Jump to content
IGNORED

How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

awepittance

By awepittance
in General Banter

Recommended Posts

SR4 Grand Master

SR4

Posted
Posted

 

goDel- dunno who you are railing against, but if its on my goalposts statement, Alco and I have stated how the goalposts have moved at least three times over the course of this thread.

 

what started out as an analysis of Greenwald's article has been derailed for 10+ pages by people posting wiki sources on the violence of Islam...wait no, violence of Islamic "fascists".

 

Violence of Islam by Islamic Fascists is the same thing. Just as violence of Christianity by Christian Fanatics is the same. Therefore an analysis or critique of Greenwald's article supports the argument that Islamic belief is uniquely more extreme (present day) than of the other religions. And therefore one who points this out is simply rational, vs politically correct and ignorant. There's plenty of people making this argument and there has yet to be a real analysis or critique against it aside from just repeating Greenwald's thesis (in so many words).

 

 

what the absolute fuck, now you are distorting your own previous statements.

 

 

you started out literally claiming that Islam is the most violent religion. You argue this by saying Islam is the only religion that encourages martyrdom. Then you claim that Islam is the only religion that encourages martyrdom via suicide bombing. Then you backpedal when called out and say, no no, Im not arguing about the supposedly inherently more violent Islam, Im arguing about Islamic "fascism", as if that term means absolutely anything significant whatsoever. You do this because you, once again, are viewing the violence in these areas solely through the prism of religion, rather than an infinitely more complex geopolitical situation.

 

When you say Christians in the past commit violent acts, we still understand (if we are sane) that there are political and economic motivations for people being coerced into adopting religion as a pretext for excusing the violence of these acts. This all goes back to the original article; Harris, at least in the books that I have read, provides no geopolitical context for why people in these regions have in many cases adopted an extremist form of religion, he looks through a prism of Islam as a monolithic arbiter of culture in these areas. Because we have distanced ourselves from the rest of the inputs, we are engaging in a discussion in which one side is the "righteous, moral and rationally developed part of society" vs. The "Other" that blindly worships and follows a ridiculously violent religion.

 

Call me out on the bullshit "PC police" canard again, please. You are more guilty of using political correctness to shove a logically faulty premise down the throats of everyone involved in this discussion.

 

Im critical as hell of Islam; I fucking despise Islam, as I do Christianity, Judaism and any other doctrine that believes an invisible man in the sky dictates the ways of the universe and orders death, slavery, and eternal damnnation to those who oppose him. That doesn't mean I equate Islam being a fucking stupid religion to "Islam is solely responsible for the uprise in violence in these regions." I don't claim that Islam is "more violent" than another monotheistic religion- by virtue of corrupting and polluting peoples minds with the garbage that ANY holy book is factual or true, religions are equally and inherently violent. Again, put any religious or devout people in a geopolitical situation where they have unstable government manipulated by outside forces, unstable economy, outside economic sanctions by imperialistic powers, and tell me they don't start latching on to their holy books to desperately search for some righteous reason to "jihad" against the invader.

 

You even said yourself a page or two ago, you want to focus on "what can we do about it" as if we somehow have the key to spread enlightenment to the land of those poor, ignorant souls. Here's the catch: we already do something about it. We already engineer coups of democratically elected secular governments and place in dictators, we destabilize their prime modes of economic apparatus via sanctions, we play each of these nations off of each other in wars for our own geopolitical benefit, and because of all this, we give the extremist elements of societies MORE fuel to continue this pseudo-religious nonsense and to latch onto these motivations for violence against what they see (and rightfully fucking so) dangerous outside threats. You essentially in those words prove the point I wrote on 8 pages or so ago. THAT is cultural imperialism, THAT is what is dangerous, and THAT is what Greenwald was trying to point out.

 

Fucking christ on a cracker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 792
  • Created
  • Last Reply
syd syside Grand Master

syd syside

Posted
Posted

 

 

goDel- dunno who you are railing against, but if its on my goalposts statement, Alco and I have stated how the goalposts have moved at least three times over the course of this thread.

 

what started out as an analysis of Greenwald's article has been derailed for 10+ pages by people posting wiki sources on the violence of Islam...wait no, violence of Islamic "fascists".

 

Violence of Islam by Islamic Fascists is the same thing. Just as violence of Christianity by Christian Fanatics is the same. Therefore an analysis or critique of Greenwald's article supports the argument that Islamic belief is uniquely more extreme (present day) than of the other religions. And therefore one who points this out is simply rational, vs politically correct and ignorant. There's plenty of people making this argument and there has yet to be a real analysis or critique against it aside from just repeating Greenwald's thesis (in so many words).

 

 

what the absolute fuck, now you are distorting your own previous statements.

 

 

you started out literally claiming that Islam is the most violent religion. You argue this by saying Islam is the only religion that encourages martyrdom. Then you claim that Islam is the only religion that encourages martyrdom via suicide bombing. Then you backpedal when called out and say, no no, Im not arguing about the supposedly inherently more violent Islam, Im arguing about Islamic "fascism", as if that term means absolutely anything significant whatsoever. You do this because you, once again, are viewing the violence in these areas solely through the prism of religion, rather than an infinitely more complex geopolitical situation.

 

When you say Christians in the past commit violent acts, we still understand (if we are sane) that there are political and economic motivations for people being coerced into adopting religion as a pretext for excusing the violence of these acts. This all goes back to the original article; Harris, at least in the books that I have read, provides no geopolitical context for why people in these regions have in many cases adopted an extremist form of religion, he looks through a prism of Islam as a monolithic arbiter of culture in these areas. Because we have distanced ourselves from the rest of the inputs, we are engaging in a discussion in which one side is the "righteous, moral and rationally developed part of society" vs. The "Other" that blindly worships and follows a ridiculously violent religion.

 

Call me out on the bullshit "PC police" canard again, please. You are more guilty of using political correctness to shove a logically faulty premise down the throats of everyone involved in this discussion.

 

Im critical as hell of Islam; I fucking despise Islam, as I do Christianity, Judaism and any other doctrine that believes an invisible man in the sky dictates the ways of the universe and orders death, slavery, and eternal damnnation to those who oppose him. That doesn't mean I equate Islam being a fucking stupid religion to "Islam is solely responsible for the uprise in violence in these regions." I don't claim that Islam is "more violent" than another monotheistic religion-

 

, outside economic sanctions by imperialistic powers, and tell me they don't start latching on to their holy books to desperately search for some righteous reason to "jihad" against the invader.

 

You even said yourself a page or two ago, you want to focus on "what can we do about it" as if we somehow have the key to spread enlightenment to the land of those poor, ignorant souls. Here's the catch: we already do something about it. We already engineer coups of democratically elected secular governments and place in dictators, we destabilize their prime modes of economic apparatus via sanctions, we play each of these nations off of each other in wars for our own geopolitical benefit, and because of all this, we give the extremist elements of societies MORE fuel to continue this pseudo-religious nonsense and to latch onto these motivations for violence against what they see (and rightfully fucking so) dangerous outside threats. You essentially in those words prove the point I wrote on 8 pages or so ago. THAT is cultural imperialism, THAT is what is dangerous, and THAT is what Greenwald was trying to point out.

 

Fucking christ on a cracker.

 

You are mis-representing my viewpoints and posts. Please quote where I said, "You argue this by saying Islam is the only religion that encourages martyrdom. Then you claim that Islam is the only religion that encourages martyrdom via suicide bombing."

 

I said that it does encourage martyrdom more than other religions or cults.

 

" Then you backpedal when called out and say, no no, Im not arguing about the supposedly inherently more violent Islam, Im arguing about Islamic "fascism", as if that term means absolutely anything significant whatsoever."

 

Islamic Fascism is to be included in the realms of Islam just as Christian fanatics are to be included in the realm of criticism against Christianity. By being selective and referring to the bad aspects of Islam , as Islamic Totalitarianism/Fascism I am further pointing out that moderate Islamic belief is not violent.

 

"When you say Christians in the past commit violent acts, we still understand (if we are sane) that there are political and economic motivations for people being coerced into adopting religion as a pretex"

 

And I have explained that the Ottoman Empire was economically, politically and scientifically regressed because of Islam. Not because of Western Imperialism. Islam banned the printing press for 234 years. Western Imperialism is what brought the notion/technology of the printing press to the Ottoman, but it was the religious fanatics who denied it of merit.

 

"by virtue of corrupting and polluting peoples minds with the garbage that ANY holy book is factual or true, religions are equally and inherently violent. Again, put any religious or devout people in a geopolitical situation where they have unstable government manipulated by outside forces, unstable economy"

 

Again you are making an argument that has no supporting evidence. You are just spouting off nonsense.

 

"You even said yourself a page or two ago, you want to focus on "what can we do about it" as if we somehow have the key to spread enlightenment to the land of those poor, ignorant souls. "

 

Yes, I want to know of ways in which we can stop religious intolerance and violence. How we go about promoting scientific thinking and human rights in those regions.

 

And yes, you are being politically correct about this, as was Greenwald. You can deny this and say that all religions are the same and that we should treat them all the same because thats the nice thing to do. But it's not intellectually honest.

 

Many people buy into the premise that the World Trade Center attack on September 11 was a result of some misguided foreign policy of the United States. Others believe that Islamist terror attacks began in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s as a result of something that we, as a country, have done to provoke such an attack.

When confronting an enemy it is helpful to know what it is that drives him. The U.S. and the West need to realistically look at the true motives of Islamic terrorists in order to properly confront them. I will show that Islamic Jihad is not motivated by any specific policies of the U.S. or the West, but instead is principally motivated by a fanatic, obsessive hatred of Jews, and that Islamic Jihad was, and continues to be, strongly influenced by the Nazis.

Despite common misconceptions, modern Islamic Fascism was not born during the 1960s, but during the 1930s. Its rise was not inspired by the failure of Nasserism in Egypt, but by the rise of Nazism in Germany, and prior to 1951 all of its campaigns were directed, not against Western colonialism, but against the Jews.

It was the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Cairo in 1928, that established Islamic Jihad as a mass movement. The significance of the Muslim Brotherhood to Islamic Fascism is comparable to the significance of the Bolshevik Party to Communism: it was, and it remains to this day, the ideological reference point and the organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including Al Queda and Hamas.

 

 

Membership in the Brotherhood rose from 800 members in 1936 to over 200,000 in 1938. In those two years the Brotherhood conducted a major campaign in Egypt, and it was against the Jews, not against the British occupiers. This campaign against the Jews, in the late 1930s, which established the Brotherhood as a mass movement of Islamic Jihadists, was set off by a rebellion in Palestine directed against Jewish immigration from Europe and Russia. That campaign was initiated by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini.

Al-Husseini was extremely impressed with Adolf Hitler and his anti-Jewish rhetoric. In 1941 he visited Hitler in Berlin. He was so enthralled with Hitler and the Nazis, and their plans to exterminate the Jews that he decided to remain in Berlin. He lived there from 1941 to 1945, recruiting Muslims in Europe for the Waffen-SS. He was very close to Hitler. Husseini's best friends were Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann.

 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/islamic_fascism_the_nazi_connection.html#ixzz2Pz21H0xd

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/islamic_fascism_the_nazi_connection.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
syd syside Grand Master

syd syside

Posted
Posted

luke viia, on 09 Apr 2013 - 09:26, said:

 

Wow that's one shitty source. Articles about climate change "conspirators," the homosexual agenda, and... Islam. Glad to know you've been informing yourself with the true facts. :facepalm:

Quote

During World War II he actively collaborated with both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, meetingAdolf Hitler personally and asking him to back Arab independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

 

We are not done here. Refute any of the evidence I have posted and then you can claim such a thing. But to just disregard a source because it has "conservative views" does not mean its wrong.

 

Again...

 

MUTZ PARADOX

 

It's like when people claim Obama was not born in the US, and when people show evidence he was, they say that its fabricated or factually wrong just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest zaphod

Guest zaphod

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

goDel- dunno who you are railing against, but if its on my goalposts statement, Alco and I have stated how the goalposts have moved at least three times over the course of this thread.

 

what started out as an analysis of Greenwald's article has been derailed for 10+ pages by people posting wiki sources on the violence of Islam...wait no, violence of Islamic "fascists".

 

Violence of Islam by Islamic Fascists is the same thing. Just as violence of Christianity by Christian Fanatics is the same. Therefore an analysis or critique of Greenwald's article supports the argument that Islamic belief is uniquely more extreme (present day) than of the other religions. And therefore one who points this out is simply rational, vs politically correct and ignorant. There's plenty of people making this argument and there has yet to be a real analysis or critique against it aside from just repeating Greenwald's thesis (in so many words).

 

 

what the absolute fuck, now you are distorting your own previous statements.

 

 

you started out literally claiming that Islam is the most violent religion. You argue this by saying Islam is the only religion that encourages martyrdom. Then you claim that Islam is the only religion that encourages martyrdom via suicide bombing. Then you backpedal when called out and say, no no, Im not arguing about the supposedly inherently more violent Islam, Im arguing about Islamic "fascism", as if that term means absolutely anything significant whatsoever. You do this because you, once again, are viewing the violence in these areas solely through the prism of religion, rather than an infinitely more complex geopolitical situation.

 

When you say Christians in the past commit violent acts, we still understand (if we are sane) that there are political and economic motivations for people being coerced into adopting religion as a pretext for excusing the violence of these acts. This all goes back to the original article; Harris, at least in the books that I have read, provides no geopolitical context for why people in these regions have in many cases adopted an extremist form of religion, he looks through a prism of Islam as a monolithic arbiter of culture in these areas. Because we have distanced ourselves from the rest of the inputs, we are engaging in a discussion in which one side is the "righteous, moral and rationally developed part of society" vs. The "Other" that blindly worships and follows a ridiculously violent religion.

 

Call me out on the bullshit "PC police" canard again, please. You are more guilty of using political correctness to shove a logically faulty premise down the throats of everyone involved in this discussion.

 

Im critical as hell of Islam; I fucking despise Islam, as I do Christianity, Judaism and any other doctrine that believes an invisible man in the sky dictates the ways of the universe and orders death, slavery, and eternal damnnation to those who oppose him. That doesn't mean I equate Islam being a fucking stupid religion to "Islam is solely responsible for the uprise in violence in these regions." I don't claim that Islam is "more violent" than another monotheistic religion-

 

, outside economic sanctions by imperialistic powers, and tell me they don't start latching on to their holy books to desperately search for some righteous reason to "jihad" against the invader.

 

You even said yourself a page or two ago, you want to focus on "what can we do about it" as if we somehow have the key to spread enlightenment to the land of those poor, ignorant souls. Here's the catch: we already do something about it. We already engineer coups of democratically elected secular governments and place in dictators, we destabilize their prime modes of economic apparatus via sanctions, we play each of these nations off of each other in wars for our own geopolitical benefit, and because of all this, we give the extremist elements of societies MORE fuel to continue this pseudo-religious nonsense and to latch onto these motivations for violence against what they see (and rightfully fucking so) dangerous outside threats. You essentially in those words prove the point I wrote on 8 pages or so ago. THAT is cultural imperialism, THAT is what is dangerous, and THAT is what Greenwald was trying to point out.

 

Fucking christ on a cracker.

 

You are mis-representing my viewpoints and posts. Please quote where I said, "You argue this by saying Islam is the only religion that encourages martyrdom. Then you claim that Islam is the only religion that encourages martyrdom via suicide bombing."

 

I said that it does encourage martyrdom more than other religions or cults.

 

" Then you backpedal when called out and say, no no, Im not arguing about the supposedly inherently more violent Islam, Im arguing about Islamic "fascism", as if that term means absolutely anything significant whatsoever."

 

Islamic Fascism is to be included in the realms of Islam just as Christian fanatics are to be included in the realm of criticism against Christianity. By being selective and referring to the bad aspects of Islam , as Islamic Totalitarianism/Fascism I am further pointing out that moderate Islamic belief is not violent.

 

"When you say Christians in the past commit violent acts, we still understand (if we are sane) that there are political and economic motivations for people being coerced into adopting religion as a pretex"

 

And I have explained that the Ottoman Empire was economically, politically and scientifically regressed because of Islam. Not because of Western Imperialism. Islam banned the printing press for 234 years. Western Imperialism is what brought the notion/technology of the printing press to the Ottoman, but it was the religious fanatics who denied it of merit.

 

"by virtue of corrupting and polluting peoples minds with the garbage that ANY holy book is factual or true, religions are equally and inherently violent. Again, put any religious or devout people in a geopolitical situation where they have unstable government manipulated by outside forces, unstable economy"

 

Again you are making an argument that has no supporting evidence. You are just spouting off nonsense.

 

"You even said yourself a page or two ago, you want to focus on "what can we do about it" as if we somehow have the key to spread enlightenment to the land of those poor, ignorant souls. "

 

Yes, I want to know of ways in which we can stop religious intolerance and violence. How we go about promoting scientific thinking and human rights in those regions.

 

And yes, you are being politically correct about this, as was Greenwald. You can deny this and say that all religions are the same and that we should treat them all the same because thats the nice thing to do. But it's not intellectually honest.

 

>Many people buy into the premise that the World Trade Center attack on September 11 was a result of some misguided foreign policy of the United States. Others believe that Islamist terror attacks began in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s as a result of something that we, as a country, have done to provoke such an attack.

When confronting an enemy it is helpful to know what it is that drives him. The U.S. and the West need to realistically look at the true motives of Islamic terrorists in order to properly confront them. I will show that Islamic Jihad is not motivated by any specific policies of the U.S. or the West, but instead is principally motivated by a fanatic, obsessive hatred of Jews, and that Islamic Jihad was, and continues to be, strongly influenced by the Nazis.

Despite common misconceptions, modern Islamic Fascism was not born during the 1960s, but during the 1930s. Its rise was not inspired by the failure of Nasserism in Egypt, but by the rise of Nazism in Germany, and prior to 1951 all of its campaigns were directed, not against Western colonialism, but against the Jews.

It was the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Cairo in 1928, that established Islamic Jihad as a mass movement. The significance of the Muslim Brotherhood to Islamic Fascism is comparable to the significance of the Bolshevik Party to Communism: it was, and it remains to this day, the ideological reference point and the organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including Al Queda and Hamas.

 

 

Membership in the Brotherhood rose from 800 members in 1936 to over 200,000 in 1938. In those two years the Brotherhood conducted a major campaign in Egypt, and it was against the Jews, not against the British occupiers. This campaign against the Jews, in the late 1930s, which established the Brotherhood as a mass movement of Islamic Jihadists, was set off by a rebellion in Palestine directed against Jewish immigration from Europe and Russia. That campaign was initiated by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini.

Al-Husseini was extremely impressed with Adolf Hitler and his anti-Jewish rhetoric. In 1941 he visited Hitler in Berlin. He was so enthralled with Hitler and the Nazis, and their plans to exterminate the Jews that he decided to remain in Berlin. He lived there from 1941 to 1945, recruiting Muslims in Europe for the Waffen-SS. He was very close to Hitler. Husseini's best friends were Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann.

 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/islamic_fascism_the_nazi_connection.html#ixzz2Pz21H0xd

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/islamic_fascism_the_nazi_connection.html

 

 

ibhxdASs01ZI6C.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
syd syside Grand Master

syd syside

Posted
Posted

Thanks for trying dude but I'm done getting any information about Islam from your posts.

 

I doubt you read much of the info I posted anyway.

 

Amazing, one "suspicious" or "conservative" post about this topic and it completely negates any of the other info I posted.

 

Truly remarkable how people in America and Europe, who call themselves socialists/liberals/pacifists/intellectuals can be defending fascism unknowingly. Western hatred and paranoid delusions of mass conspiracy rot the brains of the new left, to the point that they assume moral superiority to those who criticize Islam peacefully and reasonably.

 

I have never been more clear minded and politically comfortable in my life as I am right now. I am not a racist. I do not think all Muslims are dangerous. I think Muslim fanatics are dangerous. You know the guys who killed a few thousand innocent people on 9/11.

 

I can deal with being called a racist, as it does not bother me, despite it potentially harming my reputation. But do note slander, generalizations, and assumptions are only coming from one side on this issue. Which should be obvious. But unfortunately it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest theSun

Guest theSun

Posted
Posted

is there anyone who has read all of compsons posts? including compson?

 

there is like a whole book worth of material in here

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SR4 Grand Master

SR4

Posted
Posted

 

Thanks for trying dude but I'm done getting any information about Islam from your posts.

 

I doubt you read much of the info I posted anyway.

 

Amazing, one "suspicious" or "conservative" post about this topic and it completely negates any of the other info I posted.

 

Truly remarkable how people in America and Europe, who call themselves socialists/liberals/pacifists/intellectuals can be defending fascism unknowingly. Western hatred and paranoid delusions of mass conspiracy rot the brains of the new left, to the point that they assume moral superiority to those who criticize Islam peacefully and reasonably.

 

I have never been more clear minded and politically comfortable in my life as I am right now. I am not a racist. I do not think all Muslims are dangerous. I think Muslim fanatics are dangerous. You know the guys who killed a few thousand innocent people on 9/11.

 

I can deal with being called a racist, as it does not bother me, despite it potentially harming my reputation. But do note slander, generalizations, and assumptions are only coming from one side on this issue. Which should be obvious. But unfortunately it isn't.

 

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what fascism is. Among many other things.

 

And yes, a conservative blog site is not really at the peak of verifiable information.

 

If you want to portray yourself as the last sane man in the West fighting against liberalism, be my guest. There are plenty of others in the United States that believe the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Aserinsky

Guest Aserinsky

Posted
Posted

I can't help but feel that whenever someone uses the phraseology Political Correctness as a criticism that they've been temporarily possessed by Pat Buchanan.

 

*awaits 10,000 word thesis on how Islam is in cohorts with Jewish Cultural Marxists using Political Correctness to oppress the white man*

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SR4 Grand Master

SR4

Posted
Posted

I can't help but feel that whenever someone uses the phraseology Political Correctness as a criticism that they've been temporarily possessed by Pat Buchanan.

 

*awaits 10,000 word thesis on how Islam is in cohorts with Jewish Cultural Marxists using Political Correctness to oppress the white man*

 

 

exactly. PC is far, FAR more of a right-wing ideologue's talking point than anything relevant. People that pull the PC card are trying to limit the argument by essentially saying "your trying to rig the argument, painting everything that is reasonable as racist", but by doing so, they are essentially limiting the other side of the discussion to have to focus on any minor point open to ideological semantics (ie. they have to avoid being "PC" which is completely at the behest of the side accusing them of it), which ultimately (as can be seen here) completely distorts the nature of the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SR4 Grand Master

SR4

Posted
Posted

I believe it is safe to say this thread is "highly suspicious".

 

*breaks down the goalposts*

 

it took you this long to figure that out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goDel Grand Master

goDel

Posted
Posted

No, it took a while to be able to break down the goalposts. Stubborn little fuckers those goalposts.

 

Also, thanks for keeping the conversation rolling all day, guys. Awesome stuff.

 

@Compson: I'm afraid I've read 0,1% of the things you've been posting in this thread.

 

*stands on the corner of the street with a "God hates walls of tekst" sign*

Link to comment
Share on other sites
syd syside Grand Master

syd syside

Posted
Posted

 

 

Thanks for trying dude but I'm done getting any information about Islam from your posts.

 

I doubt you read much of the info I posted anyway.

 

Amazing, one "suspicious" or "conservative" post about this topic and it completely negates any of the other info I posted.

 

Truly remarkable how people in America and Europe, who call themselves socialists/liberals/pacifists/intellectuals can be defending fascism unknowingly. Western hatred and paranoid delusions of mass conspiracy rot the brains of the new left, to the point that they assume moral superiority to those who criticize Islam peacefully and reasonably.

 

I have never been more clear minded and politically comfortable in my life as I am right now. I am not a racist. I do not think all Muslims are dangerous. I think Muslim fanatics are dangerous. You know the guys who killed a few thousand innocent people on 9/11.

 

I can deal with being called a racist, as it does not bother me, despite it potentially harming my reputation. But do note slander, generalizations, and assumptions are only coming from one side on this issue. Which should be obvious. But unfortunately it isn't.

 

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what fascism is. Among many other things.

 

And yes, a conservative blog site is not really at the peak of verifiable information.

 

If you want to portray yourself as the last sane man in the West fighting against liberalism, be my guest. There are plenty of others in the United States that believe the same thing.

 

 

It's on Wikipedia. You can't deny this.

 

What is Fascism?

 

What are Islamic States?

 

What are the differences between them? And how is the West/Jews responsible for Islamic states?

 

Have you read any of the content I posted about the Sunni and Shia?

 

Why would Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris all support and defend my position on this? And why is the opposition to this position a criticism of "motivations" not of the actual content.

 

Are you suggesting Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are just mindless propaganda machines?

 

Political correctness is the only explanation for Islamophobia on this front. The only explanation why liberals love to hate Christians, love to hate Religion, but stop and accuse others of racism when it deals with Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alcofribas Grand Master

Alcofribas

Posted
Posted

i'll just put this nietzsche gem right here:

 

Every people speaks its language of good and evil, which the neighbor does not understand. It has invented it's own language of customs and rights. But the state tells lies in all the languages of good and evil; and whatever it says it lies and whatever it has it has stolen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
syd syside Grand Master

syd syside

Posted
Posted

i'll just put this nietzsche gem right here:

 

Every people speaks its language of good and evil, which the neighbor does not understand. It has invented it's own language of customs and rights. But the state tells lies in all the languages of good and evil; and whatever it says it lies and whatever it has it has stolen.

 

How the fuck is this supposed to negate the notion that Religious Totalitarian States (Islamic States) aren't the ones who are promoting good vs evil propaganda?

 

 

 

I know when most of you see this, you think, "Oh clearly just some Pro-Israel" or "US Military Propaganda" ... "the subtitles are probably forged." "No way this could be real" ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
syd syside Grand Master

syd syside

Posted
Posted

it's not supposed to negate anything, bro; it's just something i happened to read just now.

 

peace out

 

Well judging from prior comments it seemed like you were inferring something with it.

 

It's a nice quote tho

 

peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.