error
the flash of genius—

all to no end save beauty
the eternal—

So in detail they, the crowd,
are beautiful

for this
to be warned against

saluted and defied—
It is alive, venomous

it smiles grimly
its words cut—

The flashy female with her
mother, gets it—

The Jew gets it straight— it
is deadly, terrifying—

It is the Inquisition, the
Revolution

It is beauty itself
that lives

day by day in them
idly—

This is
the power of their faces

It is summer, it is the solstice
the crowd is

cheering, the crowd is laughing
in detail

permanently, seriously
without thought

 

[DrZoidberg]

For me, Islam has a pent up dangerous energy to it coming from the Quran itself and traditions and group identity. Same for many aspects of Christianity - especially the type that John Hagee leads. Even when it does get milder, there is a way for it to rather quickly become a major (not sole) source of radicalization and violence.

Reminds me of this poem

"The crowd at the ball game"


BY WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS


The crowd at the ball game
is moved uniformly

by a spirit of uselessness
which delights them—

all the exciting detail
of the chase

and the escape, the error
the flash of genius—

all to no end save beauty
the eternal—

So in detail they, the crowd,
are beautiful

for this
to be warned against

saluted and defied—
It is alive, venomous

it smiles grimly
its words cut—

The flashy female with her
mother, gets it—

The Jew gets it straight— it
is deadly, terrifying—

It is the Inquisition, the
Revolution

It is beauty itself
that lives

day by day in them
idly—

This is
the power of their faces

It is summer, it is the solstice
the crowd is

cheering, the crowd is laughing
in detail

permanently, seriously
without thought

I also think Islam has a dangerous streak in it. So does Christianity and even Buddhism... Hinduism. They all have interpretive doors wide open for abuse. As history has shown. A large proportion of the deadliest army in human history (the Mongols) were Christian.

My point is that there's a risk singalling out Islam as especially dangerous. And that is that we risk solving the wrong problem and just end up perpetuating violence

 

[angelo]

For me, Islam has a pent up dangerous energy to it coming from the Quran itself and traditions and group identity. Same for many aspects of Christianity - especially the type that John Hagee leads. Even when it does get milder, there is a way for it to rather quickly become a major (not sole) source of radicalization and violence.

Reminds me of this poem

"The crowd at the ball game"


BY WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS


The crowd at the ball game
is moved uniformly

by a spirit of uselessness
which delights them—

all the exciting detail
of the chase

and the escape, the error
the flash of genius—

all to no end save beauty
the eternal—

So in detail they, the crowd,
are beautiful

for this
to be warned against

saluted and defied—
It is alive, venomous

it smiles grimly
its words cut—

The flashy female with her
mother, gets it—

The Jew gets it straight— it
is deadly, terrifying—

It is the Inquisition, the
Revolution

It is beauty itself
that lives

day by day in them
idly—

This is
the power of their faces

It is summer, it is the solstice
the crowd is

cheering, the crowd is laughing
in detail

permanently, seriously
without thought

I also think Islam has a dangerous streak in it. So does Christianity and even Buddhism... Hinduism. They all have interpretive doors wide open for abuse. As history has shown. A large proportion of the deadliest army in human history (the Mongols) were Christian.

My point is that there's a risk singalling out Islam as especially dangerous. And that is that we risk solving the wrong problem and just end up perpetuating violence

Could you name one Islamic majority country on earth that is not in turmoil?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I also think Islam has a dangerous streak in it. So does Christianity and even Buddhism... Hinduism. They all have interpretive doors wide open for abuse. As history has shown. A large proportion of the deadliest army in human history (the Mongols) were Christian.

My point is that there's a risk singalling out Islam as especially dangerous. And that is that we risk solving the wrong problem and just end up perpetuating violence

Could you name one Islamic majority country on earth that is not in turmoil?

Christian countries started both world wars. Beligerents on all sides were Christian. If not explicitly, certainly in practice. A Christian country (Spain) completely oblitterated all South American nations. They did such a good job that they managed to destabalize and destroy their own government in the process. The French revolution? Russian revolution? The Roman Empire.

This idea that non-islamism is a guarantee for political stability is dumb. In fact, the Islamic caliphates was for over a thousand years the most politically stable region in the world. In spite of Timur and the Mongols doing their best to end it. So how do you explain that?

I'd argue that the succes of the Caliphate is the main reason the Islamic world today is in such a bad state. Stability at any price isn't always a good thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I also think Islam has a dangerous streak in it. So does Christianity and even Buddhism... Hinduism. They all have interpretive doors wide open for abuse. As history has shown. A large proportion of the deadliest army in human history (the Mongols) were Christian.

My point is that there's a risk singalling out Islam as especially dangerous. And that is that we risk solving the wrong problem and just end up perpetuating violence

Could you name one Islamic majority country on earth that is not in turmoil?

Christian countries started both world wars. Beligerents on all sides were Christian. If not explicitly, certainly in practice. A Christian country (Spain) completely oblitterated all South American nations. They did such a good job that they managed to destabalize and destroy their own government in the process. The French revolution? Russian revolution? The Roman Empire.

This idea that non-islamism is a guarantee for political stability is dumb. In fact, the Islamic caliphates was for over a thousand years the most politically stable region in the world. In spite of Timur and the Mongols doing their best to end it. So how do you explain that?

I'd argue that the succes of the Caliphate is the main reason the Islamic world today is in such a bad state. Stability at any price isn't always a good thing.

In other words, you can't name an Islamic country not in turmoil.

What's the common factor in just about every trouble spot in the world? Islam.

 

[bilby]

Christian countries started both world wars. Beligerents on all sides were Christian. If not explicitly, certainly in practice. A Christian country (Spain) completely oblitterated all South American nations. They did such a good job that they managed to destabalize and destroy their own government in the process. The French revolution? Russian revolution? The Roman Empire.

This idea that non-islamism is a guarantee for political stability is dumb. In fact, the Islamic caliphates was for over a thousand years the most politically stable region in the world. In spite of Timur and the Mongols doing their best to end it. So how do you explain that?

I'd argue that the succes of the Caliphate is the main reason the Islamic world today is in such a bad state. Stability at any price isn't always a good thing.

In other words, you can't name an Islamic country not in turmoil.

What's the common factor in just about every trouble spot in the world? Islam.

Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, The Comoros, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mayote, United Arab Emirates...

That's nine; There are a few others that probably qualify, depending on how you define 'in turmoil' and how 'current' that turmoil needs to be - Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania, for example; and the former Soviet republics such as Azerbaijan and Tajikistan.

It's a neat 'gotcha' question though - most people are not great at geography, so they only remember the names of foreign countries that have been in the news recently, and newsworthiness implies turmoil. So failing the challenge is to be expected despite the existence of many such peaceful islamic nations.

It's a good illustration of the difference between being clever, and being a clever dick. You can win the argument despite being wrong.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Christian countries started both world wars. Beligerents on all sides were Christian. If not explicitly, certainly in practice. A Christian country (Spain) completely oblitterated all South American nations. They did such a good job that they managed to destabalize and destroy their own government in the process. The French revolution? Russian revolution? The Roman Empire.

This idea that non-islamism is a guarantee for political stability is dumb. In fact, the Islamic caliphates was for over a thousand years the most politically stable region in the world. In spite of Timur and the Mongols doing their best to end it. So how do you explain that?

I'd argue that the succes of the Caliphate is the main reason the Islamic world today is in such a bad state. Stability at any price isn't always a good thing.

In other words, you can't name an Islamic country not in turmoil.

What's the common factor in just about every trouble spot in the world? Islam.

I didn't, because it doesn't matter. Malaysia is doing just fine, for example. Why? Just history. It's wasn't part of the Middle Eastern Caliphate. It's been spared the ethnic strife (dressed up as Islamism) of Indonesia. Wherever you look in the Islamic world the conflicts can easily be tracked to non-religious conflicts. The Caliphs used Islam as a way to unify their empires, plastering over other conflicts. Well... those conflicts never went away. Now in the modern world, where religion is less important, all these old conflicts come surging back.

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[angelo]

I also think Islam has a dangerous streak in it. So does Christianity and even Buddhism... Hinduism. They all have interpretive doors wide open for abuse. As history has shown. A large proportion of the deadliest army in human history (the Mongols) were Christian.

My point is that there's a risk singalling out Islam as especially dangerous. And that is that we risk solving the wrong problem and just end up perpetuating violence

Could you name one Islamic majority country on earth that is not in turmoil?

Christian countries started both world wars. Beligerents on all sides were Christian. If not explicitly, certainly in practice. A Christian country (Spain) completely oblitterated all South American nations. They did such a good job that they managed to destabalize and destroy their own government in the process. The French revolution? Russian revolution? The Roman Empire.

This idea that non-islamism is a guarantee for political stability is dumb. In fact, the Islamic caliphates was for over a thousand years the most politically stable region in the world. In spite of Timur and the Mongols doing their best to end it. So how do you explain that?

I'd argue that the succes of the Caliphate is the main reason the Islamic world today is in such a bad state. Stability at any price isn't always a good thing.

So I take it you would welcome the coming caliphate in Europe! See if can absorb this little fact. There are approx 1.4 billion followers of the warlord and terrorist Muhammad, while there are less than 20 million Jews on the planet. Yet 25% of Nobel prizes have been won by Jews for various reasons, only 3 have ever been won by Muslims anywhere. That really says it all! Churchill was spot on when he described the followers of Mo " the most retrograde and primitive of all civilizations!"

 

[DrZoidberg]

Christian countries started both world wars. Beligerents on all sides were Christian. If not explicitly, certainly in practice. A Christian country (Spain) completely oblitterated all South American nations. They did such a good job that they managed to destabalize and destroy their own government in the process. The French revolution? Russian revolution? The Roman Empire.

This idea that non-islamism is a guarantee for political stability is dumb. In fact, the Islamic caliphates was for over a thousand years the most politically stable region in the world. In spite of Timur and the Mongols doing their best to end it. So how do you explain that?

I'd argue that the succes of the Caliphate is the main reason the Islamic world today is in such a bad state. Stability at any price isn't always a good thing.

So I take it you would welcome the coming caliphate in Europe! See if can absorb this little fact. There are approx 1.4 billion followers of the warlord and terrorist Muhammad, while there are less than 20 million Jews on the planet. Yet 25% of Nobel prizes have been won by Jews for various reasons, only 3 have ever been won by Muslims anywhere. That really says it all! Churchill was spot on when he described the followers of Mo " the most retrograde and primitive of all civilizations!"

What are you responding to? You're the one who thinks political stability is paramount. What's the most important, political stability or Nobel prizes. Make up your mind.

I didn't argue for anything. I'm just poking holes into your rediculous arguments.

BTW, the Nobel prize was instituted 1901. Do you know the state of the Ottoman empire at that point? It was ripped apart in WWI by England, France and Russia in an egregrious violation of all international law... as well as decency. All motivated by horrendous racism. All social structures having kept the empire together was removed over night, replaced by colonial police states who had no idea what they were doing. It was based on dumb racist imperialist theories that had no chance of succeeding. In the ensuing and predictable spiral of violence the colonial powers gave up and abandoned them. Power vacuums have predictable results. They're still suffing from the after effects. Perhaps they've had other things on their minds than excelling in science during the time the nobel prizes have been handed out? Stuff like just surviving, and not being murdered by the current warlord in power.

Don't you think that's a more plausible explanation than Islam?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Christian countries started both world wars. Beligerents on all sides were Christian. If not explicitly, certainly in practice. A Christian country (Spain) completely oblitterated all South American nations. They did such a good job that they managed to destabalize and destroy their own government in the process. The French revolution? Russian revolution? The Roman Empire.

This idea that non-islamism is a guarantee for political stability is dumb. In fact, the Islamic caliphates was for over a thousand years the most politically stable region in the world. In spite of Timur and the Mongols doing their best to end it. So how do you explain that?

I'd argue that the succes of the Caliphate is the main reason the Islamic world today is in such a bad state. Stability at any price isn't always a good thing.

In other words, you can't name an Islamic country not in turmoil.

What's the common factor in just about every trouble spot in the world? Islam.

Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, The Comoros, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mayote, United Arab Emirates...

That's nine; There are a few others that probably qualify, depending on how you define 'in turmoil' and how 'current' that turmoil needs to be - Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania, for example; and the former Soviet republics such as Azerbaijan and Tajikistan.

It's a neat 'gotcha' question though - most people are not great at geography, so they only remember the names of foreign countries that have been in the news recently, and newsworthiness implies turmoil. So failing the challenge is to be expected despite the existence of many such peaceful islamic nations.

It's a good illustration of the difference between being clever, and being a clever dick. You can win the argument despite being wrong.

State department travel advisories:

Bangladesh -- caution advised due to terrorism.
Maldives -- caution advised due to terrorism and civil unrest.
Mali -- Do not travel to Mali due to crime and terrorism.
Mauritania -- Reconsider Travel to Mauritania due to crime and terrorism.
Mayote -- not a country.

Half of them do have terrorism problems.

 

[bilby]

Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, The Comoros, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mayote, United Arab Emirates...

That's nine; There are a few others that probably qualify, depending on how you define 'in turmoil' and how 'current' that turmoil needs to be - Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania, for example; and the former Soviet republics such as Azerbaijan and Tajikistan.

It's a neat 'gotcha' question though - most people are not great at geography, so they only remember the names of foreign countries that have been in the news recently, and newsworthiness implies turmoil. So failing the challenge is to be expected despite the existence of many such peaceful islamic nations.

It's a good illustration of the difference between being clever, and being a clever dick. You can win the argument despite being wrong.

State department travel advisories:

Bangladesh -- caution advised due to terrorism.
Maldives -- caution advised due to terrorism and civil unrest.
Mali -- Do not travel to Mali due to crime and terrorism.
Mauritania -- Reconsider Travel to Mauritania due to crime and terrorism.
Mayote -- not a country.

Half of them do have terrorism problems.

Depending on how you define 'terrorism problems'. According to your 'State Department advisory' metric, Belgium is also 'in turmoil'.

Exercise increased caution in Belgium due to terrorism.

... as are France and the UK. That's frankly total nonsense.

And the challenge was to name one Muslim majority country that is not in turmoil. So even if eight of the nine qualify as 'in turmoil', I have met the challenge.

Do you need a hand with those goalposts? They look heavy.

 

[Jokodo]

Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, The Comoros, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mayote, United Arab Emirates...

That's nine; There are a few others that probably qualify, depending on how you define 'in turmoil' and how 'current' that turmoil needs to be - Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania, for example; and the former Soviet republics such as Azerbaijan and Tajikistan.

It's a neat 'gotcha' question though - most people are not great at geography, so they only remember the names of foreign countries that have been in the news recently, and newsworthiness implies turmoil. So failing the challenge is to be expected despite the existence of many such peaceful islamic nations.

It's a good illustration of the difference between being clever, and being a clever dick. You can win the argument despite being wrong.

State department travel advisories:

Bangladesh -- caution advised due to terrorism.
Maldives -- caution advised due to terrorism and civil unrest.
Mali -- Do not travel to Mali due to crime and terrorism.
Mauritania -- Reconsider Travel to Mauritania due to crime and terrorism.
Mayote -- not a country.

Half of them do have terrorism problems.

The Maldives and Bangladesh have homicide rates about half of the US's. Mali and Mauretania are somewhat higher, but still only half of Mexico's. If they qualify as confirming the rule that "every Muslim country is in turmoil", what do you call the state north America is in?

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?locations=BD-ML-MV-MR-US-MX