Acts of Terrorism megathread

[Berkut]

I'll let you know once I decide to join one.

[Razgovory]

I'll let you know once I decide to join one.

You aren't an Athiest anymore?  I am genuinely surprised.

[Berkut]

I just cannot imagine why people choose to ignore Raz. He brings so much to the discussion!

[Razgovory]

I just cannot imagine why people choose to ignore Raz. He brings so much to the discussion!

Not even a very good dodge.  Do you even believe your unique little snowflake bit?  It's absurd and very difficult to take seriously.  It doesn't take a genius to predict exactly what you are going to say when faced with your tribal bugaboos.  But go on, pretend to ignore me.  That's what a good tribalism does when he can't accept facts that don't fit his world view.

[Hamilcar]

I just cannot imagine why people choose to ignore Raz. He brings so much to the discussion!

He is like grumbler that way.

[Berkut]

Your right Raz, I just cannot intellectually compete with you - you operate at a level of rationality and reason I simply cannot contend with, so I am forced to retreat and refuse to engage with such a towering intellect.

You've figured me out. Damn.

[Jacob]

The derailing of this thread is a minor act of terrorism. I hope you're all proud of yourselves.

[Razgovory]

Your right Raz, I just cannot intellectually compete with you - you operate at a level of rationality and reason I simply cannot contend with, so I am forced to retreat and refuse to engage with such a towering intellect.

You've figured me out. Damn.

Still dodging.  It's not that you can't come to terms with me.  It's that you can't come to terms with yourself

[Razgovory]

The derailing of this thread is a minor act of terrorism. I hope you're all proud of yourselves.

Was another thread about how evil brown people are truly a great loss?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Absolutely. You here all the time that terrorism is not about religion, but about politics, economics, colonialism, yadda, yadda, yadda. religion is just the cover for their actions, and they would be doing this regardless.

People even point out how they are terrible Muslims - you have certainly heard how the 9/11 terrorists visited strip clubs, for example, to "prove" that they were not actually motivated by religion.

there was a nice article a bit back on how this tendency to claim that it's about politics, economics, colonialism, etc is actually pretty denigrating towards muslims and not much more than a new version of Eurocentrism/seeing everything through a western lens. As if they're incapable of doing something themselves, as if they lack agency. Meaning that, yes islam is a big problem, this form of eurocentrism is just a big a part of the problem.

In what way Islam is indeed the problem

an orientalist may say something?


It should not always be newspaper reading amateurs


The article below is a brief response to the thesis of the youngest Islam article by Sacha Vliegen, nicely summed up in its title claim that Islam is not the problem. But it might as well have been a response to one of the many pieces on that day after day in De Volkskrant and the NRC, or De Standaard and De Morgen appear. They all start from the same basic security: Islam is not the problem, if it is not the solution. While in reality Islam is a problem for nearly fourteen centuries, although it is for us to be more acute by the appearance of, indeed, a different problem.

Deciding that something 'the problem' might after you have examined, including the alleged problem of it, and then you realized after considering that suspicion is unsustainable. With regard to Islam, however, said without any knowledge beforehand, just to cut off the debate on that, and then to fill the majority of your text with pedantry about full stops and commas, or anything relevant in the context of sociologists slang, and finally wonderfully conclude that 'there' innocence of Islam "appears. It is all in all a very arrogant fuss: Islam criticism dismiss as beneath your level while you are hit up to that level, in reality, never themselves.

I defy anyone who denies or dismisses the Islamic problem into a contradictory debate. So far, no advocate or shoulder collector for Islam to pass the test.

egocentrism

Imagine you are visiting in hospital your old father there is shackled to his bed by the window could only see a dash blue sky. You on the other hand through the window can look over the whole area. He asks you to describe the tree over there across the street whether he is already in bloom? That you promise to do. And you begin to describe window through which to see the tree: it is made of wood, varnished with silver handle. Yes, but, he says, now describe yet another tree! And you look in that direction, but now you start to describe your glasses through which you can see the tree: a hip model, green frame and so on.

Irritating, is not it? Well, that's how the unified Islamic afschermers enter the debate about Islam. There should be told what is wants, it can be about anything, as long as it does not respect Islam. Preferably, it is about something much nabijers, such as colonialism, a thousand years younger than Islam; or discrimination by natives that ugly, thousands of kilometers from Mecca; or American imperialism or the Zionist entity. The other, however, the saint of the postmodern worldview, it may be sung in the abstract, but it should not really otherwise specifically. Our own value framework must remain at the center, and not only ours, but even (as we make our way) of their world.

No tree there in that uninteresting distance, your lens is the true center of the progressive worldview. For example, the assertion of the right people that Muslims are poor and alone therefore commit violence is not only wrong what the motive for the violence concerns (she suggests actually poor alike with violent, phew!), But it also betrays a hopelessly Eurocentrism. In some Muslim neighborhoods in our big cities you could gain an impression of poverty, but who looks a little further, until in the Saudi palaces, Islam will certainly not associate with poverty. Our progressives are villagers, provincial little wanting to stay under their bell tower and try to understand the world in terms village. They call themselves cosmopolitans, as if their village to do resemble the colorful world, but actually they are just projecting their own small-mindedness on the world.

Islam and agency

Muslims who take seriously, as we do critics of Islam, recognizing that they themselves have agency, that they themselves have their own beliefs that can not be traced to Western or other external factors fall, and that they can act from there. Islam has from the beginning itself conducted wars of aggression that were not the fault of the infidels, the Jews or the not yet existing crusaders. Else you may miszien also to Islam, he has certainly the capacity itself to undertake anything.

Conversely, did you Islam friends with their numerous forms of denunciation of Islam criticism. Their arguments are of two types. First there are the obvious lies, for instance, that Muhammad was the first feminist and slave liberator, or that all religions are equally bad, or that al-Andalus was an exemplary multicultural state, or (as the Pope says) the jihādstrijders' only for make money "and" Islam also preaches love. " The lies we're not here to worship with a discussion. On the other hand there are the numerous scattering tactics which lies about Islam be avoided by starting on other matters, often true, and then pretending to imply anything about Islam.

Usually scattering tactics which the shape of the well-known slogan among theologians, "It is not what it says." You do see Islam terrorists call can be heard Allahu Akbar, but there is something different 'in reality' behind. Your lying eyes deceive you: for example, it seems so obvious that Islam is the motive of the terrorists, they say it finally themselves, but our sociologists and mediaduiders know better than they do. Finally, your eyes make you into thinking that the sun revolves around the earth, while the sophisticated explanation is that the earth revolves around the sun. According to this model it applies so learned as a whole in order to deny the evidence of your eyes, and do so Islam friends so with clear conscience.

Left says that the real motive was frustration about experiencing racism (like eg not come from Muslim countries, most Syriëstrijders, where they are the dominant group and discrimination do not suffer) or poverty (like Osama Bin Laden was not a billionaire), or a highly personal mental impairment. It then goes to 'madmen' or, as David Cameron has said, to "monsters." And on social media assert many of both sides that they were "idiots" is. Big words to conceal that one is intellectually lazy or unable to parse the more ideological motive.

On the right side saying among other Christian fundamentalists and the Nouvelle Droite it all because of the loss of one's own tradition, which then creates a quizzical void that will fill like Islam. The nationalists argue that it is disguised ethnic settlements, and consider any request by Islam as the natural religion of the desert dwellers, where nothing is wrong as long as they just keep them in their own country. All, both left and right, they would like to talk about immediate factors, largely on their own world. Those who call themselves anti-racist, here best even realize that right themselves, in their own terminology, white supremacists. According to them, do something an Arab or Turk impossible itself, there must always be a white hand behind it. Right has its own variant: conspiracy theories that Muslim fanatics are all puppets of the CIA and the Zionist world conspiracy.

Islam Friends at war

The common denominator of the whole range of Islamic-shielding theory is misdirection, diverting attention to your own favorite theme, any but especially Islam. One result is that one remains willfully blind regarding our own content on Islam, a theme that articles like that of a Rik Coolsaet, one Els Keytsmans or indeed Sacha Flying therefore completely and utterly remains out of sight. Another consequence is that contemporary facts about the Muslim world but can indicate quite blurred in their relations with the Islam problem.

Thus, here as in numerous articles Islam, established a link between the resistance against Islam (elsewhere 'Islamophobia') and the invasions, or bombing of Muslim countries. Among means you see some criticism of Islam means in practice! Until those ailing repeated, I still take the trouble to refute him.

Without a single exception, all political leaders who ordered violence against Muslim countries since September 11 2001, Islam oversold. No word of criticism of Islam has ever come across their lips. According to the interior minister Jan Jambon, whose troops have shot some jihādmoslims and whose government is participating in the bombing against the Caliphate, Islam has criticized "the worst possible answer" to Islamic terror. All the politicians involved have explicitly stated not to fight Islam. John Kerry has even claimed to fight in front of it, against the so-called IS-biasing collectors of the "true, peaceful Islam. That is: to kill Muslims to defend Islam. So you see where islamofilie leads.

Where is the problem then?

On the other hand, we do read a positive message in Vliegens reflections on Islam problem. One must question not see loose from its context. They can bring our society but threatened by some new developments in ourselves that in previous centuries were not addressed.

The first is yet another external factor, namely the physical presence of Islam in our midst through millions of individuals who adhere to Islam. It is largely through their presence that Islamic terrorists could strike here. Modern air travel is in itself sufficient for some spectacular attacks like 9/11, but cooperated local subcultures of implanted Muslims to the current permanent climate of terror in Western Europe, see Molenbeek. That factor is not the cause of the Islam problem but an important contributor. Angela Merkel flatly lied when she claimed that "the terrorists want to stop Europe the influx of refugees," as if its own open border policy would allow a courageous gesture against terror. On the contrary, the Caliphate can not believe his luck with a simpleton which opens the floodgates for all kinds of terror agents.

A second factor is the first made possible: the intoxication of the European leaders has taken possession and is due seventy years of peace and prosperity, as well as intense operation of public opinion through the Gramscian cultural Marxism. They think that the laws of international human society no longer apply to them and that they can afford policies that have nevertheless proven throughout history that they lead to instability and civil war.

But even these two factors would not be as dramatic as the Europeans themselves would hold their course. Our ancestors led their welcome for a given alien not affected his whole family then had to come. They were not xenophobic or otherwise streamlined ideological, but had common sense. They led from hospitality to an off alien religion that these here its standards might impose halal meat and sabotaging lessons on the Armenian and Jewish genocide, the prohibition for Muslim women to marry unbelievers, and even female genital mutilation and now increasingly, polygamy. The immigrants would respect the indigenous culture that did comply, and to start itself respected instead of into perspective road.

Of this order is also the collapse of European demography. The growth of the Muslim population would seem less awful as its own population still grew or remained at least stable. Conversely, the low birth rate is justified because the world gets crowded but then it follows that we need to solve the overcrowding problems of countries without such responsibility? His stand on their very post-colonial independence, and in that regard we take them at their word: care for yourself for the consequences of your population explosion. De Lage Landen are overcrowded and silted, influx is not necessary.

The decisive factor worst and finally the self-hatred. Making negative factors more fatal than necessary and even poisons factors that should have been positive in itself. Thus own secularization should make us just skeptical and inaccessible to Islam (a contrario: the few remaining post-conciliar Christians, like the pope, true dhimmi sheep at the top), but by the key spooned self-hatred do neo-liberals unholy concessions to Islam. The increasing population share of the Muslims, now a negative factor, had a still majoritarian, disbelieved but remained healthy indigenous community can be safely absorbed and assimilated. Because the majority, however ashamed of themselves and managed to foist all kinds of guilt, which inspires yet limited Muslim minority them concern.

decision

The problem of Westerners is that they have lost faith, as Angela Merkel claims. That is a good and normal development, and in any case the type of evolution that a free society is entitled. From Islamic point of view is, moreover, scarcely matter what kind of unbelievers we, Christians or pagans or something else. We have, in each case not entitled to the sky nor on the earth, because both are reserved for Muslims. Islam is ultimately nothing more than megalomania (specifically: election delusion) of Mohammed, with a half billion extras who play his game. The merit or fault of the unbelievers are completely out there.

The problem of Islam comes from Islam itself forth, and it has imposed itself on us without being asked. Islam makes a statement, in its autonomous aggression, use of the weaknesses in our defense. He sees that both Christians and unbelievers defend themselves badly and are not motivated to defend himself. Christians are sentimental and masochistic, they think it is virtuous to be silly and let surprise itself. Most of today liberals are too few focused, too hedonistic, too ignorant of any religious worldview, and more particularly including the Islamic.

So there are two problems: an external threat Islam and an internal crisis of civilization in the West. In comparison, you can only get AIDS if you 'risky behavior' shows, and an AIDS virus is sweeping the area. Libertines from earlier generations certainly showed plenty of risk behavior, and yet were not AIDS because the virus did not exist - they were possibly or other diseases, like our society was before Islam's problem with other ailments. Conversely, the external threat of the virus could mean no risk for those who are not using risk behavior exposed.

Who thinks that "Islam is not the problem," so right, as well as the sworn celibate who finds that "the AIDS virus, the problem is not." For him, all investment in AIDS research wasted: the disease will not take him anyway. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where our society's right to decline or self-hatred, or confusion fully exercised by cultural Marxism, and thus become vulnerable to infiltration by destructive forces. Even such imperfect society like ours has however the right to survival, so they must be protected against her attackers. Like any effective strategy begins to self-defense by calling the attackers by name. One of them is called Islam.

http://www.doorbraak.be/nl/nieuws/welke-zin-de-islam-wel-degelijk-het-probleem

[Berkut]

The derailing of this thread is a minor act of terrorism. I hope you're all proud of yourselves.

Was another thread about how evil brown people are truly a great loss?

Yes, see, this is the insight and intellectual honesty that makes you such a valued poster.

Because the entire point of all this is clearly that "brown people are evil". You have gotten right to the crux of the matter.

It is so great that Raz was able to save us from a constructive and insightful discussion about evil brown people. What an asset to the forum!

[Legbiter]

[Razgovory]

The derailing of this thread is a minor act of terrorism. I hope you're all proud of yourselves.

Was another thread about how evil brown people are truly a great loss?

Yes, see, this is the insight and intellectual honesty that makes you such a valued poster.

Because the entire point of all this is clearly that "brown people are evil". You have gotten right to the crux of the matter.

It is so great that Raz was able to save us from a constructive and insightful discussion about evil brown people. What an asset to the forum!

First post about an evil Somali.  Second post a sarcastic post about it not being a Norwegian.  Then we go to an evil Algerian, and another sarcastic post how we shall never know what the motive was.  Then we get some something from Sam Harris who supports racial profiling of evil brown people.  I see a pattern.  I'm sorry you don't.

[garbon]

Also it was a thread started by mongers so it was DOA.

[Valmy]

I see a pattern.

Yes. You love to intimidate and shut people up by claiming they are evil. That is a pattern. A tiresome one that makes me loath you immensely.

I noticed you seemed real honestly interested in that case of those two poor Bangladeshis...oh wait you don't give a fuck about them, you just bring it up to use as a weapon to attack people. Just like the Turkish stuff.