(06-07-2017 06:55 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  < I see that you move ever more towards progressivism.

First the celebration about the removal of Confederate Statues.

Now you are defending Islam, because obviously it is a religion of Peace that only coincidentally was forced to wage 1400 years of defensive wars and was only stopped by the superior technology of the West.

I've been here substantially longer than you have. If you had been around to see those earlier days and familiarize yourself with my point of view, you'd know that I haven't really moved anywhere.
The forum, on the other hand, has done plenty of travelling in an ideological sense. That is where the "movement" is.

My argument does not boil down to "Islam is a religion of peace" (I would hope my elaborations have made that pretty clear). It does, however, imply that Islam and its adherents are not "cancer". My argument isn't "not all", it's "not the vast majority", which is a valid claim.

You reside on one extreme and, because I have chosen to oppose it, assign me to the other. The cold hard fact of the matter is that I am not an SJW. I simply disagree with you. However, if mere willingness to question the validity of the virulently anti-Islamic rhetoric here makes me an SJW by your standards, then so be it.

Quote:Choudary would exemplify most Islamic schools in the world, the only difference is that he is open about his veneration for outright terrorists. Nothing he ever says is truly much different.

And please go the fuck away with this stupid NO True Scotsman argument about Islam being disgusted with terror. Many Muslims don't know much about their religion or their texts, they read less Islamic texts than I did, also quite a few are dishonest - and yes there are also others who would disobey the commands of Mohammed and only that makes them peaceful. Sure - it is not all - your arguments are thus identical to all the SJWs out there - congratulations.

The vast majority (read: not just "not all", but actually much closer to "all") of muslims do not condone Choudhary's veneration of terrorism.

True or false?

Quote:I guess you will soon tell us how great Islam is and how all the terror has nothing to do with Islam, how it is a Religion of Peace, was always a religion of Peace.

Go educate yourself first: http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com/ - unless you are a Muslim, then by all means - keep up the Muslim Brotherhood bullshit.
And it is truly interesting that you do it while again dozens have been enriched, killed and ripped to bits by the Religion of Peace.

The dynamic I am discussing is a root cause of said terror, at least in this instance.
If there were not a willingness by some in power to give safety and publicity to extremists, there would have been no attack. That dynamic (the promotion, elevation, and protection of individuals who are outliers) is a but-for cause of what we are seeing.

Quote:

Quote:One who doesn't trust the media/"globalists" to act in good faith in other matters shouldn't suddenly buy everything they are selling today because, in this case, muslims are the target and muslims are paying the price.

Muslims are paying the price!


MUSLIMS ARE PAYING THE PRICE!?

Really - did anyone recently slaughter Muslims in the fucking street like Halal-animals? Did anyone drive through crowds of mosque-goers? Did anyone pimp out 1400+ of Pakistani girls recently?

Yes, muslims are paying the price. Very few bare any responsibility or sympathy for men like Choudhary and his sympathizers, yet all are presumed to have the blood of those you have pictured on their hands.
And yes, muslims are being slaughtered in the street "like Halal-animals" on a regular basis.
It has happened on many occasions, often with the result of dozens dead on any one occasion.

Quote:Muslims are the real victims of Muslim terror!

Not what I said. Muslims are not the "real" victims of terror in the sense that others are somehow "fake". They are simply also among the victims of extremism, whose adherents regard them to be as disposable and fungible as any non-muslim.

Quote:And it is interesting for someone who brings out conspiracies regarding Choudary and the government to speak about "globalists" in quotation marks.

I'm merely following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Quote:I guess you have 100% outed yourself this time around.

"Outed"?

Is this your attempt at social shaming?

Quote:Also stop claiming that all the hundreds of terror attacks done all across the world is somehow connected to Choudary - it is connected to Islam. This Choudary is your Satan-Hitler who causes all Islamic terror in the world from the Philippines to Somalia!

That was not my claim. My argument is that said conduct is connected to extremism (of which Choudhary is a part and parcel), not just Choudhary alone. I made that very clear.

Quote:Also what are you talking about that Choudary was shown by the media as the leading example of Islam? They literally cuck 24/7 claiming that Choudary dose not speak for Islam and for most Muslims.

They have quite literally called him "A leader of islam in the UK" when he is brought on cable news.
And, in any case, the fact that he has been able to make so many appearances with leading media outlets despite adhering to a view that is not mainstream is evidence enough of my point. By giving him a platform far bigger than himself or even his views/ideology warrant (a platform that the muslims themselves were unwilling to give him), they have helped to mold him into a figure that looks far more like a "leader of islam" than what he is.

(06-07-2017 07:40 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Choudry doesn't speak for all muslims but unfortunately he speaks for enough of them that having any measurable number of them around is frankly untenable.

The term "Devil's Advocate" really takes on a new meaning when someone takes a religion that lies at the base of tens of thousands of religious attacks over the last decade alone and tries to spin it as "globalist conspiracies".

There is no "islam is bad" OR "the media is bad". It's both. Choudry didn't organise the Rotheram rape gangs. He isn't the one organising female genital mutilation of little girls or splashing acid in the face of muslim women declared haram.

What are you suggesting, Ex? That the horrendous amount of recorded barbarity committed by muslims in the west and arguably the much bigger portion of the iceberg that never sees the light of day is somehow being perpetrated by Choudry and his small gathering of followers?

No, I am suggesting that the barbarity committed by muslims in the west and also outside the west is being perpetrated by extremists who constitute a vast minority of actual muslims and consider muslims as fungible and disposable as any non-muslim. Choudhary and his followers are part of that vast minority.

Quote:Nonsense. It's a shit, backwards religion and it's utterly incompatible with secular western democracy. It's actually no exaggeration to state that neo-nazis have a greater cultural connection to western civilisation than muslims and could be more easily accommodated.

That's an indictment on western civilization, not an endorsement. I'm not sure you intended it that way, but that is what it is.

(06-07-2017 08:59 AM)Valentine Wrote:  

(06-07-2017 03:19 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  What Choudary was saying stood in stark contrast with the views of the vast majority of muslims in the UK and, more broadly, the world.

You seem like a smart guy from your other posts but you've bought into the propaganda completely when it comes to Islam.

Where's the proof to your claims? How do you possibly explain all of the rife jihadism today and over the past 1400 years?

Here's how British Muslims really think:

- 2/3rds of British Muslims wouldn't report someone plotting a terror attack
- 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam"
- 50% support ISIS

It's funny that all it takes is anonymous polls to get them admit their extremist views to this extent.

And with social desirability bias and Taqqiyah it means the actual numbers are a lot higher.

http://www.comresglobal.com/polls/bbc-ra...slim-poll/

Quote:-Almost all Muslims living in Britain feel a loyalty to the country (95%). Just 6% say they feel a disloyalty.
-Nine in ten (93%) British Muslims believe that Muslims in Britain should always obey British laws.
-One in four (27%) British Muslims say they have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
-However, two thirds (68%) say acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet can never be justified while a quarter (24%) disagree.
-One in nine (11%) British Muslims feel sympathetic towards people who want to fight against western interests while 85% do not.

https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/icm-m...channel-4/

-19% of British Muslims support the objective of creating an Islamic State
-3% of British Muslims support the way the Islamic State is going about establishing a caliphate
-18% of Muslims sympathize with those who engage in violence against those who mock the prophet
-21% of Muslims do not condemn stoning for adultery.
-15% of British muslims do not condemn suicide bombing
-17% of British Muslims do not condemn terrorism as a form of political protest
-25% of Muslims do not condemn those who organize radical groups but do not themselves take part in terrorist activity
-21% of Muslims do not condemn those who threaten terrorism as part of a political protest

Your third link (from "Mirror") is complete conjecture, and is contradicted by the data in your second.

Let us consider the difference between Jesus and Mohammed:

Quote:Islam As Anti-Christianity
June 7, 2017 by CH
Lawrence Auster (RIP, a true shtetl of mettle mensch), discussed William Muir’s 1878 The Life of Mahomet and drew the apt comparison that Muhammed was essentially the opposite of Jesus, the anti-Jesus, and that this says everything you need to know about the type of people who are drawn to the message of Islam. (via)

Quote:I’ve just read the fascinating third chapter of William Muir’s 1878 The Life of Mahomet, “The Belief of Mahomet in His Own Inspiration.” In the great tradition of 19th century scholarship, Muir is an author who sees both the trees and the forest. He works closely from the original sources, presenting the facts about Mahomet (I’ll use Muir’s old-fashioned spelling here) as we have them from the Moslem tradition, while also offering his own critical assessment of those facts. He has a highly articulated point of view about Mahomet that seems to me exceptionally insightful.

Muir shows how Mahomet became convinced, or claimed, that his own thoughts were Allah speaking to him, so that every sentence in the Koran, every single word, is believed to come directly from Allah. While Muir doesn’t deny Mahomet’s spiritual experiences that led to the writing of the Koran, he calls Mahomet’s claim of divine authorship a forgery, since he was falsely claiming that Allah was the author of the Koran rather than himself. By placing this divine imprimatur on his own thoughts, he made them impervious to analysis. To this day, it is virtually impossible for Moslems to think critically about the contents of the Koran.

After pointing out that Mahomet himself occasionally worried that it was genii who were speaking to him rather than Allah, Muir does something rather brilliant. He demonstrates, step by step, that Jesus’ responses to the three temptations of Satan were the exact opposite of Mahomet’s behavior. Whereas Jesus refused to use his divine powers for his personal advantage or for power, Mahomet often used his (false) claim of direct divine authorship of the Koran for purely personal ends (such as his various murders and marriages), and, of course, to make his religious teaching into an earthly, conquering, political force. In other words, Mahomet yielded to the temptations that Jesus rejected. Therefore, Muir concludes (and he calls this a suggestion rather than a dogma), if Mahomet was indeed inspired by a supernatural being, it was not God but someone else.

In this connection, Andrew Bostom in his research for his book on Islam has discovered and shared with me a remarkable Persian illustration of Muhammad at the massacre of the Koreizites, a Jewish tribe of Medina. It’s a famous episode in Muslim history. Muhammad, whose face is veiled, is seen sitting with his lieutenants in a kind of plaza while the killings, which he has ordered, proceed in front of him. The illustration is highly significant because it shows Muhammad “at work,” as it were. This is what he did as Prophet and founder of a religion. Nothing could bring out more clearly the world of difference between Muhammad and Jesus. While Jesus, innocent of sin, allowed himself to be executed for the sins of mankind, Muhammad ordered the mass executions of innocent men.

Getting back to William Muir’s remarkable biography, he quotes and comments on many passages from the Koran, making that book somewhat accessible to me for the first time, since whenever I have tried to read it on my own, I’ve been quickly overcome by a combination of boredom and revulsion. It occurs to me that the primitiveness of the Koran, the endless reiteration of the theme, “Either you follow Allah, or you are a piece of garbage and you are going to burn in hell,” is like taking the judgmental aspect of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures at its most judgmental, reworking it into the crudest possible form, and making that into the basis of an entire religion. And perhaps that is the reason Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, was so successful in winning over the Arabs: it appealed to their simple, fierce, tribal mentality in a way that Judaism and Christianity could not.

Mohammed was the Anti-Jesus - an Anti-Christ. Islam is Anti-Christianity. You do not refer to the texts, because you simply look at the kebab shopkeeper and say: "He did not kill me today, he is peaceful. Everything is alright with Islam."

There is nothing wrong with the fact that the perfect Muslim Mohammed sat there having lunch while an entire conquered tribe was executed in front of him?

But all those things don't matter to you, your "logic" will not be swayed by the teachings, by the religion, by the entire violent history of the Middle East. You should convert to Islam, it might appeal to you and move to Saudi Arabia.

Choudary by the way is a leader of Islam in the UK - he is recognized by thousands as such and there are countless other Imams who say pretty much the same thing except maybe the total veneration for all terrorists - most Imams shy away from that. But you would not know, because you have not looked into the teachings.

My position is not extreme, your solution likely to it are very similar to Macron, Merkel and Teresa May - it's just a tiny mysterious minority of Muslims, nothing to worry about, continue like always. If there are no "radical preachers", then there won't be any more terrorists out there.

Never mind that the entire shitty cult lore is filled with violent accounts of how all Muslims must be:

“Either you follow Allah, or you are a piece of garbage and you are going to burn in hell,”

That pretty much sums up the Quran and the Hadiths.

As for "vast majority" of Muslims - close to 50% of Muslims would not report a terrorist, that is why the Belgian attackers could stay in his Belgian no-go-zone for days and go for a coffee and buns, because so many people were behind his actions.

Yes - we may disagree - greatly. Enough said. You will blast your stuff and enjoy the Islamic diversity - have fun. You are probably young enough to witness what will come in the future.

(06-07-2017 03:48 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I'll take a nail bomb too please.

Sadiq Cunt is getting destroyed in the comments

I will just leave it here, though Excelsior and all other SJW-close relativists can always blabber about the "overwhelming" majority as if Muslims exist in a Christianity-like mentality and Islam does not impact them at all.

Quote:Dr. Richard Hammond wrote a book called "Slavery, terrorism and Islam" telling you how Islam conquers countries and will ultimately take over the west.

“Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life,” Dr. Hammond notes in his book. “Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.”

Their takeover of a country, what Dr. Hammond refers to as “Islamization,” begins when the population of Muslims reaches a critical mass, and they being to agitate for various privileges.

This is how Islam spreads - (You wont see anything more accurate yet terrifying at the same time. Keep in mind these figures are from 5 years ago, they are much higher now).

When the Muslim population remains under 2% in a country, they will be seen primarily as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the current situation in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%

Australia — Muslim 1.5%

Canada — Muslim 1.9%

China — Muslim 1.8%

Italy — Muslim 1.5%

Norway — Muslim 1.8%

As the Muslim population reaches 2% to 5%, they begin to recruit from ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, within prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%

Germany — Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%

Spain — Muslim 4%

Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

“From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food and increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature such food on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply (not to mention, the only people who can get hired at these jobs are muslims. More halal meat - less jobs for non-muslims). This is happening in:

France — Muslim 8%

Philippines — 5%

Sweden — Muslim 5%

Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%

The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

Soon they begin to apply pressure to allow Sharia law within their own communities (sometimes ghettos). They will start by pressuring the government to allow a "watered down" version of sharia law, until they grow to the size where they have the power to enforce full sharia with little struggle.

“When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.” These tensions are seen on a regular basis in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%

India — Muslim 13.4%

Israel — Muslim 16%

Kenya — Muslim 10%

Russia — Muslim 15%

The violence increases when the Muslim population reaches 20%. “After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues,” such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

“At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare,” such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Chad — Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, persecution of non-believing “infidels” rises significantly, including sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia law as a weapon, and Jizya, a tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%

Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%

Qatar — Muslim 77.5%

Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out “infidels,” and move toward a 100% Muslim society, which has been experienced to some degree in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%

Egypt — Muslim 90%

Gaza — Muslim 98.7%

Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%

Iran — Muslim 98%

Iraq — Muslim 97%

Jordan — Muslim 92%

Morocco — Muslim 98.7%

Pakistan — Muslim 97%

Palestine — Muslim 99%

Syria — Muslim 90%

Tajikistan — Muslim 90%

Turkey — Muslim 99.8%

United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

A 100% Muslim society will theoretically usher in their version of peace — the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. “Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word,” such as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%

Somalia — Muslim 100%

Yemen — Muslim 100%

Dr. Hammond observes this Islamic ideal is seldom realized. “Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.”

“It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia law,” he states.

“Today’s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population,” he observes. “But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.”

By the way - the numbers were from some time ago - they are already higher. Also I disagree with Muslims becoming 50% of the world population - they will either conquer the world or what is more likely be wiped out in this century and this evil cult forbidden.

Cunts!

London attacks: Tickets issued to cars left near Borough Market

Quote:Traffic wardens slapped tickets on cars which were left abandoned inside a police cordon during the London terror attack.

Penalty charge notices were issued to a number of vehicles left near Borough Market, where several people were stabbed on Saturday.

Enforcement officers were seen putting penalty charge notices on windscreens after some streets reopened earlier.

Transport for London (TfL) said the fines "should never have been issued".

It apologised for the "insensitive mistake" and said the charges, which can be up to £130, will be cancelled.

Several vehicles were abandoned in the area when Khuram Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba drove into pedestrians on London Bridge before stabbing people in Borough Market.

Police have said the death toll from Saturday's attacks has risen to eight, while 29 patients remain in hospital, with 10 in a critical condition.

It is understood there will be wardens on patrol in the area for the rest of the week but no cars left parked within the police cordon will be given tickets.

Noticed very little shaming this time on social media.

All comment sections full of outrage.

I think we've hit turning point here. Famous straw that broke the camel's back. I also notice politicians feeling jittery, analysts saying some politicians are beginning to be unsettled by being called traitors frequently.

Summer of Hate approaching.

Regarding hysteria, it isn't, we're waking up to the fact we're in the war of a 1000 years. We're living history now. This is the Reconquista v. 2 we're talking about, in 500 years our ancestors will be telling our story.

(06-07-2017 03:40 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Mohammed was the Anti-Jesus - an Anti-Christ. Islam is Anti-Christianity. You do not refer to the texts, because you simply look at the kebab shopkeeper and say: "He did not kill me today, he is peaceful. Everything is alright with Islam."

There is nothing wrong with the fact that the perfect Muslim Mohammed sat there having lunch while an entire conquered tribe was executed in front of him?

But all those things don't matter to you, your "logic" will not be swayed by the teachings, by the religion, by the entire violent history of the Middle East. You should convert to Islam, it might appeal to you and move to Saudi Arabia.

The vast majority (read: not just "not all", but actually much closer to "all") of muslims do not condone Choudhary's veneration of terrorism, or any extremist ideology that calls for the deployment of terrorism in service of Islam or in political protest.

True or false?

Quote:Choudary by the way is a leader of Islam in the UK - he is recognized by thousands as such and there are countless other Imams who say pretty much the same thing except maybe the total veneration for all terrorists - most Imams shy away from that. But you would not know, because you have not looked into the teachings.

Choudhary is an outlier being bigged up into a major factor by a media with an agenda that you've completely bought into.

I would know. It's not terribly difficult information to find.

Quote:My position is not extreme, your solution likely to it are very similar to Macron, Merkel and Teresa May - it's just a tiny mysterious minority of Muslims, nothing to worry about, continue like always. If there are no "radical preachers", then there won't be any more terrorists out there.

My solution does differ substantially from that of Macron, Merkel, and May, but that difference will mean nothing to someone coming from your perspective (where anything less than "ban all muslims" is seen as SJW-ism).

(06-07-2017 05:19 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  The vast majority (read: not just "not all", but actually much closer to "all") of muslims do not condone Choudhary's veneration of terrorism, or any extremist ideology that calls for the deployment of terrorism in service of Islam or in political protest.

I don't see your point here in regards to saying there is a small percentage which do not condone terrorism. Of course there will be a few exceptions to that in a population of 1.8 billion, but they don't prove the rule so I don't understand how that supports your argument that Islam shouldn't be banned.

These people may be good people in spite of being Muslim, and if Islam were banned and they were given the opportunity to leave the religion without being killed for it I'm sure many would seize the opportunity.

But even if they do not condone terrorism, as there is a great number of extremist Islamic beliefs (such as all non-Muslims must be killed or converted, thieves must be dismembered, apostates must be killed, etc) it is very likely that they instead have another backwards extreme belief.

And just read what you yourself have quoted:

Quote:25% of Muslims do not condemn those who organize radical groups but do not themselves take part in terrorist activity.

The mind has a great way of rationalising any behaviour.

"So what if the terrorist came back to their neighbourhood after shooting innocents? It doesn't make me a terrorist if I don't tell on them."

"So what if I only shop at Muslim stores where I know the owners are linked to radical groups? It doesn't make me a terrorist just buying from them."

The moderate Muslim may not directly do the beheading but they support it all the same.

And just look at those percentages. 25%? There's 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, if it were the same scores across the world then you'd have at least 450 million Muslims who would indirectly support the truer Muslims amongst them. And the percentages are certainly higher than that since in Britain they're far less radical than in Afghanistan.

As humorous as your naivety towards the vast support for terrorism within the cult is, I still fail to see the point of your arguments. We know globalists are throwing oil on the fire, it doesn't make it any less evil a cult. We know it's not every single last Muslim, it doesn't make it any less violent an ideology.

Quote:My solution does differ substantially from that of Macron, Merkel, and May, but that difference will mean nothing to someone coming from your perspective (where anything less than "ban all muslims" is seen as SJW-ism).

If not banning Islam before we all become culturally enriched, what is your proposed solution then?

(06-07-2017 05:19 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-07-2017 03:40 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Mohammed was the Anti-Jesus - an Anti-Christ. Islam is Anti-Christianity. You do not refer to the texts, because you simply look at the kebab shopkeeper and say: "He did not kill me today, he is peaceful. Everything is alright with Islam."

There is nothing wrong with the fact that the perfect Muslim Mohammed sat there having lunch while an entire conquered tribe was executed in front of him?

But all those things don't matter to you, your "logic" will not be swayed by the teachings, by the religion, by the entire violent history of the Middle East. You should convert to Islam, it might appeal to you and move to Saudi Arabia.

The vast majority (read: not just "not all", but actually much closer to "all") of muslims do not condone Choudhary's veneration of terrorism, or any extremist ideology that calls for the deployment of terrorism in service of Islam or in political protest.

True or false?

Quote:Choudary by the way is a leader of Islam in the UK - he is recognized by thousands as such and there are countless other Imams who say pretty much the same thing except maybe the total veneration for all terrorists - most Imams shy away from that. But you would not know, because you have not looked into the teachings.

Choudhary is an outlier being bigged up into a major factor by a media with an agenda that you've completely bought into.

I would know. It's not terribly difficult information to find.

Quote:My position is not extreme, your solution likely to it are very similar to Macron, Merkel and Teresa May - it's just a tiny mysterious minority of Muslims, nothing to worry about, continue like always. If there are no "radical preachers", then there won't be any more terrorists out there.

My solution does differ substantially from that of Macron, Merkel, and May, but that difference will mean nothing to someone coming from your perspective (where anything less than "ban all muslims" is seen as SJW-ism).

Do yourself a favor and actually read an English translation of the Koran and Hadiths.

I used to think like you too. NAMALT and the like, but Islam's holy books really do say what the "bad minority" are currently doing.

(06-06-2017 03:53 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 01:55 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  Article from 2015, but it's relevant today. The UK currently has no death penalty:

'Bring back hanging for ISIS' says son of UK's last death penalty victim

Would capital punishment really be effective for a suicide cult that craves attention?

They're recruiting heavily in prisons. They're heroes there and continue to be very dangerous. Almost every extremely violent young man will go there at some point, it's dangerous and de-stabilizing to society. People will join just to survive prison and then never leave.

Excelsior you are acting like guilt by association doesn't exist.

It always will, even if imperfect. Why? It is a simple straightforward solution because though it is a blunt instrument it works.

Profiling works.

Not letting people you don't want in your house works.

Bottom line - Muslims at large should suffer brutal social consequences as the attacks pile up. It is insanity not to. They should be shunned until they clean up their own house.

How can they do that? We all know they can't. They would have to edit the scriptures while also banning & denouncing any of the old scripture that promotes Jihad or Sharia. When will that happen?

Let's keep going down this path as weapons like a renting a truck are a joke compared to what you could get your hands on in the future.

You are like all the Euros. It won't be enough until there is something that outdoes Sept. 11. 10,000+ deaths in one event then your opinion will change.

Many commentators have made the point that, in Islam as with most other totalitarian movements that had neutral or non-active followers, the moderate majority is irrelevant.

There were tons and tons of "good" Germans; it is a matter of historical record that Hitler took power with only about 30% of the vote because there was so much political "diversity", so many "legitimate", well-intentioned political parties, that they could not unite to block him. I'm sure there were tons and tons of "good" Russians who had nothing to do with Stalin or the other communists. It didn't matter: while the moderate majority sat on its ass and flat-out refused to do anything substantial about its "extremists", they enabled and allowed the "extremists" to gain power and then use it.

You already have a Muslim Mayor of London. In time, and with enough population, there will be Muslim political parties as well. It is the only logical conclusion since, as the left and right look continue to corporatise and look more and more like each other, religious identity will be the simplest, most logical point of difference and therefore lightning rod around which a diverse band of uneducated lower classers, poor immigrants, and educated anti-Westerners can be gathered. The Middle East shows us what happens once that process begins.

"Radical" Islam is a snake in long grass. "Moderate" Islam is the grass. A large proportion of the snake's ability to do damage is because it is concealed in the grass where it cannot be seen until it is too late. The grass might have a few pretty daisies growing in it for women to coo over, but it doesn't change the nature of the grass as an invasive pest that strangles and outcompetes every other flower or weed that might try to grow there.

Eliminate the grass, and you can see where the snake is. Or, if you conclude that there is so much grass you can't actually find the snake, and your other flowers are being starved of moisture and nutrients because it's stolen by the grass - it's a legitimate query to ask whether it might not be time to recognise that having grass is more trouble than it's worth and it's time to pull it out or burn it.

In particular the moderate majority doesn't recognise it's a breeding ground for "extremists". Time and again we see homegrown* terrorists as the children of migrant Muslims. Simply put, they look at the ball-less old man their father has become in the West, specifically his hypocrisy about his religion when he doesn't follow even a tenth of the literal wording of it, and they go and find a community that is true to the beliefs his father says he has. At that point, a real Islamist is born.

* The phrase "homegrown terrorist" is used as if that were somehow less serious than an imported one. If anything it's more serious, because a homegrown terrorist has actually seen what the West has to offer and has still concluded that an eighth-century rug salesman's inconsistent ramblings about the nature of existence are preferable. He isn't a combatant against a nation, he's a combatant against another civilisation, the one he lives in. By his nature, a homegrown terrorist is produced by the process of religious invasion. In time, there will be far more "homegrown" terrorists than imported ones.

Excelsior, all the stats about who and what the "majority" of Muslims supposedly do and do not support are beside the point. The problem is that their entire culture and society is suffering from a sickness, and has for a long time already -- it has merely gotten more acute recently as the pace of change in the world has accelerated.

Look at how backward, violent, and repressive all these Middle Eastern countries are, to various degrees, despite their vast collective oil wealth. Look at how relatively little generations of Muslim immigrants in Europe have assimilated, compared to immigrants of almost any other extraction. Look at the state of so many of these neighborhoods in Europe, the French, Belgian or British banlieues run by thugs and gangs, virtual "no-go" zones for law enforcement. Look at the way these migrants behave, their evident contempt for their hosts and the host culture.

And, of course, look at the recent orgy of pornographic violence committed by ISIS which holds a vast swath of territory in the Levant -- an eruption of drug-fueled and sexually incited bloodlust the likes of which we haven't seen in decades. There is no denying that this eruption holds a pornographically glamorous appeal for many young Muslim men, some of whom have left a peaceful life in the west to be part of the blood bacchanals in Syria, Iraq and Libya. Its appeal has spread organically, and western media has very little to do with it; these men would laugh at the notion that the BBC tells them who to idolize.

The problem is that too many parts of Muslim society and culture have become addicted to loserdom and resentment; rather than patiently improving their lot and learning what they can from the west while preserving much of their native culture (in the way that many Asian societies have done, for example, and in the way that India is attempting to do now), they have thrown in their lot with lazy, belligerent whining and acting out. Rather than accept the fact that they've fallen behind and that only modest dedication to improvement and learning would let them get better, they have decided to simply assert a superiority bestowed by their self-proclaimed religious morality (which is honored almost entirely in the breach, in any case). This is simply the behavior of a typical violent loser and ingrate, writ large. If you understand the basic psychology of a loser, you know almost all you need to know about the character of these societies.

A very good writer to consult on these matters is V.S. Naipaul, his book Among The Believers from 1982 in particular is an excellent portrayal of the character of Muslim societies. All these loser and ingrate habits were already in full effect at the time; as I noted earlier, the problem has only gotten more acute and has reached the level of a crisis of sorts. The only way it gets solved is that these people will have to get spanked hard; this is what happened, very deservedly, to the Japs and the Germans in World War 2, and it made them better. The Muslims have reached a similar level of cultural and societal sickness, and they will need to be hit pretty hard to snap out of it. The only question is exactly how and when it will happen, and I don't know the answer to that; but we will find out.

I'd like to turn this back.

@Excel: What is an acceptable percentage of a demographic that either commits violence in the name of their beliefs or supports the commiting of violence in the name of their beliefs before that demographic must be dealt with as a whole.

Let's say the one percent were the "peaceful muslims" and the 99 percent were jihadis or open supporters of jihadis. I might assume that you would tell the one percent "sorry, but your right to be counted as an individual has become too costly to our society". Yeah? Or would you literally say "we cannot allow a single muslim to suffer from profiling or ill treatment merely because 99 out of 100 are support open jihad"? Surely not, because that would be insane, yeah?

So what percentage of muslims that commit or support jihad is "too much" for a society to continue to protect the ideology as a whole?

How many deaths by jihad per month are "too many"? 10? 100? 1000? A million?

When would you, personally, say "enough is enough"?

Perhaps you could frame your response in the context of what action you might have taken to avert the tragedy of Lebannon, once called "The Paris of the Middle East", circa 1976 while maintaining full Western style liberties for all involved.

^^^^^

This question is particularly apt given that most if not all Muslim-majority nations see Christianity as such a danger to their societies that their regulation of the belief ranges either from rendering it illegal for Christians from proselytising Muslims (in "tolerant" Jordan) through to imposing the death penalty for joining it (post-invasion, "constitutional" Afghanistan). And bear in mind that's after roughly 1400 years of coexistence, if you can call it that, with Christianity in places like Syria and Iraq.

(06-07-2017 08:30 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  "Radical" Islam is a snake in long grass. "Moderate" Islam is the grass. A large proportion of the snake's ability to do damage is because it is concealed in the grass where it cannot be seen until it is too late. The grass might have a few pretty daisies growing in it for women to coo over, but it doesn't change the nature of the grass as an invasive pest that strangles and outcompetes every other flower or weed that might try to grow there.

This is harsh way to put it, but the analogy is apt for a starting point. At what point does a country have the right to say "no" an ethnic-religious invasion?

Let's say OK, only a tiny percentage of Muslims approve of ISIS. But how many would approve of, say, banning dogs as pets?

Quote:The Dutch dustup erupted after Hasan Küçük, a Turkish-Dutch representative on The Hague city council for the Islam Democrats, vehemently opposed a proposal by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly.

According to a January 28 report in the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Telegraaf, Küçük counter-argued that keeping dogs as pets is tantamount to animal abuse and he then called for the possession of dogs in The Hague to be criminalized.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/article20105560.ece

(Google translation) Wrote:THE HAGUE - The in-house a dog should be banned because it is sheer cruelty. This enables the Hague councilor Hasan Küçük Islam Democrats.

"Dogs belong in nature, but not in a house," said Küçük. Dog ownership, according to him therefore be punishable in the royal residence. "A dog in a flat is animal cruelty."

Note that I'm not saying all Muslims hate dogs or want to ban dogs. But if a Muslim politician wanted to bully an issue for political reasons, it's likely he could count on Muslim support or at worst, apathy.

(06-07-2017 08:36 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  ...

Enjoyable read, but too much verbiage, and more explanation than Muslims deserve.

The point is: When a readily identifiable group of people are, on average, a gargantuan negative value add to my lifestyle and that of other civilized people and our children and/or future children, that group of failures needs to be re-located (RE: deported) far, far away from us.

Better yet: Terminated from the face of this planet

If "nice Muslims" are washed out with the bathwater, so be it.

Don't blame us; blame your fellow inbred Jihadists for being too rape and kill-happy. You probably could had gotten away with just gang-raping the odd white girl in the streets once in awhile with the occasional trucking and stabbing, but nooo, you got too greedy.

To the extent that Muslims need any assistance meeting their 72 virgins in heaven, we can lend a hand, as well.

Offense is the best defense.

We are on the wrong end of a genocide, aided and abetted by our treacherous politicians.

One thing in our favor is that our enemy is inept, a bunch of inbred ritards with their minds stuffed with goat-shit (a substance they're apparently quite familiar with), stuffing that makes the innards of Pinatas look profound.

I missed this a while back. It's a corker.

“You Eat Pork & Look Like Pork” Muslim Man Attacks White Man & Woman





These are the sort of people who plant bombs and blow little children's arms and legs off. These are the sort of cowards that can't even get a terror attack right and formulate a half-decent plan without fucking it up and missing a perfectly good opportunity for carnage (though the big one is coming, as we all know) - the sort that will change innocent family's lives for ever, as they grieve or have to care for a loved one, the alcoholism and the drug-abuse that will ensue as they try to come to terms with the banality of evil.

Sheer fucking hatred emanates from this muslim cunt's core. He wants to rip that guys head off. But he can't - he's bigger. I can see the fear in the coward, but he still can't help lipping off. So he attacks the girl. The video then cuts out. No idea what happened then. I hope the guy sent him to the plastic surgeon, and his mate, so both of their fucking muslim whore mothers wouldn't recognise them as they have to feed them through a drip for the rest of their pitiful lives. But I'm fantasizing now. I would never do anything like that of course. There are laws against that kind of thing in this country. And that is why we all get along so well and enjoy such racial/religious harmony every day.

Why bring their whore mothers in to it? Well someone raised these donkey fucking scum didn't they? And I blame their donkey fucking dads too, that is if they have any or know who they are.

That my friends was a perfect example of the hatred these cunts have for white people - anyone that doesn't dress like a twat like them and have a twattish beard as well - oh, and who are white! That eat Pork! No less.

That muslim cunt eats little girl's cunts while they are drugged. And if you are what you eat, that must be the reason why he looks like a 'little pussy'.

I may seem unreasonable to you, but I'm just about done rationalising all of this. My fear of being judged is vastly outweighed by my rising anger. And I am not alone.

We're just all going around in circles with this sophistry and the same old arguments. Are we all going to be singing the same song next year? We already have another few major terrorist attacks to look forward to now in the UK before the year is out. Sadiq Khan said so!

Talking of Little Man Sad-Dick Khunt -





Say what you want about PJW, but there's no denying that he is one of the few prepared to stand up and say this so unequivocally. "The UK is a fucking joke. London is a fucking Joke".

Couldn't agree more old boy.

...

Let's talk again at the end of the year, shall we? When Iran has been nuked or Qatar annexed, or hell, Saudi Arabia and Meccas bombed by Turkish Fighter jets. There's nothing off the table at this point as far as I can see. And whether Trump is going to be an accelerant of the coming insanity or a buffer of it still remains to be seen. One thing's for sure. Things aren't going to slow down now. The pace picks up. Every day. Till we finally admit as a species we are all at war. A world war. You can call it world war III if you like. Or argue that actually it's technically WW IV...

Here's a dystopian vision for you: Not only WW III/IV breaking out, but civil war in America, South America, Germany, France, UK all kicking off as well, no matter how low level. The internet is an accelerant as well. It could spread like wildfire. All over the globe.

But I'm probably wrong. The fascist totalitarian governments had better start using all that data they've been collecting on everyone and round us all up and lock us all up soon though, otherwise pretty soon, they'll have missed the boat.

The people of this world know we don't want to fight each other. We all just want peace, to live in harmony. We know its the elites and the power-mongers driving this. But as more and more people keep falling for it and get stirred up by this bullshit, well, they are going to have to be fucking dealt with.

Anyway fellas, please carry on your robust debate. I enjoy seeing how it should be done when you have a working mind and can formulate a rational argument. Mine's a bit too fractured to join in with you all at the moment, so you'll just have to put up with my ramblings if you can. Hope you don't mind. Just thought you might find those vids interesting. Read the comments underneath the videos. People are openly calling for revolution now. Something is changing. They are calling for the heads of the politicians and they are calling for the heads of the media scum. One more terror attack and this thing might hit a critical mass that no one foresaw even a few months back.

1: Terror attack.
2: Retribution. Bombing of Mosque/Burning down of Mosque.
3: Riots in muslim areas to 'protest' - attacks on porky whitey.
4: Lads say fuck it go in tooled up and give 'em a taste of their own.
5: Police get mob handed and come down heavy on said hateful Saxons.
6: Reinforcements arrive from all over the country.
7: Police have to use lethal force and shoot either Saxons or muzzies.
8: Hilarity ensues.

It could just be that in six months time either the muzzies or the traitorous fucking government scum that run this country will turn around to say: We need to bring in Little Dark - he is our only hope now!

That plan we had didn't quite go in the direction we were hoping for!

Just remember, we are being farmed. Fattened up. Choose your battles well. Don't listen to those that say 'Knives are peace - Tweets are hate'.

Always love your brother. No matter the colour or the creed. Godspeed. It's going to get hairy, there can be no other outcome now.

I'd like to see the (((media))) try to sell Europeans on going to war with Iran for Saudi Arabia and Israel.

It might fly in the US, but you bet no European would ever accept it.

(06-07-2017 11:57 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  I'd like to see the (((media))) try to sell Europeans on going to war with Iran for Saudi Arabia and Israel.

It might fly in the US, but you bet no European would ever accept it.

I don't know. I think you might find there is even less stomach for it in the US. I think America has just about had enough now of seeing its sons and daughters come home in body bags and with bits missing of them, mentally traumatised if nothing else. And for what? Someone else's war.

Europe would actually just turn a blind eye as we've all had enough now. The mental energy we expend to pretend everything is alright and there is no elephant in the room is exceedingly draining. We wouldn't get worked up about boots on the ground in Iran (not that I think it's at all likely). And so what if a few squaddies get killed. No one gives a shit about them here, not in the UK at least. They get spat on and called baby-killers. Ironically enough, maybe some of the muslims that were doing some of the spitting might hail them as heroes if they fought their shia foe. But it still wouldn't be enough for them.

I love those squaddies with all my heart, by the way. And they are far from the dumb stupid animals that kissinger portrayed them as. Something tells me they wouldn't feel as if they had the moral high-ground if they were forced to go in there. And we all know what Sun Tzu said about that...

Would American soldiers see it as much for the sham it would be?

Iran's a hard-sell. For several reasons. It just won't go away like a bad dose of the clap. Hence all the current shenanigans.

Anyone noticed how all these threads are starting to diverge?

Pretty soon we will just need one new mega-thread: World War III

(06-07-2017 11:45 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

I'll just leave that, because that happened before the UK got a taste of increased Islamic enrichment:




Borders are not killing people.
Borders prevent the killing of people.
"Islamophobia" prevents the killing of people.
Teaching about Islam prevents the killing of people.

Muslims kill people! Islam kills people!

Wait until the numbers are 15-30% in the West and when the Islamic parties try to make all meat halal, try to ban dogs as pets, want to have sharia embedded in the constitution.

The best is yet to come and the Excelsiors will be like the women lying on the floor and crying that her night out ended in a Muslim knife attack. The Muslim men were just living their religion to a T - all cultures are equal, all religions are equal, ideologies do not matter.