Post: #401

(06-05-2017 10:59 PM)iop890 Wrote:  Really makes you think...

Thank you for submitting an argument that supports your point of view and sticking to the topic.

Post: #402

(06-05-2017 11:13 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Thank you for submitting an argument that supports your point of view and sticking to the topic.

We all wish heartily that you would learn to do the same.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #403

Idiot.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #404

(06-05-2017 11:02 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  What gives, TM? Is Sherman your retarded little brother or something?

The guy is plutonium and you're cuddling him.

Not at all haha.

If you disagree with someone, ok make your point and move on. But I thought this forum was above calling guys "idiot" and using passive aggressive homo shit like "Shermie dear". It just doesn't sit well with me man, regardless of how wrong Sherman might be.

Oh well, whatever.

Post: #405

(06-05-2017 11:13 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Thank you for submitting an argument that supports your point of view and sticking to the topic.

I don't even know what the topic is anymore. You're just linking Youtube propaganda about the joys of praying to a dead kid-fucker five times a day.

I've just skimmed the last few pages to confirm.

Post: #406

(06-05-2017 11:34 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 11:13 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Thank you for submitting an argument that supports your point of view and sticking to the topic.

I don't even know what the topic is anymore. You're just linking Youtube propaganda about the joys of praying to a dead kid-fucker five times a day.

I've just skimmed the last few pages to confirm.

I have been posting videos from real American practicing Muslims to show that they are human beings and that many of them strongly condemn terrorism. They are not anymore guilty of terrorism then we are. This is relevant to this thread "Spread of Islam in America". There has been a lot of negative statements here against Muslims, so I am giving the other side. If men have two sides they can choose. If there is only one side enforced by intimidation, then that is propaganda.

Post: #407

Serman is obviously shilling when you try to pass off Orthodox women as Muslims. Normally name calling degrades conversation but Sherman is quite clearly here to shitpost: trolling or shilling. No way he's being even 1% honest right now.

Post: #408

(06-05-2017 11:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Serman is obviously shilling when you try to pass off Orthodox women as Muslims. Normally name calling degrades conversation but Sherman is quite clearly here to shitpost: trolling or shilling. No way he's being even 1% honest right now.

The whole point of my argument was that they were Orthodox women, to show that Christian women have similar head covering rituals as Muslim women.

Post: #409

(06-06-2017 12:00 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 11:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Serman is obviously shilling when you try to pass off Orthodox women as Muslims. Normally name calling degrades conversation but Sherman is quite clearly here to shitpost: trolling or shilling. No way he's being even 1% honest right now.

The whole point of my argument was that they were Orthodox women, to show that christian women have similar head covering rituals as Muslim women.

But they don't, idiot. Muslim women wear the hijab all the time because it's implied men will fuck them if they don't.

Orthodox women wear head coverings in church only in order not to distract anyone else from the communal effort of prayer.

The rule of modesty in church applies to men and women alike, men are required to wear modest clothing as well. They're outright forbidden to wear head coverings or hats because it's distracting.

Get it now? Or are you just going to post up more youtube videos?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #410

(06-04-2017 06:00 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  There was a gulf that separated the honorable women from the dishonorable ones, but the men fucked the dishonorable ones just as well, the low-tier ones even married some of them. There was no need to conquer the world for pussy.

And yet that's precisely what they did.

Post: #411

(06-05-2017 11:33 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 11:02 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  What gives, TM? Is Sherman your retarded little brother or something?

The guy is plutonium and you're cuddling him.

Not at all haha.

If you disagree with someone, ok make your point and move on. But I thought this forum was above calling guys "idiot" and using passive aggressive homo shit like "Shermie dear". It just doesn't sit well with me man, regardless of how wrong Sherman might be.

Oh well, whatever.

Problem is, whether you've noticed it or not Sherman is a troll.

What he's doing here is the equivalent of hanging around the Donald Trump thread and posting videos about how much better Hillary would be doing if she'd won.

Post: #412

(06-05-2017 09:48 PM)Sherman Wrote:  In the Victorian era, women would faint when they heard the word leg. Women in the 1800s wore multiple layers of clothing. Europeans in America were outraged that Indians ran around naked. Do we really need to argue about this?

Yes, because only the upper-middle and upper class were as uptight like that.

Also the main fundamental difference between a Hijab and some fashion statements or more conservative times in the West (which lasted usually 2-3 decades, before the bosoms came out again) are that the Hijab is not voluntary, you can get killed for it, you can get murdered and beaten for not wearing it.

The Hijab stands for supremacism - feeling superior to others, it stands for oppression and backwardness.

Post: #413

(06-06-2017 01:25 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 06:00 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  There was a gulf that separated the honorable women from the dishonorable ones, but the men fucked the dishonorable ones just as well, the low-tier ones even married some of them. There was no need to conquer the world for pussy.

And yet that's precisely what they did.

The globalists did for power and money, but there was no sexual frustration among average men that had to be alleviated by millions of sex-slaves and rapes. In contrast that was a strong motivation in the Muslim world.

Post: #414

(06-06-2017 02:24 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 01:25 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 06:00 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  There was a gulf that separated the honorable women from the dishonorable ones, but the men fucked the dishonorable ones just as well, the low-tier ones even married some of them. There was no need to conquer the world for pussy.

And yet that's precisely what they did.

The globalists did for power and money, but there was no sexual frustration among average men that had to be alleviated by millions of sex-slaves and rapes. In contrast that was a strong motivation in the Muslim world.

There was plenty of motivation in the western world as well. The desires of younger sons of the elite and of many more middling sons outside the elite were key to European expansion beyond its borders, especially in the New World. Their thirst for more gold and more women is a big reason why we have the new World as we know it today and a big reason why entirely new races of people (whose European bloodlines are almost strictly patrilineal in origin) now cover multiple continents.

It would not seem to me that westerners were entirely successful in quenching that thirst or frustration among their young men. They most certainly weren't successful in quenching their thirst for money, glory, and religious crusading, none of which were much less of a threat to peoples abroad than sexual frustration.

Post: #415

(06-05-2017 09:48 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 09:37 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:15 AM)Sherman Wrote:  Here is an interesting video from Bosnia showing European Muslims. Everything looks very beautiful and traditional. And it looks like they have a strong culture and raise their women to be traditional wives. This is very positive. This is proof that Islam has created a healthy environment where Europeans can have stable lives and procreate.

It helps a lot when the country is not surrounded by other Muslims countries:

(06-04-2017 10:53 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Woman with veil (hijab) in the 1800s.

This is a false equivalence, the hijab is not everything that covers a woman's head, what covers women's head is a headscarf, the hijab is not on only a peace of clothing, is a code of rules regarding women's dress code.

Western women have been covering their heads for many reasons in time, many for weather situations, like living in a windy or rainy place, sometime a women just want to protect her hair after going to a beauty salon.

You assumption a woman with any form of head covering=hijab is pathetic.

Here is Audrey Hepburn wearing a "hijab" back in the day.

In the Victorian era, women would faint when they heard the word leg. Women in the 1800s wore multiple layers of clothing. Europeans in America were outraged that Indians ran around naked. Do we really need to argue about this?

That is not the point you are trying to get across, the point you are trying to get across was that any form of female head covering equals hijab. That would be like saying any form of turkey eating is a form thanksgiving celebration, or that any form of seafood is sushi.

Post: #416

@sherman....after the civil war in Bosnia, guess who financed infrastructure projects (bukiding schools, mosques and malls?) the Saudis were heavily involved. In some places that you can't even buy alcohol. The Balkans in some areas still have "traditional" values. However, is it because of Islam? that would be a no.

Post: #417

The hijab and treatment of women is only one of the fundamental conflicts between Western Secular-Christian civilization, especially the Anglosphere. As if this needs to be reiterated:

1. Intolerance of infidels runs deep within the ideology. Non-Muslims have virtually no moral standing. Discrimination, dishonesty, manipulation, and violence against non-Muslims is justified and even promoted by the faith. There are plenty of real-world examples of Muslims doing this in practice.

2. There are 2 billion Muslims in the world. It is a viral, proselytizing, conquering religion and abject submission to the ideology worldwide is the end goal.

3. Active Islamic organizations that have specifically set a goal to subvert and destroy Western Civilization.

4. The body and practice of Sharia law is crude and archaic.

Quote:Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences from other legal traditions, including those in both common law and civil law. Sharia courts traditionally do not rely on lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system. There is no pre-trial discovery process, and no cross-examination of witnesses. Unlike common law, judges' verdicts do not set binding precedents[95][96] under the principle of stare decisis,[97] and unlike civil law, sharia is left to the interpretation in each case and has no formally codified universal statutes.[98]

The rules of evidence in sharia courts also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony.[99] Witnesses, in a sharia court system, must be faithful, that is Muslim.[100] Male Muslim witnesses are deemed more reliable than female Muslim witnesses, and non-Muslim witnesses considered unreliable and receive no priority in a sharia court.[101][102] In civil cases in some countries, a Muslim woman witness is considered half the worth and reliability than a Muslim man witness.[103][104] In criminal cases, women witnesses are unacceptable in stricter, traditional interpretations of sharia, such as those found in Hanbali madhhab.[100]

To the extent that you can criticize Western Civilization relative to Islam-- and it's very hard to do that with any degree of fairness-- the absolute best you can do is reduce both sides to moral equivalence. In which case, you have to pick one. You either decide you want to live in a Western Secular Liberal Democracy and you defend it, or you can submit to Islam. There's no third option, at least not with the state of Islam in the world today and probably forever.

Me, I choose Western Civilization's emphasis on individual rights, freedom, and tolerance over a political philosophy stuck in the dark ages. We have our dysfunctions to be sure, many of which are cataloged here and at Return of Kings. But regressive Islam is not the answer.

Post: #418

(06-05-2017 11:40 PM)Sherman Wrote:  They are not anymore guilty of terrorism then we are.

Islam is. The fact that not all muslims are devout muslims isn't a good argument in favor of the cult.

Post: #419

(06-06-2017 09:16 AM)iop890 Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 11:40 PM)Sherman Wrote:  They are not anymore guilty of terrorism then we are.

Islam is. The fact that not all muslims are devout muslims isn't a good argument in favor of the cult.

Islam isn't responsible for terrorism either. The hijackers of 911 all drank alcohol and went to girly bars. They did everything devote practicing Muslims wouldn't do. They are criminals who are using someone else's identity.

Trump recently met with a devote Muslim - King Abdullah to fight terrorism. This is the real solution. President Trump and the real Muslims are doing the real work of fighting terrorism.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/jo...07713.html



Jordan's King: 'False Perceptions of Islam and of Muslims Will Fuel the Terrorist Agenda'

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susa...ist-agenda

Post: #420

(06-06-2017 09:44 AM)Sherman Wrote:  Islam isn't responsible for terrorism either.

If demanding jihad in it's holy texts and promising eternal bliss in reward doesn't make a religion responsible for jihad, what would?

(06-06-2017 09:44 AM)Sherman Wrote:  Islam isn't responsible for terrorism either. The hijackers of 911 all drank alcohol and went to girly bars.

I'd probably have some fun too if all my sins where about to be washed away anyway due to my martyrdom.

Post: #421

(06-06-2017 09:44 AM)Sherman Wrote:  Islam isn't responsible for terrorism either. The hijackers of 911 all drank alcohol and went to girly bars. They did everything devote practicing Muslims wouldn't do. They are criminals who are using someone else's identity.

9/11 is a different story, but Jihadis letting all loose is easy to explain. You don't know much about your religion do you?

Martyrs are forgiven all sins, so those that die during Jihad can kill and rape their own mother right before and will be forgiven all - drinking alcohol is no problem. Also titty bars are not actually haram according to Islam - prostitution and sex-slavery is very much halal.

You remind me of Linda Sarsours of the Muslims Brotherhood - everyone among the secular people in the Middle East knows those lie-pushers and propaganda workers - selling lies about Islam in order to convince them of the true way to God:





Let me also put this clear - even if the globalists do some false flags, the terror has not started with them - the terror was part of Islam all the way from the beginning.













You do your part in Jihad by spreading propaganda, so I guess you are a Devout Muslim in that respect, but remember - your Allah is a shifty one and even if you have one leg in heaven, he can pull it away. Better be sure and go full on martyr - there is no other way. Even Mohammed said that he did not know whether he would go to heaven - but he was sure that his soldiers who died in battle for him would go.

Post: #422

(06-06-2017 09:54 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  your Allah is a shifty one and even if you have one leg in heaven, he can pull it away.

Remember that time that idiot blew himself up at an Ariana Grande concert for jihad to get his 72 boy holes in paradise but unknowingly used explosives containing glycerin made from pork and was thus too dirty for heaven and had to chug boiling oil in hell for eternity instead? Classic Allah.

Post: #423

(06-06-2017 09:44 AM)Sherman Wrote:  Trump recently met with a devote Muslim - King Abdullah to fight terrorism. This is the real solution. President Trump and the real Muslims are doing the real work of fighting terrorism.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/jo...07713.html



Jordan's King: 'False Perceptions of Islam and of Muslims Will Fuel the Terrorist Agenda'

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susa...ist-agenda

King Abdullah, who says that the "protection" -- referring to dhimmitude, where all non-Muslims are "protected" like cattle -- of Christians is his duty? That's your best attempt at finding a non-butchery Muslim leader?

Especially one who, in one of the propaganda pieces you put up, says:

Quote:""Muslims, a quarter of the world's population, citizens of every country, have a central role in the future of our planet."

Hitler thought Germany and his Nazis had a central role in the future of the planet, too. Don't think even the Pope has the arrogance to assert that Christians have a central role in the future of the planet.

As for Christians in Jordan: as with every other Muslim nation in the Middle East, Christians can't practice their religion fully. They are not permitted to proselytise, for a start, and certain Christian denominations such as the Anglicans/Episcopalians are flat-out refused acknowledgment by the Jordanian government.

Per Leftiepedia, those wishing to leave Islam risk the loss of civil rights and face immense societal pressure. Among the restrictions against religious minorities are: various reports of anti-Semitism, Jordan's government may deny recognition to a religion, Bahá'ís are not permitted to establish schools, places of worship or cemeteries; aside from Christians, all other non-Muslim minorities do not have their own courts to adjudicate personal status and family matters; and Christian missionaries may not evangelize to Muslims. As with pretty much every other Middle Eastern nation containing massive populations of Muslims, the Christian population has dropped precipitously since roughly 1930 onward -- from 20% down to 4% -- as the Christians got the fuck out.

And that's also leaving aside that the Christian contingent in Jordan historically has given over its allegiance to Islam. This is why Abdullah calls the Christians part of his country's "past, present and future". The Christians of Jordan sided with Muhammed in his wars; didn't just give support, they fought under his banners. For this they were given the Muslim name Uzaizat, the reinforcements. They fought against the Crusaders when they arrived in 1099. This is also a large explanation for why the Christian population is Protestant for the most part. Guess traitors get to prosper under Islam so long as they say nothing about Jesus being the Son of God to Muslims.

You also need to stop talking about "real" Muslims, Shermie. Every time you do that you go with the No True Scotsman fallacy.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, Jordan is that country where 15%, more than one in ten, Muslims think that suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified. Just to remind you what Good King Abdullah's people think.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #424

Quote:Michigan’s first Muslim-controlled city council utterly dysfunctional – erupts in screaming, swearing, and little else (video)

https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/201...unctional/





The Muslim dominated city council regrets not living under sharia already - they would have decapitated a few infidels already. Note also how those council members speak barely English but decide about the future of the city. And it does not even matter if they have a point regarding the feminist federal city manager.

Those shitheads bring instantly sharia and totalitarian tribal behavior into Western democratic institutions. The US must learn from them because Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are such enlightened superior places and have to teach the dirty unbelievers how to lead a country.

Post: #425

(06-06-2017 03:04 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:24 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 01:25 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 06:00 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  There was a gulf that separated the honorable women from the dishonorable ones, but the men fucked the dishonorable ones just as well, the low-tier ones even married some of them. There was no need to conquer the world for pussy.

And yet that's precisely what they did.

The globalists did for power and money, but there was no sexual frustration among average men that had to be alleviated by millions of sex-slaves and rapes. In contrast that was a strong motivation in the Muslim world.

There was plenty of motivation in the western world as well. The desires of younger sons of the elite and of many more middling sons outside the elite were key to European expansion beyond its borders, especially in the New World. Their thirst for more gold and more women is a big reason why we have the new World as we know it today and a big reason why entirely new races of people (whose European bloodlines are almost strictly patrilineal in origin) now cover multiple continents.

It would not seem to me that westerners were entirely successful in quenching that thirst or frustration among their young men. They most certainly weren't successful in quenching their thirst for money, glory, and religious crusading, none of which were much less of a threat to peoples abroad than sexual frustration.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The amount of Whites who went out to colonize the world was very small compared to the number of Muslims who engaged in holy jihad across the centuries.

The vast majority of colonization occurred under the Catholics, especially the Spanish, and mainly by the elites - something around 5% of the White population. The Catholics, and Spanish/Portuguese in particular, had endured centuries of warfare from Muslims which transformed those countries into extremely violent cultures and perhaps some of the most violent Christian societies of all time. But it should be noted they did not start off that way, it was adaptation to a violent world that progressively transformed them.

And despite the violence, Christian societies proved themselves remarkably more stable than non-Christian ones, which is one of the central reasons why they so quickly advanced over the rest of the world.

Compare that to the tens of millions of Islamic warriors who were constantly beaten back from Turkey and Europe, and we aren't even in the same ballgame anymore.

Moreover, the average Muslim knew the score of the Koran; they were to conquer and subjugate the world in the name of Allah as foretold by Muhammad.

The average Europeasent had no clue what was going on in the New World, the average White dude was just trying to get by.

I will admit, however, that the desire for White elites to colonize foreign lands was due in part so they could gain access to more pussy - the strict monogamy of their societies could not be enforced on slave plantations in the New World. No one was wiser of their philandering there.

My personal take - it is totally impossible to eradicate evil, it can only be minimized, so the way in which European elites took advantage of weaker people's around the world should not surprise anyone.