Religion, perhaps. Other peoples' cultures, rules and laws that restrict their own freedoms - less so.
I think the vast majority of Americans still believe freedom of religion is important
Other peoples' cultures, rules and laws that restrict their own freedoms - less so.
Oh sweet Jesus...your from Holland?
I can understand those kids spooking you
Over here though, like 80% of Americans are Christians, 90% believe in God
We see shit like that everyday from some Christian groups it's normal to us, all you have to do is turn the TV onto the religious channels. Or go down a block n check it out in real life
You guys are mostly atheists eh, and 20% religious?
Check out the doc Jesus Camp, see our little armies of God being trained up
Sure, doomsday devices are particularly dangerous in the hands of people who have little to lose. That's why it's not a good idea to create more people with little to lose in a world where a lot of dangerous weapons exist.
"As a movement of ideas, Islam began in the 7th Century from Mecca as a consequence of which there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia today and there are no synagogues or churches. Later, this movement of ideas travelled to Iran, as a result of which there are no Zoroastrians left in Iran. This movement of ideas arrived on the Indian Subcontinent in the 8th Century, as a result of which there are no Hindus in Balochistan, there are no Hindus in Afghanistan, there are no Hindus in Pakistan and there are no Sikhs in Lahore — originally a Sikh metropolis."
Due to political correctness, world leaders like US president Barack Obama have refused to see any link with Islam. Terms like "political Islam" do assist world leaders in engaging with this problem sometimes, but at other times, these expressions obscure the gravity of the terrorist threat.
Mumbai-based Roznama Urdu Times published a long article in which it quoted Prophet Muhammad, the first four Caliphs of Islam as well as the prophet's wife Hazrat Ayesha as saying that any Muslim leaving Islam must be beheaded. It added: "The first interpreter of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad, has clearly ordered the killing of a person becoming apostate."
Yes, and maybe I'm underestimating the problems you have with fundamental christians and the attitude it has created in the US towards them, but really, islam is different. So, one more time (I wonder how many more times I will say that):
I watched the Jesus camp highlights, and I could easily refute you by telling you to search for documentaries about madrassa's.
But yes, those people are completely insane. Good thing the message of Jesus is, at its core, one of love and forgiveness. We would have real serious problems if he had taught his followers that the only way to be forgiven for your sins is to join the fight against the non-believers, preferably in a violent manner. And that you should kill people who turn away from his message, especially if they used to believe in it.
And that there is no concept of religious law in Christianity. Except possibly the ten commandments, which -although according to our modern day standards slightly primitive- are not that bad to use as guidance for creating a wordly law system. And that the bible is not the direct litteral word of god, which can never be changed and only be read in the language in which that word was revealed.
Anyway, back to what muslims have to say about their own religion:
The son of the leader of Hamas ffs. I guess there's still hope.
Look, I'm sorry for insulting you. I let myself get carried away in bashing islam (I thought it would be a relieve but it wasn't). And I'm probably using the wrong tone, the antagonizing kind I warned myself not to use. But we really are facing a serious problem here.
And what's not working is the approach of the liberal secular progressive elite in the West. You should look into the culture that islam creates among it's followers. It's one of slavish obedience which does not promote individuality or learning. Or rather, the only thing that's worth learning is the quran, and you should memorize it. The so-called golden age of islam is a myth, it was the dying breath of the empires they conquered. And it was islam that destroyed its own supossedly golden age, not the west and not the east.
The problems in the Middle-East are not the fault of the West, even though we probably shouldn't have removed Saddam from power. Colonial era, Sykes-Picot, protectorates after WW1, removing the shah from Iran, even Israel, all these things the islamic world brought upon itself. I could write long convoluted paragraphs explaining why, but you should do some research yourself. If you can't be bothered, this is the regional motto:
"I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and my cousin and I against the stranger."
Now I was in full support of driving the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001 and I said we should stay there for at least 50 years, possibly even a 100. But we left within 10 years and then we tried to create a democratic secular state in Iraq. We might never know the true reasons behind it, but it's not impossible that the Bush administration considered it the best place to start with introducing freedom in the middle-east.
Now you probably say, don't mess with them at all. But then you condemn them to living under the whip of islam forever. Where the only option is a theocratic tyranny, a secular tyranny or civil war. Just like what we see in the middle-east today. And even if we don't mess with them, they will mess with us, like they did so many times in the past.
TLDR: it's not the west that creates people with little to lose in a world where dangerous weapons exist, it's islam that does that.
Frankly it's a mystery if my point here is too complicated or the fault lies with the audience, but it's clearly not been understood in any case. To minimize the possibility of the former, this is how I explained for some simpleton a bit back:
"Imagine that you're a wannabe leader trying to build some support, so in essence followers to rally around some cause. Generally it's easiest to get dumb people to mindlessly follow causes, and because they're dumb the cause can't be very complicated. So what you do is take some characteristic of prospective followers, let's say white/western/christian, which naturally provides a contrasting dichotomy to some other group. Notice that dichotomy also works in reverse, aka vice versa. Then you propagate that said others are the worstest people of all time, and put pictures of them in dictionaries with all the bad words that can be associated. For example, one side might use terrorist, the other infidel and so on. It all has little to do with the complex reality, but remember the simpler the better.
That way to get their pea brains to click however you want, whenever the others do anything uppity/untoward, just point to the dictionary and watch the lemmings get all angry with you conveniently there to tell them what to do."
I suppose for the slightly more sophisticated followers who're a bit past word association, they have to resort to revisionist history like this lolocoaster that praying to god wrong caused the mongols to come raze Baghdad, whereas logically god's pleasure with western christians spared them the same fate. I suppose next they're going to proclaim that the mongols only fell because some of them became muslim.
As mentioned the neocons failed because they understand history & such at about the same level as you, or more accurately you're a neocon who can't see past the ideology. It rather makes sense that dummies are incompetent, and this is not resolved by giving them more time to screw even more shit up.
Guess that's why the west was in the habit of toppling democracy/securism in the region (& elsewhere) to install friendly dictators, eg. Iran/1953, Syria/1949, Bahrain/1975, etc. Not to mention creating inherently unstable countries that only be held together by strongmen, and sticking israel in there just for laughs. You keep bringing up history & research or whatever, but seems evident you don't know what those terms imply.
You know every religion has a history of violence if you look at it and the denomination determines where their hate is directed. If we blanket banned all religion as subversive and detrimental to society then we could isolate individual acts as hate crimes against persons.
Ok, I see, you just won't know what wrong means either. To anyone with much of an education, it means doesn't conform to factual reality like the relative advancement of the ME compared to dark/middle ages europe. Sans that, seems "wrong" could mean anything which doesn't agree with alt-right "historians". Since you've obviously not much of a scholar, here's an easy protip: if your info sources look more like breitbart.com, instead of those books you might recall from that library building in school, they're likely just agitprop written for gullible dummies. To the dummies, they imagine some professor of history is going to read the same site, and come away with the same mind-blowing revelation that they did.Your point is not complicated, it's wrong. And your explanation to 'some simpleton' shows exactly what Muhammed did when he created his most vile of all ideologies ever.
His slightly more sophisticated followers who tried to reform Islam were all beheaded or driven out by his regular followers. And the people that fell victim to the bloodlust of Muhammed's followers had to write revisionist history, to make their lives barely liveable for the next 1000 years. Even coming up with the myth of the golden age of Islam (which was actually the last dying breath of the Roman, Persian and Byzantine empires what were conquered) while in reality it was islam that destroyed that golden age. Western historians are waking up though, and are starting to find out what really happened.
And you didn't actually think any Christian, Jew or Hindu would voluntarily convert to Islam now, do you? Well, there is this story of a Jew who converted to islam, but when he realized the folly of Muhammed's ways he returned back to his own faith and as expected was beheaded. Read it, it's in the Hadith.
If I'll give Muhammed credit for anything, it was that he was military mastermind...although, he used low tactics that went against the conventions of warfare of the time. Unfortunately that is also a large reason why we face the problem we do.
They failed because they don't understand history like I do. Like I said the West should have stayed for 100 years, not 10. Because the Afghan warlords have Always fought against outside invaders, so they can do what they like best: fight against eachother. Which they did after the Afgan War, until the Taliban took over.
Maybe the Persian shah shouldn't have confiscated the British/Iranian company that found the oil in his country for him at great expense, and payed him for it according to the contract he signed himself. Maybe the Syrians shouldn't have started a revolt against the French who gave each religion in the country it's own area to live in, after their Ottoman overlords decided to join WW1 on the side of the Germans, who actually asked them not to. And after they drove out the French they started fighting among themselves, so a dictator had to be installed to keep them from killing each other. Maybe the Arabs should have just accepted the two peoples Balfour declaration of 1917. But they can't because on night, their prophet flew on a winged horse to Jeruzalem where he ascended to heaven and lead the sermon attented by all previous prophets. True story.
"I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and my cousin and I against the stranger."
It's the Bedouin motto, of which, according to the Hadith, Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab said: "They are the origin of the Arabs and the substance of Islam."
The reality is that the Arabs want one huge Arab state where they can kill all non-believers. Since that is unacceptable, they must be conquered and divided.
Ok, I see, you just won't know what wrong means either. To anyone with much of an education, it means doesn't conform to factual reality like the relative advancement of the ME compared to dark/middle ages europe. Sans that, seems "wrong" could mean anything which doesn't agree with alt-right "historians". Since you've obviously not much of a scholar, here's an easy protip: if your info sources look more like breitbart.com, instead of those books you might recall from that library building in school, they're likely just agitprop written for gullible dummies. To the dummies, they imagine some professor of history is going to read the same site, and come away with the same mind-blowing revelation that they did.
Hilarious you adopt neocon ideology then proclaim they're not smart like you. Good luck convincing anyone to pay for 100 years of occupation to test out those smarts.
Wholehearted support for colonialism isn't going to do you any favors when you inevitably deny wholesale influence by right wing ideology.
No, Islamophobia is just flavor of the moment for the right. Hating on blacks and natives wasn't political tenable anymore so they just moved onto the new dirty subhumans. There's really only two options ATM, admit you come from that tradition, or you just repost breitbart type garbage because you're not smart enough to figure out what it is.
Honestly it's amazing the amount of research you have done, and quite frankly you're right about many points.
However, you're completely resided on the negative side. We've both negatives and positives, which apparently you wouldn't acknowledge or unaware of.
Islam, as an overall system, I'd say has worked well in its early age. Dragging and abusing that system for way too long centuries is one of my main resentment points about the religious establishment.
About the immigration issue, I guess we didn't continue our previous discussion, whish I would like to try to add some insights to brighten up your views a little bit. You just can't simply count the negatives, form your opinion, and keep going. Hell, I've searched so far for the great nation in this world and found none, there are only good individuals out there.
One point though you must digest well and keep in mind: it's always about POV and the way you see/approach a lot of conflicts. Basic example, as previously stated here, would be the most tragic war in entire earth history - WWII.
Understanding so makes you relax your tough standards and lower your acceptance level of the other side's view.
And taqqiya. See, your religion makes it impossible for me to trust you, even though I fully trust you are a decent person. I mean, you are, right?
You mean, your moral depravity? Who is "stealing credit"? Let's take a look:The abolitionist movement was against your friends. Consider the moral depravity of people who try to steal credit from the virtuous who had to fight them for the righteous result.
Yes, he was the one who was "stealing credit". I told him that in Latin America the abolitionist movement was lead by the conservatives, and he showed the most pure prove of ignorance about this subject and even about the meaning of one of the concepts involved (liberal) in the USA and in the Latin America. All the discussion was registered here.I mean not only slavery which was forcibly banned by leftists
The guy who wrote the above is the same who wrote this:Now that makes him a honest racist, and you in contrast a rather dishonest one.
In his racist scheme, there's a strict hierarchy: the muslim are above everybody and can do whatever they want, including genocide; in the second place, we'll find the brave leftist american intelligentsia, who think they will be spared by the former... and, in the very last place, there are the brown people of Latin America. We're infidels and ignorants at the same time...Also, if the largely leftist american intelligentsia educated by the best academic system in the world are trash, when any one of them can readily school you in just about anything, what does that make you?
But the worse is yet to come. Yes, this guy is a bush fighter (sorry about the pun) who does not know what he is talking about and wants to teach what he does not know. But because he is intellectually dishonest, and always (systematically) practice double standards, he also gains the "moral scum gold medal".On the whole "socialism" issue, that's just a label dummies are told to put on things they don't understand. To illustrate, democracy is basically political communism.
You "only" missed that every single accusation here applies to you instead of me.If we keep track of your score thus far, you've pretended to be educated while flubbing every single subject of knowledge. Pretended to be principled while lying about your racist beliefs & weaseling around after getting pinned in every argument. Pretended to be not right wing while unequivocally supporting their agenda. Pretended to have morals and it's pretty clear how that's working out. Let me know if there's anything you've proclaimed that I've missed.
Anonymouse will be posting a news article reporting some disgustingly heinous crime committed in the name of islam everyday for the rest of your life.
A suicide bombing which killed 51 people in the Turkish city of Gaziantep was carried out by a 12 to 14-year-old, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.
Mr Erdogan said the so-called Islamic State (IS) was behind the attack, which targeted a Kurdish wedding party. Gaziantep, near the Syrian border, is known to have several IS cells.
The bomb wounded 69 people, Mr Erdogan added, 17 of them seriously.
I don't want to blanket ban all religion. I just want to ban one. The one that actually preaches violence.
You mean, your moral depravity? Who is "stealing credit"? Let's take a look:
Yes, he was the one who was "stealing credit". I told him that in Latin America the abolitionist movement was lead by the conservatives, and he showed the most pure prove of ignorance about this subject and even about the meaning of one of the concepts involved (liberal) in the USA and in the Latin America. All the discussion was registered here.
His favorite sport is to accuse others to do precisely what he does... And he wants to give moral lessons...
The guy who wrote the above is the same who wrote this:
In his racist scheme, there's a strict hierarchy: the muslim are above everybody and can do whatever they want, including genocide; in the second place, we'll find the brave leftist american intelligentsia, who think they will be spared by the former... and, in the very last place, there are the brown people of Latin America. We're infidels and ignorants at the same time...
But, seriously, the above is very symptomatic. Any educated man knows that education is an individual conquer. Nobody, not even in "the best academic system", will educate you. Good teachers are (of course) very welcome, but they can't force anyone to learn. If you don't educate yourself, nothing will happen. And everything only gets worse when you consider that learning many things does not teach understanding.
And because any educated man knows that education is an individual conquer, we can clearly see that the "agent" statement came from someone who simply does not know what "education" means.
Hence, it's not a surprise when he says that "slavery was banned by leftists", or when he confounds the meaning of "liberal" in the USA and in the Latin America, or when he mix concepts in the most delirious way:
But the worse is yet to come. Yes, this guy is a bush fighter (sorry about the pun) who does not know what he is talking about and wants to teach what he does not know. But because he is intellectually dishonest, and always (systematically) practice double standards, he also gains the "moral scum gold medal".
For instance, he will say you're not academically prepared; but from the moment you quote an author, he will say (and repeat ad nauseam) that you're "name dropping".
He says that if we dare to condemn terrorist acts, we are racists; but when the terrorists are practicing genocide (for instance, the Yazidis), well, that's because they have "legitimate grievances".
If you support the conservatives regarding a very specific issue (against islamic fascism), he will say you support the far right wing.
If you're against islamic terrorist extremism, but not against muslims in general, he will say you're a racist that would wipe every muslim country in the world with atomic bombs if you could.
Well, when someone shows this level of intellectual and moral dishonesty in a thread named "Stop saying Islam is a religion of peace", it's time to stop everything and think about this.
Unlike this islamic agent, who always think he's teaching, I'm proud to say that I'm learning a lot in this thread, especially from someone who actually lived in an islamic country and knows what he is talking about.
I already know what this "agent00f" will say. He will accuse me (once more!) of being a pretentious ignorant: after all, I'm a Latin American, the scum of the world...
He will accuse me (again!) of being an enraged far right-wing supporter, when I'm just a poor brown latin american atheist trying to to survive to the rage of his lovely friends and their "legitimate grievances".
And so on...
Some people in this world are real victims. They are from all races, all colors, all genders, all faiths, all educational levels. But it's easy to spot the real victims.
This guy, on the contrary, is not a victim. He deserves the pitiful life he has and I don't feel sorry for him.
You "only" missed that every single accusation here applies to you instead of me.
Say the guy whose country was built on a genocide, sure that there s not much trouble or opposition coming from the native americans.
Since 1945 no country has killed as much innocent people than the US, through direct wars, sponsored state coup to overthrow legal government..
Should i add that extremists in Syria are supported and armed by the US and their saudis buddies..?.
Actualy whenever an extremist and capialist friendly movement emerged somewhere in the world that he instantly got US support, as for violence there s no genocide that occured from muslim hand but for sure that most of the american genocided nations were victim of so called christians, all for land grab..
Your propaganda s nothing else that a mean to keep looting ressources of muslims countries, truth is that without their oil at forced cheap price most of the western world would live in poverty, hence the diabolisation as a poor mean to keep invading them, destroying their countries and seize their oil and assets, like in Lybia, isnt it.
I'm not saying this in the context of a pissing contest, but the dark ages weren't so dark as you are usually led to believe. There was steady progress culminating in the Renaissance. Classical philosophy was actually preserved in monasteries all over Europe. It's just more interesting to read about knights fighting over ladies, pestilence and mass burning of heretics.
Not that it matters anyway, European and Islamic ways parted in 1200. You should look into Thomas of Aquino and Al-Ghazali. The latter is the guy that denies the concept of cause and reaction. It's why so many muslims still say inshallah today and they never win a Nobel prize. The main thing you need to understand is that every attempt at reform of islam has been thwarted by islam. You might think the 21st century will change things, but that's the thing, too many muslims just don't believe in Western science, even if they have a smartphone.
I don't read Breitbart. I did watch this video the other day. Unfortunately it's in Dutch, but maybe the automatic translation can make it slightly clear to you what is being discussed. The interviewee is a Belgian left-wing progressive liberal humanist who has been working his whole life with Muslim children in an educational surrounding. He explains why the Western intellectual elite's approach to muslims is completely wrong and in fact counteractive. I really hope his book will be translated into English soon.
Like I already said I'm probably the worst nightmare of American conservatives. I believe in a mix between socialism and capitalism, am pro-basically everything (environment, workers rights, female equality, gay rights, weed, abortion, euthanasia, you name it). The only thing I'm against is Islam, because I have seen it fail in my own country for 40+ years and I've had it with 25 years of terrorism. That's why I'm warning you guys. Giving them freedom and trying to appease them doesn't work. Islam hasn't reformed in the 21st century and it never will. It really is a waterproof system.
I didn't say I support colonialism. I said that there is usually a good reason when the West intervenes in a country nowadays. Like in Afghanistan, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan etc. Coincidentally all countries that suffer from islam.
I wouldn't call it flavor of the moment. The Muslimbrotherhood was founded in 1928 and committed their first acts of terror in 1948. There was the attack on the grand mosque in Mecca in 1979. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989 which in hindsight should have opened our eyes a bit more. Then the first AQ attack in 1992. And 9/11 is now 15 years ago, I read rescue workers are still dying from cancer today. And the only thing the war on terror accomplished was create a terror state.
I probably should use spoiler tags for this: don't click if you want to have a nice weekend or life. Seriously, I fucking mean it.
I don't want to crush your soul, but this is not over by a long shot. Anonymouse will be posting a newsarticle reporting some disgustingly heinous crime committed in the name of islam everyday for the rest of your life. And your children's life too probably. Unless islam takes over, in that case they will be censored by the islamic ministry of information.
Honestly it's amazing the amount of research you have done, and quite frankly you're right about many points.
However, you're completely resided on the negative side. We've both negatives and positives, which apparently you wouldn't acknowledge or unaware of.
Islam, as an overall system, I'd say has worked well in its early age. Dragging and abusing that system for way too long centuries is one of my main resentment points about the religious establishment.
About the immigration issue, I guess we didn't continue our previous discussion, whish I would like to try to add some insights to brighten up your views a little bit. You just can't simply count the negatives, form your opinion, and keep going. Hell, I've searched so far for the great nation in this world and found none, there are only good individuals out there.
One point though you must digest well and keep in mind: it's always about POV and the way you see/approach a lot of conflicts. Basic example, as previously stated here, would be the most tragic war in entire earth history - WWII.
Understanding so makes you relax your tough standards and lower your acceptance level of the other side's view.
Actually, these sites post all their sources along with their articles. Don't believe what you read/hear? Check the sources.To help you understand the situation, he doesn't actually do "research", he just reads the european equivalent of breitbart.com. If you're not familiar with these sites, they're just right wing agitprop, which at best cherry picks facts to support some political objective.
Wow... THAT, folks, is the 'progressive' mindset in a nutshell. They think that because islamic countries are horrible shitholes, it MUST mean that "whitey is holding them down". It cannot possibly, EVER, mean that they're holding themselves down by their beliefs and/or actions. If people are wary around them, it MUST mean that they're horrible racists because muslims are innocent victims who do no wrong, thus cannot have any effect on the reactions of others.In this case the greater political objective is hating on and/or blaming everything on ethnicities with low social status, and muslims just happen to be the new black/jewish people after they suffered historical defeat on that front.
If people are wary around them, it MUST mean that they're horrible racists because muslims are innocent victims who do no wrong, thus cannot have any effect on the reactions of others.
Bizarre mental-gymnastics used in every aspect of social justice "logic".