They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

[Onkel Neal]

Among Muslims in the United Kingdom, these radicals are an angry -- and uncompromising -- minority. They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque. Their goal: Muslim domination of the UK, if not the world.

Pretty wild! (http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2009/11/12/robertson.london.radicals.cnn)

Isn't this treason? Why don't the British just kill these guys?
Where are all the rednecks when you need them?

[Tribesman]

Where are all the rednecks when you need them?
It sounds like those people are the rednecks.

[Onkel Neal]

Then you do not know what a redneck is, obviously. :) For one, rednecks don't wear dresses.

[Oberon]

Oh yeah, this was on the news a few weeks back, I think the Sun had even done a little mock-up of what it'd look like. Still, every organisation has their nutters and short of civil war, I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

Probably about the time the Third Temple gets built I'd say... :hmmm:

[TarJak]

http://freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/buckhouse.jpg
I took this shot today whilst visiting London. Looks like the conversion is underway.:D

Seriously though nutjobs of whatever race or creed should be sent to their doom preferably in a way that impacts no-one else.

As for rednecks wearing dresses, the one on the right looks like she's in a dress. :O:

http://www.shesaiddestroy.org/images/another%20redneck%20prom%20dress.jpg

[Shearwater]

I didn't know that Islam was actually an economic system :hmmm: ...

You learn something new every day.

[mookiemookie]

I didn't know that Islam was actually an economic system :hmmm: ...

You learn something new every day.

I work for a bond firm. You'd be very surprised to see the market for Islamic bonds - massive! Apparently there's something in Islam that forbids the concept of interest, so they structure these bonds in such a way that complies with their religious tenets. We don't deal in them, so I couldn't begin to tell you how they work, but the market is very large.

[Tribesman]

Then you do not know what a redneck is, obviously
Rednecks were those crazy religious freaks from up in the mountains who wanted a very strict church run government.
A lot of them moved to the colonies after the war of the 3 kingdoms.

[AVGWarhawk]

Rednecks were those crazy religious freaks from up in the mountains who wanted a very strict church run government.
A lot of them moved to the colonies after the war of the 3 kingdoms.

Man, you got a lot to learn. :hmmm:

[Onkel Neal]

As for rednecks wearing dresses, the one on the right looks like she's in a dress. :O:

http://www.shesaiddestroy.org/images/another%20redneck%20prom%20dress.jpg

:haha: Hmmm... I don't know that women can be rednecks. Maybe Southerners or whatever, but redneck is a male term, usually.


Man, you got a lot to learn. :hmmm:

No kidding. Maybe there are multiple variations of the term "redneck". I never heard nuthin' about three kingdoms, though.

[Skybird]

What means "minority"? Haven't we linked to two separate independant British studies in the past four years, I think, and I mean full-blown academic studies, not just some radio station polls, showing that amongst the UK's Islamic males between 18 and 40 or 50, a hopping 40% want to overthrow the UK and explicitly defend the use of violence - if it cannot be done otherwise?

Haven't I linked to according studies from Germany over the past years showing that the offsprings of Muslim immigrants, especially Turkish people, in most cases showed to become even more orthodox than their parents ever have been, making mockery of the Gutmenschen-thesis that living in Western civilisation would "westernise" and soften up Islamic attitudes?

Why is it that over here it is always immigration groups from Muhammeddan countries causing troubles, refusing integration, resisting local culture, causing more troubles, raising special demands that no other immigration group ever has made, not the Eurpeans, not the Chiense, not the Japanese, not the Koreans, not the vietnamese, not the Africans, no the few south Americans findignt their way here, and not the North Americans - always muslim groups...?

Muhammad'S ideologic baby never wanted to be just one amongst equals. It was alway meant to become the one outstanding dominator standing above all others. It is a conqueror'S ideology, from A to Z, designed to justify expansion and aggression and to reduce hesitation of the peasants of the conquering army by declaring their aggression a religious noble duty. It is until today what all the bad tradition in Christianity during the Middle Age and the Age of Colonialism has been - just that we have have learned for the most part to move beyond that, and that we today relaise that our colonialistic policies were evil. Historically, the de,mand to dominate all others has always been raised in islam, even already at the days of muhammad, and it implicitly results from the Quran itself. It is even more a supremacist ideology than the Nazis' idea of the Herrenrasse - and it goes far beyond race, and Lebensraum in the East. Compared to Muhammad, Hitler was an almost modest man.

OF COURSE they want the buckingham Palace becoming a mosque -w hat do yiu think? Hell, in Germany even two chr8uhces already had been sold to Muslim communities who turned them into mosques - if that is no invitation to press for more, if that is no indication of that we are willing to hand over our own heritage to them!

Haven't the Suaids demanded - with the most arrogant naturalness you can ikagine - that they miust be compensated by qwetsern nations once their oil has run out? Why do you think this is? It's because everybody owes if not to the Saudi roaylty, then to Islam, that's why it is.

The goal of evolution is the Idlamic man and the Islamic global society, and since this is the natural goal, it will go theat way anyway, so Islam does not think of helping to increase the speed of this tranformation as something bad or illegal, but thinks of it as just imncrasing a very natural developement that would happen anyway. That is the theologic implication on which these things are founding. It's as if you help a chicken to get out of it's egg by braking the egg sheel with your fingertops to make it a bit easier for the little bird. Is that bad, is that evil...?

People are always so quick in pointing out that Islam says this peaceful thing, and that tolerant statement - just the context these Quran quotes are embedded in, the "as long as" and "but" and "if only the others do accept Islam's dominat role" - these contexts strangely always get ignored. But often the additonal quote putting all the peaceful tolerant se ntences form the Quran into relation are even on the same page, just some verses later or earlier.

so those Buckingham mospque lovers maybe are not a numerical majority of 50+ % - but they surely are anything but a small "minority".

Have I mentioned that the Germanpolcie is masisvely complaining about and is increaosngly handicapped in criminal prosectiuion becasue descriptions of suspects they are searcing for more and more opften are no longer including anythign that would allow to identitfy the suspect'S pshycial appearance with coming from theMiddle East or Turkey? What worth is a physical description of a suspect if it may no longer hint at his Middleeastern physical appearance? And why is a dewscption ,mentioning blond hair, whitr skin and a beard not considered to be discrimination? I mean - that description, that's me! I should not be offended by what they say Muslims feel offended of?

Bah, it's late over here, don't get me started. Neal, stop these Islamic threads of yours, you do my blood pressure no good service. :arrgh!: just because of you, by the EU's laws I can be prosecuted for having committed a hate crime with this posting, and being racist.

Lord, please let it rain brains - especially in Brussels.

[Tribesman]

Man, you got a lot to learn.
:rotfl2:
No you have a lot to learn, the Rednecks moved to what is now the USA. They were crazy extremist backwards religious fundamentalists who wanted a new world order to purify the place against the ungodly global conspiracy.
Just like the crazy extremist backwards religious fundamentalists in the story want a new world order to purify the place against the ungodly global conspiracy.

Back then there was a bunch that had taken radical Lutheranism and pushed it to crazy extremist levels, now there is a bunch that has taken already crazy wahhibism and taken it to even crazier levels .

Come to think of it, some comedian the other day compared the American backwoods Rednecks (decended from Covenanter Rednecks) with the crazy clans in afghanistan or pakistan.
Hatfields and McCoys with Dostum and Karzai.

No kidding. Maybe there are multiple variations of the term "redneck". I never heard nuthin' about three kingdoms, though.
Its the series of civil wars in England Ireland and Scotland, from England America got the Puritans and from Scotland it got the rednecks (presbyterian covenanters)

[GoldenRivet]

http://www.shesaiddestroy.org/images/another%20redneck%20prom%20dress.jpg

a darn nice one at that :up:

looks good on her... would look better on the floor in my bed room.

[Freiwillige]

Damn beat me too it. That girl makes me Yee Haw big time!

Anyways due to the whole Hitler thing years ago Europe has become softer almost like a bunch of Nancy boys that there forefathers would balk at.
(Note: The politicians not the people)

So as we in the west extend our hand in friendship they reach out and cut it off then slap us with it all the while we are frozen in disbelief and do nothing.

I think its gonna take a few more hard kicks in the groin before we wake up and start taking names again.

America is just as bad:nope:

And all the rednecks are in Texas and in dying parts of the south but dont you worry Neil there keepin their aim real good with hunting in case they need to defend their southern values from Islam!

[AVGWarhawk]

:rotfl2:
No you have a lot to learn, the Rednecks moved to what is now the USA. They were crazy extremist backwards religious fundamentalists who wanted a new world order to purify the place against the ungodly global conspiracy.
Just like the crazy extremist backwards religious fundamentalists in the story want a new world order to purify the place against the ungodly global conspiracy.

Back then there was a bunch that had taken radical Lutheranism and pushed it to crazy extremist levels, now there is a bunch that has taken already crazy wahhibism and taken it to even crazier levels .

Come to think of it, some comedian the other day compared the American backwoods Rednecks (decended from Covenanter Rednecks) with the crazy clans in afghanistan or pakistan.
Hatfields and McCoys with Dostum and Karzai.


Its the series of civil wars in England Ireland and Scotland, from England America got the Puritans and from Scotland it got the rednecks (presbyterian covenanters)


I was correct, you do have a lot to learn. Where in the world did you get that outlandish idea of what a redneck is? :har: I do not remember my history book saying, "All the rednecks clamored onto the hunting flat with 140hp Johnson outboard engine. Stowed their 16 cases of Budweiser, Buck their faithful hunting dog and all the 00 shotgun shells they could carry. Then the rednecks shoved off to the new world to get away from the grand conspiracy." Welcome to Tribesman history :up:

[Torplexed]

Its the series of civil wars in England Ireland and Scotland, from England America got the Puritans and from Scotland it got the rednecks (presbyterian covenanters)

In addition you can blame Bonnie Prince Charley and the Jacobite Highland Clans losing the Battle of Culloden and getting their Scottish behinds exiled to here (and Canada) after the Highland Clearances. That's what you get for wearing a dress into battle. Aye...now ya noo where the wee Klan comes from. :D

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scotnews07/culloden_02.jpg

[SgtPotato]

Wow.. Islam. Big ****ing deal. All religions are ****ing stupid.

[Onkel Neal]

:rotfl2:



Its the series of civil wars in England Ireland and Scotland, from England America got the Puritans and from Scotland it got the rednecks (presbyterian covenanters)


Ok, I was not talking about English rednecks. This is a whole different kind of redneck, not related to England and Puritans at all. Please don't trace the history of rednecks from the Crusades to the modern age. :shucks:

[Aramike]

Wow.. Islam. Big ****ing deal. All religions are ****ing stupid.Kinda hard to say that any of the major religions are stupid, considering the amount of power they wield.

Actually they seem quite brilliant...

[Letum]

Isn't this treason? Why don't the British just kill these guys?

It's not treason, it's baiting.

The article about Buckingham Palace first appeared on part of the
website set up for non-muslims to read.

An attempt to polarise the argument, to turn it into 'us and them'.
Polarised arguments benefit the extremes on either end and spew
conflict by denying the vast area of grey crossover in which there is no
clear 'us and them'.

[August]

But Dude it's a direct and detailed plan to take over your country! He even threatened your QUEEN! Now you Brits once went to war because of the ear of some Sea Captain named Jenkins and now you allow such threats to go unpunished in your own country?

[Méo]

Isn't this treason? Why don't the British just kill these guys?

Well, some people are gonna tell you that they have freedom of speech and that killing is prohibited by law.

Anyway, i would be really surprised if the mediatization of this just a week after the shootings at Fort Hood would be a clever move from them.

What a way to improve their reputation!

[Tribesman]

I was correct, you do have a lot to learn. Where in the world did you get that outlandish idea of what a redneck is?
Where in the world did you get the idea that they suddenly sprang into existance in America?

Ok, I was not talking about English rednecks.
Scottish rednecks, Puritans didn't have the blood thing like the Covenanters did.


But Dude it's a direct and detailed plan to take over your country!
I think the Brits know Choudray is just a loudmouth ***** with a handful of idiots behind nim who couldn't plan a kiddies tea party even with help.

[Oberon]

But Dude it's a direct and detailed plan to take over your country! He even threatened your QUEEN! Now you Brits once went to war because of the ear of some Sea Captain named Jenkins and now you allow such threats to go unpunished in your own country?

Primarily because these days most Brits don't give a flying rats arse about that kind of thing and if they do and speak about it they are assumed to be BNP. Most Brits care more about the X Factor and Jedward than they do about Buck House. :03:
Sad state of affairs, but that's the UK now for you, and the major parties won't touch anything like immigration or racial tension with a ten foot barge pole because it'll blow up in their faces and people will accuse them of being fascist and so on and so forth. :hmmm:
It's for this reason and the underlying racial and religious tensions in the UK that the BNP is becoming more popular, and I say thank god for that, because it's got the main parties scared and they have finally realised that they will actually have to address the issues that the BNP thrives on to undermine their support and prevent a Weimar.

[Letum]

the major parties won't touch anything like immigration


WHAT?!
Immigration is one of the main opposition batons.
All three major parties list immigration on their online major policies
lists.

Immigration has been a BIG political topic for the major parties forever
and a day.
Things haven't got much past the “if you want a n_____r for a
neighbour, vote Labour” days. It's just the language that is toned down.

[Skybird]

It's for this reason and the underlying racial and religious tensions in the UK that the BNP is becoming more popular, and I say thank god for that, because it's got the main parties scared and they have finally realised that they will actually have to address the issues that the BNP thrives on to undermine their support and prevent a Weimar.

A two-sided sword, though I tend to agree that the failure of the establoishement paves the way for more extremist poltical actors stepping onto the stage, and maybe that even is needed - if the established powers do not act. I read this morning that Geert Wilders runs for prime ministre 2011 - and that his party currently leads the Duch polls (says Der Spiegel). But we have seen in Germany repeatedly in the past years how grassroot movements and citizen groups trying to raise resistance to Islam and allowing (or being helpless against) rightwing groups taking over their fight, brought all such ambitions into public discredit over being called Nazism and racism. Even in the forum here the formula "opposing Islam = xenophobia + racism + islamophobia" is very popular with some.

Which makes being called a racist and xenophobe and islamophobe a compliment certifying your healthy reason and ratio.

Interesting how terms get turned into meaning all and nothing anymore.

[Tribesman]

But we have seen in Germany repeatedly in the past years how grassroot movements and citizen groups trying to raise resistance to Islam and allowing (or being helpless against) rightwing groups taking over their fight, brought all such ambitions into public discredit over being called Nazism and racism.
That is because the groups deal in absolutes which don't work, plus of course they are usually led by idiots like Wilders or Griffin and attract a disproportionate number of morons which give them a bad name.

It's for this reason and the underlying racial and religious tensions in the UK that the BNP is becoming more popular, and I say thank god for that, because it's got the main parties scared and they have finally realised that they will actually have to address the issues that the BNP thrives on to undermine their support and prevent a Weimar.

Nothing new, when I was living in Britain the BNP wanted to kick all the Irish out.
Apparently we are all terrorist supporters, don't intergrate and are part of a global plot by the Vatican.:yeah:
Now its the Muslims turn, if they get rid of all the Muslims they will only find someone else to blame, probably the Jews again.
BTW do the BNP still do their protests outside M&W and Mark&Sparks?

Funnily enough though, when I was living in Germany it was the brits not the Irish that got the grief from the locals.

[Onkel Neal]

It's not treason, it's baiting.

The article about Buckingham Palace first appeared on part of the
website set up for non-muslims to read.

An attempt to polarise the argument, to turn it into 'us and them'.
Polarised arguments benefit the extremes on either end and spew
conflict by denying the vast area of grey crossover in which there is no
clear 'us and them'.


Hmm.. maybe. But this sure strikes me as similar to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who worked this same approach for years and eventually toppled an empire and caused untold misery for millions. The obscure crackpots of today can become tyrants at a future date.

[Letum]

The similarities to pre-revolution Bolshevism and these zelots are so
sparse and general that the comparison doesn't make the much sense.
There is certainly no "same approach" going on.

Problems with historical comparison aside, the notion of these nuts ever
being 'popular', let alone leading a popular uprising is a little unlikely to
say the least.


ed: Perhaps a better comparison from the early 20th century is with the
Anarchist movements which invented the use of bombs as terror weapons.
ed2: On second thoughts, this too is a poor comparison. The Anarchists
made much more effort to be intellectually serious.

[FIREWALL]

Those two guys like their women "Thick". :DL

[Onkel Neal]

The similarities to pre-revolution Bolshevism and these zelots are so
sparse and general that the comparison doesn't make the much sense.
There is certainly no "same approach" going on.

Problems with historical comparison aside, the notion of these nuts ever
being 'popular', let alone leading a popular uprising is a little unlikely to
say the least.




Ha! that's the comparison I made. Same approach: ideological warfare. Nuts like these were once facists and communists. They managed pretty well.

[Letum]

You can make the comparison all you like. what you can't do is make it valid.
The thinking behind pre-revolutionary communism, whilst deeply flawed,
was a product of the most influential and brilliant minds of the time.

Radical Islam....isn't.

[August]

You can make the comparison all you like. what you can't do is make it valid.
The thinking behind pre-revolutionary communism, whilst deeply flawed,
was a product of the most influential and brilliant minds of the time.

Radical Islam....isn't.

First off "Brilliant" isn't a term that i'd use for something that is "deeply flawed" Letum and second, I'd consider radical Islam to be just as influential as any other system, given their ability to produce apparently limitless numbers of suicide bombers for their cause, affect the laws in a dozen first world nations and keep the entire world reacting to their actions.

Having said that though revolutionary tactics transcend any particular revolution. Not every tactic might be used, or used to the same degree, in every conflict, but they all come from the same bag of tricks.

[Tribesman]

affect the laws in a dozen first world nations
Which particular laws?

[UnderseaLcpl]

:rotfl2:
No you have a lot to learn, the Rednecks moved to what is now the USA. They were crazy extremist backwards religious fundamentalists who wanted a new world order to purify the place against the ungodly global conspiracy.
Just like the crazy extremist backwards religious fundamentalists in the story want a new world order to purify the place against the ungodly global conspiracy.

Back then there was a bunch that had taken radical Lutheranism and pushed it to crazy extremist levels, now there is a bunch that has taken already crazy wahhibism and taken it to even crazier levels .

Come to think of it, some comedian the other day compared the American backwoods Rednecks (decended from Covenanter Rednecks) with the crazy clans in afghanistan or pakistan.
Hatfields and McCoys with Dostum and Karzai.


I'd like to pause the discussion right here and point to this shining example of rhetoric from an indoctrinated socialist.

As you can see, it has very little basis in fact.

Starting with the assumption that the first Anglican settlers in what would become the United States were "backwards religious fundamentalists" who entertained theories of "global conspiracy", and ending by labeling them as "rednecks", a term which has absolutely no relevance to the people of the day, Tribesman has demonstrated his complete inability to make an objective judgement with a basis in reality. This is not entirely surprising, as Tribesman hails from a centrist, and therefore, socialist nation.

Note the way that he distorts history in an attempt to rationalize the beliefs he has been taught. To most of us they appear ridiculous, but to him they are truth itself. He completely disregards the success of free societies in the modern world in favor of a dogma that has kept him and his people in the shackles of state control and religious violence. He has no idea why his nation is regarded as being "backwards" amongst other western nations, and he may not even realize why.

Is this kind of indoctrination that we want for our children? Do we want them to think for themselves or do we want them to embrace state indoctrination?

This is the "third" way. It is just an indirect route to the "second" way, which is socialism. The proponents of the "third way", like Tribesman, don't realize that they are opening Pandora's Box. Fiat power given to a fiat entity will invariably result in abuse of power. As the maxim goes: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely". All they know is that they have a desire for change of some kind, and they are willing to trust a fiat monoply to effect it.

I fully expect Tribesman to post some brief response to all of this, but I expect that it will not be detailed or intelligent. If experience is any guide, he will be completely unable to defend his position, and he will resort to brief and cryptic remarks that imply his superiority.

What do you say, Tribesman?:DL

[Letum]

First off "Brilliant" isn't a term that i'd use for something that is "deeply flawed"

You will have a hard time finding a philosopher whose ideas do not have
a serious flaw somewhere. That is why it is such a lively area. That
doesn't make Plato, Descartes, Hume, Marx, popper etc. any less
brilliant.
The difference in political philosophy is that the flaws can become
manifest.

Radical Islam will influence bugger all when there are no radical islamists
left. The early communist theoreticians will be on course reading lists
indefinitely.

[Tribesman]

What do you say, Tribesman?
I say you have written a good example of total nonsense.
Lets start.
Starting with the assumption that the first Anglican settlers in what would become the United States were "backwards religious fundamentalists" who entertained theories of "global conspiracy",
Where was that claimed?
But then again you appear cluless on the simplest of stuff.
Start with basic religion 101, can you tell the difference between a presbyterian covenanter and an anglican?
Maybe you should start with the bishops wars which were the start of the wars of the three kingdoms.
Actually once you explore that and the papist conspiracy theories of those days you can bring that up to date with a quick look at a real stereotypical redneck group. Try for example the Knights party from down south , you can't get more backwards redneck than the Klan can you , they call themselves good christians and have this conspiracy thing about a global popish plot(as well as a Jewish/communist/Islamic/socialist/liberal/negro plot that controls all the media:up:)

and ending by labeling them as "rednecks", a term which has absolutely no relevance to the people of the day
Errrrrr...covananters were called rednecks.

Tribesman has demonstrated his complete inability to make an objective judgement with a basis in reality
Wrong, the comparison made is of a bunch of modernday backwards nuts, another bunch of modernday backwards nuts and some historic backwards nuts.
This whole tangent has developed because some people simply don't know the origins of the term.


To most of us they appear ridiculous, but to him they are truth itself.
Look up the origins for yourself , then for funlook up the schism with the Presbyterians in the 1840s in america which seperated the southern rednecks from those in the northern appalacians over an issue which was later to tear the country apart. If you explore that then you can tie it in very nicely with the picture of Rednecks that was posted.

He completely disregards the success of free societies in the modern world in favor of a dogma that has kept him and his people in the shackles of state control and religious violence.
:har::har::har::har::har:
He has no idea why his nation is regarded as being "backwards" amongst other western nations, and he may not even realize why.
:har::har::har::har::har:
Two rather pathetic lines , after that your post just degenerates even further into complete nonsense that isn't even worth a laughing smiley.

Though it is tempting with this talk of backwardsness and dogma in the modern world to point at the fundamentalist religious right who have found a nice home with the republicans, or to have a good laugh at the creationists who insist the government should push their literal interpreatrion of scripture in science class in schools.

[Sea Demon]

I say you have written a good example of total nonsense.
Lets start............................................. .......


Interesting exchanges here on the topic. This made me laugh a little bit. I'm flabbergasted that you just proved UnderseaLcpl's point to a tee with your reply. :yeah: You knew that all along though....right? Something tells me you don't.

[August]

You will have a hard time finding a philosopher whose ideas do not have
a serious flaw somewhere. That is why it is such a lively area. That
doesn't make Plato, Descartes, Hume, Marx, popper etc. any less
brilliant.
The difference in political philosophy is that the flaws can become
manifest.

Radical Islam will influence bugger all when there are no radical islamists
left. The early communist theoreticians will be on course reading lists
indefinitely.

Well radical Islam predates all of them except Plato and, unlike Marx and communism, it's core philosophy continues to remain viable in many parts of the world so I don't think i can agree with your assessment of it's transience.

[Onkel Neal]

First off "Brilliant" isn't a term that i'd use for something that is "deeply flawed" Letum and second, I'd consider radical Islam to be just as influential as any other system, given their ability to produce apparently limitless numbers of suicide bombers for their cause, affect the laws in a dozen first world nations and keep the entire world reacting to their actions.

Having said that though revolutionary tactics transcend any particular revolution. Not every tactic might be used, or used to the same degree, in every conflict, but they all come from the same bag of tricks.

Yeah, same here. Brilliant and Lenin, sorry, that's no sale here. The man was a deluded maniac... sort of like the mullahs interviewed in the article I linked.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I say you have written a good example of total nonsense.
Lets start.

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for the tone of my last post. I intended to be direct but I think I came off sounding rather rude. I do that sometimes, please forgive me.

Now, without further adieu, let's start.


Where was that claimed?

Here?
the Rednecks moved to what is now the USA

They were crazy extremist backwards religious fundamentalists who wanted a new world order to purify the place against the ungodly global conspiracy.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. What did you mean to say?


But then again you appear cluless on the simplest of stuff.
Start with basic religion 101, can you tell the difference between a presbyterian covenanter and an anglican?
Maybe you should start with the bishops wars which were the start of the wars of the three kingdoms.

Maybe you should start with the causes of the wars and the animosity that fueled them. Religion itself was not the problem, it was the desire to impose religion upon others that begat the wars.

Actually once you explore that and the papist conspiracy theories of those days you can bring that up to date with a quick look at a real stereotypical redneck group. Try for example the Knights party from down south , you can't get more backwards redneck than the Klan can you , they call themselves good christians and have this conspiracy thing about a global popish plot(as well as a Jewish/communist/Islamic/socialist/liberal/negro plot that controls all the media:up:)

I don't know anything about papist conspiracy theories, other than that the Catholic Church indulged in a number of questionable acts throughout its history. Thus, I can't really comment on that point.

Still, I can't really draw a comparison between covenanters and "rednecks". Other than strong pressure on the legislatures of states and the federal government for "moral" legislation like banning abortion and the the like(that's a stretch), and a desire for religious self-determination, I don't really see any similarities. I could just as easily draw a comparison between rednecks and Jews, or rednecks and Muslims. Could you clarify?


Errrrrr...covananters were called rednecks.
Really? By whom? I was under the impression that the term "redneck" was fairly modern American slang. The most recent example of the term that I know of came from the deep south in either the late 19th or the early 20th century(my memory is fuzzy on the topic)
If you know of an earlier example, I would be most intrigued.

And don't give me that wikipedia crap. Albion's Seed was written in 1989 and contains no credible reference to the term "redneck" being used to describe covenanters, other than Hackett's suggestion that the term may have been used, according to legend.



Wrong, the comparison made is of a bunch of modernday backwards nuts, another bunch of modernday backwards nuts and some historic backwards nuts.
This whole tangent has developed because some people simply don't know the origins of the term.


Well, I'd be most grateful if you could educate us with the proper etymology.

What I don't understand is how you can equate the desire for self-determination with "backwardness", unless you are indeed a product of socialist indoctrination.


Look up the origins for yourself , then for fun look up the schism with the Presbyterians in the 1840s in america which seperated the southern rednecks from those in the northern appalacians over an issue which was later to tear the country apart. If you explore that then you can tie it in very nicely with the picture of Rednecks that was posted.
You are suggesting that the schism in the Presbyterian Church between the "old" and "new" schools is somehow linked to the American civil war?
You think the civil war was started over slavery? You think that any of this excuses the state from declaring or supporting destructive wars and insurgencies, including those in Ireland?

In that case, I think I'll go kill a few people and say "religion made me do it".

That aside, you'll have to provide me with more information on the etymology of the term "redneck".
He completely disregards the success of free societies in the modern world in favor of a dogma that has kept him and his people in the shackles of state control and religious violence.
:har::har::har::har::har:

When in doubt, rofl. What aspect of your nation's predisposition to religious violence is so funny, Tribesman? The rest of the world doesn't find it very funny.
He has no idea why his nation is regarded as being "backwards" amongst other western nations, and he may not even realize why.
:har::har::har::har::har:
My mistake. Ireland is obviously a model of success. We should all strive to be as successful as Ireland. Why, oh why, didn't I see it sooner?


Two rather pathetic lines , after that your post just degenerates even further into complete nonsense that isn't even worth a laughing smiley.
What you mean is that you have no response, not even a laughing smiley.
You can't see beyond the walls around your mind. You strike me as being a fairly intelligent person, yet you cannot stoop to educating fools like myself. This tells me that you are not as educated as you have been led to believe, and that you cannot think for yourself.

Though it is tempting with this talk of backwardsness and dogma in the modern world to point at the fundamentalist religious right who have found a nice home with the republicans, or to have a good laugh at the creationists who insist the government should push their literal interpreatrion of scripture in science class in schools.

I can only hope that you're not referring to me, because I have never posted anything to indicate that I am a religious fundamentalist of any kind or a republican. I have also never indicated that I am a creationist.

For what it is worth, I am an economic conservative and a social liberal, which means that I believe in equal rights and very limited government. "Libertarian" is the term in the US. I have never advocated any kind of religious supremacy. In fact, I think the state has no place in marriage, schools, prisons, or any other institutions that religion has co-opted.

Your willingness to immediately assign me to the category of the "religious right" simply because I disagree tells me a great deal about you. It tells me that you have a number of leftist beliefs which have been ingrained upon, or willingly accepted, by you. It tells me that you will not tolerate dissent, which is a trait indicative of centrist and socialist governments and their peoples. It tells me that you cannot comprehend anything beyond what you have been taught by the state, which is to be expected of a citizen of Ireland, given the political atmosphere.

I will not pretend to be your intellectual superior, Tribesman. I won't even pretend to be right, but I will ask you to consider why your ideas often find so little purchase here. Is it because you are just so superior to the rest of us that we simply cannot comprehend your ideas? Or is it because there is something to self-determination and the rights of the individual?
Is your philosophy so great that there is no need to share it and debate it with mere mortals?

Personally, I think your ideas come from an ingrained socialist rhetoric. Perhaps you can show me some evidence that they have not.

[onelifecrisis]

Actually they seem quite brilliant... :haha:

What means "minority"? Haven't we linked to two separate independant British studies in the past four years, I think, and I mean full-blown academic studies, not just some radio station polls, showing that amongst the UK's Islamic males between 18 and 40 or 50, a hopping 40% want to overthrow the UK and explicitly defend the use of violence - if it cannot be done otherwise?

I missed those... links please!?

Haven't I linked to according studies from Germany over the past years showing that the offsprings of Muslim immigrants, especially Turkish people, in most cases showed to become even more orthodox than their parents ever have been, making mockery of the Gutmenschen-thesis that living in Western civilisation would "westernise" and soften up Islamic attitudes?

Good grief man! Who ever said they would be "westernised" (i.e. secularised, if only partially) in a single generation? Give it time.
P.S. This does prompt a concern in my mind... if the rate of immigration exceeds the rate of secularisation, then you have a problem... :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

Well Lancecorporal, interesting post , the second half degenerates from this point......
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl
He completely disregards the success of free societies in the modern world in favor of a dogma that has kept him and his people in the shackles of state control and religious violence.

Quote:
:har::har::har::har::har: .......very rapidly though.
I have to apologise as you will have to wait for a proper response because I have a plane to catch.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Well Lancecorporal, interesting post , the second half degenerates from this point...... .......very rapidly though.
Yeah, it kind of did. I blame it on brevity brought on by exhaustion.
I was pretty tired by the time I finished the post, so it was rushed.
It seems I owe you another apology.

I thought the last paragraph was rather good, though. I figured a scathing indictment might get some kind of worthwhile response from you. You should know by now that "rofl" and "lol" and "HAHAHAHAHA", and their emoticon equivalents, are not acceptable answers to others' arguments and stated beliefs. Those kinds of answers are generally construed as evidence of you being ignorant or even condescending, which itself implies a degree of ignorance.

I, however, do not think you are ignorant. I think you have a great deal to contribute to these kinds of discussions, even if your point of view typically falls on the left side of the political spectrum (that sounds kind of condescending, but it is not meant to be). There are a number of subsimmers that I, and others, regularly disagree with on this forum but I still hold them in the utmost regard; Skybird, NeonSamurai, and Platapus, to name a few. I have had some excellent discussions with all of them, and I have learned from those discussions. I like to think that they have learned a little from me, or that I have adequately challenged their perspectives. Perhaps I have done nothing but reinforce their existing views, but that is still a constructive purpose, is it not?

Perhaps you like your discussions to be fraught with adversarial rhetoric and insults. If so, I'll be happy to oblige. Nothing you say is going to hurt my feelings. We can exchange :rotfl2:s and :har:s for the rest of time if you like. I don't expect that it will be productive, but it could be fun. :DL


I have to apologise as you will have to wait for a proper response because I have a plane to catch.

No apology needed. I've had to skip out on a number of discussions because of other commitments, including some I've had with you. I hope you have a pleasant flight, and a pleasant stay at your destination. :salute:

[nikimcbee]

Well look at the bright side; When the UK is an islamic nation, just think how hot Jim will look in a beard.

We'll have JimtheMullah. But there is a serious problem though, spam is made of pork, so instead if Jim "spamming" could we change the term to tofu-ing?:hmmm: Now Mr Buna won't be beheaded for violating the law.:yeah:

[AngusJS]

Ha! that's the comparison I made. Same approach: ideological warfare. Nuts like these were once facists and communists. They managed pretty well.You could convince large numbers of workers and soldiers of the need for revolution in Russia in 1917, mainly because Russia was losing WW1 and its monarchy had spent the last 1000 years screwing the majority of the populace over. Relevance to the UK in 2009: zero.

How in hell can Islamists convince any significant number of non-Muslims of the truth of their ideology?

And dislike him all you want, but Lenin wasn't a maniac. And disagree with Marx all you want, but it doesn't make him any less brilliant. You might as well call Jefferson worthless because you don't accept everything he said about revolution or about how the US should develop. You have to approach any past thinker from the context of his times.

[Onkel Neal]

You could convince large numbers of workers and soldiers of the need for revolution in Russia in 1917, mainly because Russia was losing WW1 and its monarchy had spent the last 1000 years screwing the majority of the populace over. Relevance to the UK in 2009: zero.

How in hell can Islamists convince any significant number of non-Muslims of the truth of their ideology?

And dislike him all you want, but Lenin wasn't a maniac. And disagree with Marx all you want, but it doesn't make him any less brilliant. You might as well call Jefferson worthless because you don't accept everything he said about revolution or about how the US should develop. You have to approach any past thinker from the context of his times.

Good point about the comparison based on the monarchy and WWI, by you and Letum. I think you both read more into my comment than I intended, it was not meant to be a literal, parallel comparison. No, there is no equivalent to WWI aty present. But that could always change. These guys won't convert the UK to Islam, any more than the Bolsheviks were able to make the deeply Russian peasants forsake their holy church...oh, wait, they did...:) Islamists are making inroads into British society. Give them time. I'm sure the Russian tsar and aristocracy didn't think a few crazy anarchists and communists would ever amount to much either. ;)


Jefferson made some proclamations and statements that would not stand the test of time, but his overarching political philosphy was sound and has stood the test of time. Lenin? Marx? Fools. Their whole philosphy was a sham. And it failed. Like August said, a "brilliant" mind does not cook up a crackpot economic theory that fails. Marx was not brilliant, then or now. He was a dime a dozen rabble rouser, psuedo philosopher. Most of his ideas weren't even original.

[Letum]

I'm curious as to how you formed such an opinion of Marx.
I have said before that I am a big Popper fan and I agree with him fully,
but the failings of the historicist approach certainly doesn't make Marx a
"fool".

Just because you are wrong, it doesn't mean you are not a genius.
There are only two types of scientist and philosopher; those who have
been shown to be wrong or incomplete and those who are about to be.

[August]

There's a vast amount of scientific and philosophical territory between wrong and incomplete just as there is a vast amount of territory between science and philosophy. I don't see the relevance of comparing the two.

Nor do I see the respect some folks pay to Karl Marx. He was nothing more than an indolent bum who cheated on his wife and lived hand to mouth leaching off his friends.

We're supposed to see him as some sort of genius? I'm sorry but I just can't.

[onelifecrisis]

I'm reminded of a movie I saw, in which some guy on a small island (with a tiny population of like 30 people) takes over the newspaper there. He asks the guy he's taking over from:

"How do you come up with news to print in this place?"

The answer came back:

"I look to the horizon. If I see a cloud I print 'Huge storm threatens island.' The next day, if there was no storm, I print 'Huge storm narrowly missed island.'"

[AngusJS]

Nor do I see the respect some folks pay to Karl Marx. He was nothing more than an indolent bumKinda like Socrates, the lazy bastard. Can we dismiss Socratic thought now?

Ever read Capital? Does it read the like the product of an indolent bum?

who cheated on his wifeCertainly no other influential historical figures have ever cheated on their wives. It's not like it's common or anything. :roll:

What's more important - the content of his thought, or his character?

[August]

What's more important - the content of his thought, or his character?

You can't separate the two in my opinion.

[Shearwater]

Nor do I see the respect some folks pay to Karl Marx. He was nothing more than an indolent bum who cheated on his wife and lived hand to mouth leaching off his friends.

We're supposed to see him as some sort of genius? I'm sorry but I just can't.

No, his predictions simply fell short of his analysis, which was really insightful back then and parts of it even today.
And he allegedly said, "I know but one thing for sure: That I am not a Marxist."

[Skybird]

I agree with Shearwater here. Marx was a competent observer of the sttaus quo in his time, and this is what makes his value. His predictions for the future are what is much more flawed, and even more messy are his conclusions on what to do therefore - obviously heavily formed by his habit to live on tick and at the cost of friends who came up for his living. He was used to let others pay for his living, and you can see that reflected in Marxist theory until today.

Marx was no great theoretician, but a great observer of actual states and conditions which he described with great precision. See him as not less - but also not as more.

And yes, I have had my share of reading "The Capital" back then, although it is long time ago. ;)

[onelifecrisis]

You can't separate the two in my opinion.

Er... didn't I see you quoting Ronald Reagan earlier?

Edit:
Yeah, in yer sig!

[Tribesman]

OK Lancecorporal,
Perhaps I misunderstood you. What did you mean to say?

Thats simple, Rednecks are seen as backwards idiots with very strange views that they hold strongly and which no amount of reasoning will get them to reconsider or reappraise, just like the muslim fundamentalist idiots in the opening article are.

Back to the etymology of the term .
You refer to late 19th early 20th century and call it of questionable provenance.
The term in America is established in the early 19th century, there are at least 3 publications from the same decade which use it specificly in that manner, though as an interesting side note "cracker" which has even earlier origins was being applied specificly to scottish and ulster-scots presbyterian settlers in Georgia 70 years earlier than the 1830s use of redneck to describe them.
Also of interest with the link to the confederacy is that one of those 1830s literary references to rednecks was written by an anglican minister whose descendant became a rather famous confederate general.

I don't know anything about papist conspiracy theories,
Visit the Knights party website, I am unsure if it is permissible to post link to it on this forum due to the nature of the material it contains. Or look at a certain ulster-scots presbyterian minister giving a speech to the EU.

Maybe you should start with the causes of the wars and the animosity that fueled them.
That would take a post which would make Skybirds longest contributions seem like mere footnotes.

You think the civil war was started over slavery?
There were many contributing factors, State rights were the main issue but also the issue over new states and the issue of slavery in territories which wanted statehood. Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a precursor to the war.

When in doubt, rofl. What aspect of your nation's predisposition to religious violence is so funny, Tribesman? The rest of the world doesn't find it very funny.

what is funny is that you appear to make assumptions about my views on that topic when I have written nothing about it and then go off on those assumptions.
Likewise with ....
My mistake. Ireland is obviously a model of success. We should all strive to be as successful as Ireland. Why, oh why, didn't I see it sooner?

...though what makes that even funnier is that people were hailing Irelands recent "economic miracle" with its unrestricted free market approach coupled with de-regulation and corporate tax reductions as a great success that other countries should emulate, when the truth is that it is a thoroughly corrupt country which was following the same path that Thatcher used of an artificial bubble which will inevitably be followed by a massive downturn(though the difference is that Britain had the capacity to ride out the downturn better). Even calling it the Celtic Tiger should have been a clue for those who were hailing it as a success if they had looked at the pattern the asian tigers economies followed.
So once again you made an assuption and went off on it, but this time managed to attribute a position to me which was more akin to that which many of the republican(and Democrat) politicians were using.

You can't see beyond the walls around your mind. You strike me as being a fairly intelligent person, yet you cannot stoop to educating fools like myself. This tells me that you are not as educated as you have been led to believe, and that you cannot think for yourself.

That is strange since I often just pose questions (sometimes quite cryptic) for people to answer for themselves.

I can only hope that you're not referring to me, because I have never posted anything to indicate that I am a religious fundamentalist of any kind or a republican. I have also never indicated that I am a creationist.

Did I refer to you as such?

Your willingness to immediately assign me to the category of the "religious right" simply because I disagree tells me a great deal about you.
See above.

It tells me that you have a number of leftist beliefs which have been ingrained upon, or willingly accepted, by you. It tells me that you will not tolerate dissent, which is a trait indicative of centrist and socialist governments and their peoples. It tells me that you cannot comprehend anything beyond what you have been taught by the state, which is to be expected of a citizen of Ireland, given the political atmosphere.

Actually I question just about everything, and if the state told me it was tuesday I would check a calendar before I believed it to be true.

[NeonSamurai]

You can't separate the two in my opinion.

I cannot agree with that statement. They must be separate otherwise one cannot learn from or appreciate much of anything; all human works are created by flawed human beings.

Take for example art. Some of the greatest artists who ever lived were wretched, awful persons themselves. It's one of the great ironies of life that some of the best ideas and works ever created, were created by some of the most horrible people you can imagine.

It is the product that matters most, not the person who created it. If you do not separate author and product, then your view becomes compromised by your own biases and you cannot properly form rational opinions about the product.


This next little bit is directed at Tribesman. This is not a personal attack, more just my observations with a few gentle suggestions.

You strike me as a person of good intelligence and that you come bearing some knowledge. Yet your posts do not tend to convey that message very often. The biggest problem from my view, is that you approach posting here with a condescending, self superior attitude. You are quick to ridicule those that disagree with you, yet you do not tend to offer much in solid counter argument to refute what they say.

As a result you do not receive much respect from the more established and skillful debaters here, since you offer little respect to them. I think that if you approached posting with a more respectful tone, and with more rational forms of argumentation, that you would receive much more respect back in turn, and be held in higher regard.

The choice however is up to you, just don't be too surprised if your posts start getting ignored or are systematically dissected and summarily refuted if you continue this way. Yes you are intelligent and knowledgeable, but there are others here who are more so, so don't wax to much in the glory of your own ego.


@Lance

I wasn't aware that you regularly disagreed with me :03:. I've always felt that in basic terms you and I desire similar end results, but we don't quite agree on the best way to reach those results. My aim is to find the best balance in things, to achieve the greatest good for all, and with the greatest fairness possible for all. As such I do not consider myself neither left nor right, but see value in some of the concepts from both sides. I do realize though that I can appear to have leftist leanings here, but mostly because I am counterbalancing against what i see as being a rightist majority (I'll happily rip into socialism and communism as anything else).

At any rate I have always enjoyed your posts and hold you in high regard as well. Even if we do not always see eye to eye, you do present your arguments very well and I respect that.


Back to the topic... I have to admit that I am also getting very very uneasy about Islam. I try very hard to be fair and open minded, but it is hard to be so with regards to a society and religion that is neither fair nor open minded. They are going to take over in the end if things continue, not by changing and converting us, but by colonizing and out breeding us. Once they have majority in a country, that country will be forced into submission to Islam (as has already been going on in Africa and east asia). I see war over this looming in the horizon, assuming the west has not entirely lost its will to get into a real and bloody fight. Something it hasn't had much stomach for since Korea.

[onelifecrisis]

I cannot agree with that statement. They must be separate otherwise one cannot learn from or appreciate much of anything; all human works are created by flawed human beings.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks their heroes have no character flaws is sadly and worryingly deluded.

[Shearwater]

Good to read that, Samurai :up:
Following the discussions around here, I just wonder whether the use of smileys (especially the :haha: and :har: ones) should be regulated.
Ridicule destroys every discussion.

[Skybird]

NeonSamurai,

:salute:.

I wish I could manage to be so determined in my statements yet be so well-moderated in my tone. Where I think I usually do not leave anything to be desired regarding the first, I possibly often lack in the latter.

[Aramike]

This next little bit is directed at Tribesman. This is not a personal attack, more just my observations with a few gentle suggestions.

You strike me as a person of good intelligence and that you come bearing some knowledge. Yet your posts do not tend to convey that message very often. The biggest problem from my view, is that you approach posting here with a condescending, self superior attitude. You are quick to ridicule those that disagree with you, yet you do not tend to offer much in solid counter argument to refute what they say.

As a result you do not receive much respect from the more established and skillful debaters here, since you offer little respect to them. I think that if you approached posting with a more respectful tone, and with more rational forms of argumentation, that you would receive much more respect back in turn, and be held in higher regard.

The choice however is up to you, just don't be too surprised if your posts start getting ignored or are systematically dissected and summarily refuted if you continue this way. Yes you are intelligent and knowledgeable, but there are others here who are more so, so don't wax to much in the glory of your own ego.:salute:

[Aramike]

I cannot agree with that statement. They must be separate otherwise one cannot learn from or appreciate much of anything; all human works are created by flawed human beings.

Take for example art. Some of the greatest artists who ever lived were wretched, awful persons themselves. It's one of the great ironies of life that some of the best ideas and works ever created, were created by some of the most horrible people you can imagine.I tend to agree, even though I understand what August was saying. In the case of Marx, his philosophies tended to mirror his personal "failings", thusly failing to create a separate identity. Frankly his economic and social structures really only seemed a misguided attempt at justifying his own squalor due to a system he could not excel in.

Frankly, I don't think we was in any way a genious. Anyone could as easily devise such a concept of a social structure in theory, and many educated individuals could have dressed it up just as pretty. The idea of equality was certainly not new to Marx - rather, he simply decided to add fantasy elements of human nature to allow for a theoretical equal existance.

That's not genious any more than your average fiction writer.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm curious as to how you formed such an opinion of Marx.
I have said before that I am a big Popper fan and I agree with him fully,
but the failings of the historicist approach certainly doesn't make Marx a
"fool".

Just because you are wrong, it doesn't mean you are not a genius.
There are only two types of scientist and philosopher; those who have
been shown to be wrong or incomplete and those who are about to be.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on Marx or I've read more than you (I am sure I have not), I have read enough to form my opinion & I guess it's just simply a matter of opinion. Marx dedicated all his life to a theory that is horses**t. It's like calling Mussolini a great strategist or something. There could be some joker who spent 40 years analyzing and forming a theory on how the world is flat,,, and that equals failure. To me, being as specatularly wrong as Marx was, is a good indication of how brilliant he was not. I'll give you this, he was completely devoted to his work and single-minded.

[Aramike]

I'm not saying I'm an expert on Marx or I've read more than you (I am sure I have not), I have read enough to form my opinion & I guess it's just simply a matter of opinion. Marx dedicated all his life to a theory that is horses**t. It's like calling Mussolini a great strategist or something. There could be some joker who spent 40 years analyzing and forming a theory on how the world is flat,,, and that equals failure. To me, being as specatularly wrong as Marx was, is a good indication of how brilliant he was not. I'll give you this, he was completely devoted to his work and single-minded.Agreed.

To expand, it was a theory that was based upon assumptions that, even at the time, were seen as flawed. Ultimately, he did nothing more than create a social construct based upon nothing more than wanting it to be true.

Wishful thinking is NOT brilliance.

[onelifecrisis]

I don't really have an opinion on Marx, Aramike, but to pull you up on one point (in a manner that echos the point you made on religion)...

Wishful thinking is NOT brilliance.

I think that if someone can change the world, if only temporarily (and what change is not ultimately temporary?) through mere "wishful thinking" then that's a form of brilliance. If nothing else he did at least manage to tap into the wishful thinking of a great many people. Some (myself included) would argue that Jesus (for example) did the same thing, though with perhaps more success than Marx, depending on how you measure success.

To make the more general point, the world is what we make it. What is New York if not a towering collection of wishful thoughts? Your comment suggests to me that you underestimate the power of the human will.

[Tribesman]

NeonSamurai. You have a point, however just look at the first reponses as examples.
Then you do not know what a redneck is, obviously
A definitive statement but wrong.
Man, you got a lot to learn
Everyone has a lot to learn , but in this instance it was himself that had to learn it.
No kidding. Maybe there are multiple variations of the term "redneck". I never heard nuthin' about three kingdoms, though.
An agreement with the mistake above, though with the redeeming feature that perhaps their knowledge was lacking.
I was correct, you do have a lot to learn. Where in the world did you get that outlandish idea of what a redneck is? :har:
well what can you say about that , wrong again and with no effort to find out if they were indeed correct ?

So when you say
you do not tend to offer much in solid counter argument to refute what they say.

you are correct. I prefer the gradual approach so poeple can find out for themselves. UnderseaLcpl made the firststeps but didn't look beyond Hackett to someone like longstreet, johnston or royall.

Yet what makes this tangent on the subject funny is that it essentialy stems from me calling the fundamentalist muslims backwards hicks and people objecting to the accuracy of that label for them.

[UnterseeBoogeyMan]

Redneck is a state of mind:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27764

cheers:yeah:

[CaptainHaplo]

Marx was not a genius in any philisophical way. What he was a genius at - was manipulation. He took a theory that was blantantly flawed, and sold it to people in such a way that they helped him increase his own personal power....

The theory was crackpot, the man himself was one of the consumate salesmen of his time, and thus, the outcome demonstrated a level of personal power genius.

Most leaders of history who failed for obvious reasons, Marx, Hitler, Napoleon, etc - were all brilliant in many things, and totally clueless in others.

[Aramike]

I don't really have an opinion on Marx, Aramike, but to pull you up on one point (in a manner that echos the point you made on religion)...



I think that if someone can change the world, if only temporarily (and what change is not ultimately temporary?) through mere "wishful thinking" then that's a form of brilliance. If nothing else he did at least manage to tap into the wishful thinking of a great many people. Some (myself included) would argue that Jesus (for example) did the same thing, though with perhaps more success than Marx, depending on how you measure success.

To make the more general point, the world is what we make it. What is New York if not a towering collection of wishful thoughts? Your comment suggests to me that you underestimate the power of the human will.I don't necessarily disagree, in a sense - but I suppose we must look at context. From my perspective, I took things to mean intellectual brilliance, and that's what I was referring to.

Even so, I understand the point you're making. But I still feel a disconnect between "brilliance" and "wishful thinking".

[onelifecrisis]

I'd ask you to define "intellectual brilliance" but it might head along a pointless tangent. I guess what's really bugging me here is I'm seeing people attacking this guy Marx (who TBH I know very little about) on a sort of "personal" level (e.g. he had a bad character, he had a poor intellect, he wasn't original, and so on) which is all rather beside the point AFAIC. He could have been an immoral, stupid, idea-stealing moron but none of that has any bearing on whether or not the ideas were good ideas or bad ideas. If people disagree with the ideas they should attack the ideas, not the man. Attacking the man is just cheap.

[Aramike]

I'd ask you to define "intellectual brilliance" but it might head along a pointless tangent. I guess what's really bugging me here is I'm seeing people attacking this guy Marx (who TBH I know very little about) on a sort of "personal" level (e.g. he had a bad character, he had a poor intellect, he wasn't original, and so on) which is all rather beside the point AFAIC. He could have been an immoral, stupid, idea-stealing moron but none of that has any bearing on whether or not the ideas were good ideas or bad ideas. If people disagree with the ideas they should attack the ideas, not the man. Attacking the man is just cheap.I'm not sure what you're reading because we've all mentioned that his ideas were, well, crap, based upon flawed logic and seemingly rooted in his character.

Is there any particular idea you want to see refuted?

As far as attacking the man himself is concerned, really I think that only goes so far as stating that his ridiculous ideas were rooted in an attempt to justify his behaviors.

I really don't think anyone has the time or inclination to do a point-by-point list of all the errors in Marx's ideas, so in summation, you'll just have to accept that people think his ideas were, well, stupid - at least as far as the term "Marxism" is applied.

[onelifecrisis]

I'll accept that some people think his ideas were stupid. ;)
I'm just pointing out that none of the people in this thread who fall into that category have justified their position with anything more than hot air. :O:
No, I don't want to debate any of his ideas. I don't even know what his ideas were. Didn't he invent communism or something? :88)

[Aramike]

I'll accept that some people think his ideas were stupid. ;)
I'm just pointing out that none of the people in this thread who fall into that category have justified their position with anything more than hot air. :O:
No, I don't want to debate any of his ideas. I don't even know what his ideas were. Didn't he invent communism or something? :88)Generalizations of a man's view is not hot air. In any case, that's the whole debate, isn't it? Whether or not the man was brilliant...

And the reason for the lack of specifics is that it has been assumed that the participants of that debate on his brilliance are at least somewhat familiar with the man and his story.

In any case, the reason I don't see him as brilliant, beyond what I've already stated, is that his positions and ideas are typically based upon false axioms - in other words, the fact that his ideologies have since been utter failures, is further betrayed by that, if you looked at them at the time, those failures were completely predictable because they were based upon false premises.

Essentially, he pretty much attempted to describe human nature blatantly inaccurately or incompletely (ie "labor power"/transformative nature/commodity fetishism) in order to support his views.

So, he was a liar - and a cheater. And his ideas were based upon that. Hence why it is difficult to separate the man's character and his philosophies.

[kiwi_2005]

Simple solution. Send those that complain with radical motives back to their own country. Those that accept the lifestyle/laws of their new homeland are welcome anyone else can bugger off. Wouldn't that be an insult to the royal family?

The British are to soft.

[Letum]

Simple solution. Send those that complain with radical motives back to their own country. Those that accept the lifestyle/laws of their new homeland are welcome anyone else can bugger off.


You might be in trouble if that happened in the place where you live. ;)

[Tribesman]

Simple solution. Send those that complain with radical motives back to their own country. Those that accept the lifestyle/laws of their new homeland are welcome anyone else can bugger off. Wouldn't that be an insult to the royal family?

The British are to soft.

So are you suggesting that Anjem Choudary is deported from Ilford back to Bexley?
Should the british state pay for his bus fare or should they make him walk?

[NeonSamurai]

@Tribesman

I do not know the origins of the term "Redneck", nor do I particularly care to be honest. It is not something that is relevant to me. As such I have not followed the intricacies of the discussion here on that topic, nor have I entered into it. My comments to you were more of a general observation of the posts of yours that I have read.

I have to ask, do you think your approach is effective? By effective I mean, are you successfully conveying your message, are people 'listening' to what you write, and considering what you 'say'? From my own observations I would have to say the answer is no.

For one thing, ridicule and insult shut down real communication between people. No one will care what you have to say if you deride them and their opinions, no matter how correct you may be. Second, hinting at knowledge with out providing evidence of it, is not a proper form of argumentation. For one thing, you could well be bluffing. A lot of people when faced with an argument they cannot 'win' will turn to trying to bluff their way out of it by suggesting they know something the other person does not, but with out demonstrating any of it. Also that method it puts you in an intelectual tower from which you can leer at the 'ignorant' peasantry below you.

You have to provide some 'meat' to your arguments if you want people to take you seriously. We don't expect vast treatises on the subject at hand, a condensed version would suffice. But you have to offer something more then cryptic hints, or you will just be ignored. Furthermore if you really want people to consider what you have to say, and do further investigation into the subject. You have to create the right kind of mental and emotional environment for that to happen.


@Skybird

That has to be one of the nicest compliments anyone has ever payed me. I would certainly never say that your statements lack determination. I have often wondered how much the language barrier contributes negatively to what you write. You write very well in English, and I enjoy reading what you have to say, even if I may not agree. But your structuring of sentences can be odd at times, and you sometimes make incorrect use of words. Such things unfortunately can corrupt the intended message.

I usually take a lot of time composing what I have to say. I carefully weigh every sentence to make sure it is saying precisely what I want to get across. I also read and reread my posts multiple times to make sure my message is clear, my reasoning is sound, my judgment is fair, and that I am being open minded to what others are saying and have properly considered what they have said. Unfortunately its a very time consuming process, this post for example, will have taken me about 2-3 hours to complete.



Now on to Karl Marx.. Yep ol Karl was not the nicest of people, and yes a lot of his theories and ideas have been discarded. But not all of them have been. In Sociology he is still a fairly important figure, due to his key contributions to conflict theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theory) and his concepts of the mode of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production), the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production), and the relations of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_of_production). Conflict theory is still a major theory in Sociology, and the 3 concepts above are still used to this day (though not in their original form). So he does deserve some credit.


Lastly a small comment on socialism. Socialism is not a bad form of government, it is one of the oldest forms we have. The problem though is that it only works properly on the microscopic scale, in groups of around 50 people or less. Tribal society is a type of socialistic structure. The members of the tribe help one another to survive, and no members have major power over other members. All members contribute, and when a member is unable to, the rest of the band pulls together to help that individual. What is important to understand though, is that corruption does not happen very easily at that scale. Slackers/abusers are quickly found out and ejected from the society, and people cannot easily be greedy and take too much with out getting caught. Unfortunatly though, once you hit a certain population, where people do not know everyone in the community, corruption becomes a real problem.

[onelifecrisis]

Lastly a small comment on socialism. Socialism is not a bad form of government, it is one of the oldest forms we have. The problem though is that it only works properly on the microscopic scale, in groups of around 50 people or less. Tribal society is a type of socialistic structure. The members of the tribe help one another to survive, and no members have major power over other members. All members contribute, and when a member is unable to, the rest of the band pulls together to help that individual. What is important to understand though, is that corruption does not happen very easily at that scale. Slackers/abusers are quickly found out and ejected from the society, and people cannot easily be greedy and take too much with out getting caught. Unfortunatly though, once you hit a certain population, where people do not know everyone in the community, corruption becomes a real problem.

Interesting point. I would counter (more for the sake of argument than because I'm an out-and-out socialist) that you have the exact same problem in any large population regardless of the economic system in place. In fact, as you said, it becomes difficult in a population over 50 people so you get the problem within individual organisations, let alone whole countries. I've worked in two large corporations both of which had more than their fair share of slackers. The management in one of those corporations correctly identified the problem, and correctly identified the solution (lay off 20% of the staff) but then used it as an excuse to fire the 20% who disagreed with the way management were doing things, rather than the 20% who were slacking. As for the abusers, capitalism seems to me to reward them more than anyone else! Take the banking crisis for example. The point I'm making, in a round-about way, is that at no point have I seen capitalism providing a fix/solution to the problems you've highlighted.

[Skybird]

But your structuring of sentences can be odd at times, and you sometimes make incorrect use of words.

Not to mention my many typos! :D I'm typing too fast, and then am too lazy to correct them.

Lastly a small comment on socialism. Socialism is not a bad form of government, it is one of the oldest forms we have. The problem though is that it only works properly on the microscopic scale, in groups of around 50 people or less. Tribal society is a type of socialistic structure. The members of the tribe help one another to survive, and no members have major power over other members. All members contribute, and when a member is unable to, the rest of the band pulls together to help that individual. What is important to understand though, is that corruption does not happen very easily at that scale. Slackers/abusers are quickly found out and ejected from the society, and people cannot easily be greedy and take too much with out getting caught. Unfortunatly though, once you hit a certain population, where people do not know everyone in the community, corruption becomes a real problem.

Remarkable, becasue I say much the same about democratic principles, I said repeatedly they only work on local (=low, small) levels, and communities of limited size. You hear me, Lance? ;) Maybe one should include the functionality of capitalistic market principles to be community-size-dependent as well.

What have all these assessements in common? Leave the governing, the owing, the entrepreneurs the space to bend rules that are to their subjective disadvantage but in favour of the community, and the probability increases they will do that. Allow the elite to avoid being affected by the consequences of their governing decisions, and they are more likely to act in favour of their interests even if it is at the cost of the interest of the community. the winner in this confrontation of onterests often is the one being richer than the other, which makes him more powerful (to form the rules to his liking, or to walk around them and get away with it), and this "space", the opportunity to evade, is due to the size of the community, and it's regulation mechanisms having become too complex.

I am currently putting together an essay adressing some of these things, amongst others, a bit in the way what you said regarding yourself taking 2-3 hours for a post. Just that it is not only 2-3 hours, but so far occasional work over 2-3 days. :DL

Means: I'll be back at this in the near future. Maybe not exactly this, but you'll recognise some familiar points.

[NeonSamurai]

Oh I would not argue that democracy also works best at the micro scale. Frankly all our forms of governance, even communism, work at their best in the very small scale. The larger the system, the easier it is for corruption to seep into the many cracks.

The problem is how to best escape from the corruption, given human nature. That is something I don't have a solid answer for other then perhaps successive layers of small communities.

[Letum]

The best example of micro nations we have is the Greek polis.
All kinds of government worked somewhat well there; democracy,
oligarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy.
However, with so many national egos, there was not much peace
between the states and they where easily taken advantage of. (i.e. the
Athenian Empire).

[Tribesman]

@Tribesman

Another interesting post Samurai, but firstly may I suggest that you read it again and then go back and read your first post in this topic.
Secondly I would like you to focus on that first post of yours and then re-read the posts I wrote.
Can you then combine the two stages and apply the criticisms in your last post to your first post.

But I think the problem is illustrated by
My comments to you were more of a general observation of the posts of yours that I have read.

so you were writing in a topic but not about the topic, yet were criticising what was written in the topic because of who had written it not what was written.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Nice to see you again, Tribesman. How was your trip?

I have to confess, I'm a little honored by the fact that you took the time to compose such a thorough response. :salute:

Alright, here we go.
OK Lancecorporal,

Thats simple, Rednecks are seen as backwards idiots with very strange views that they hold strongly and which no amount of reasoning will get them to reconsider or reappraise, just like the muslim fundamentalist idiots in the opening article are.
Lol. I don't think there are many groups that aren't viewed that way by some group or the other.:03:
I get your point, but I think you're making a bit of a logical leap, there. I can't recall any information suggesting that theocracy and suicide bombings are indicative of Rednecks(or Christian Fundamentalists, whicever you prefer), nor are they generally guilty of trying to impose their religion upon others by force. Certainly there are some who do that, I've met a couple, but most of them don't. The fact that they are politically (if not morally) tolerant of other religions suggests that they might not be so impervious to reason as you suggest.

Etymology notwithstanding, modern "rednecks" are generally independent persons with strong moral convictions (amongst other things), but they rarely assault others' beliefs or freedoms with anything more dangerous than sermonizing or general b-ing.
I suppose the argument could be made that their vehement defense of anti-abortion and anti-biomed research laws could be construed as an assault upon the freedoms and beliefs of others, but it is still a far cry from trying to massacre people in defense of forced religious rule.

My point is that they are not "just like" Islamic fundamentalists. Compared to Islamic fundamentalists, Socialists, and the variety of other "ists" and "isms" they are relatively forward thinkers in that they stalwartly defend individual rights, even if that is just because they are more interested in the preservation of their own rights.

I am a redneck. I ride horses and shoot guns. I know how to steer-wrestle and tie a calf. My mom lives in a trailer. I have a personalized "yee-haw" and a rebel yell that I am particularly proud of. I have a reasonably developed work ethic. I strongly believe that there is a God, and that he is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and merciful. I believe in the preservation of personal liberty for everyone at any cost, because life is nothing without freedom. Does this somehow equate me with radicals who blindly seek to impose their societal and belief structures upon everyone without exception through the indiscriminate use of deadly force?

Call them what you will, but "rednecks" are remarkably prevalent in the central and southern US - regions which are, coincidentally, considered economic powerhouses, even within the US. Ironic, considering that the more liberal, and therefore, "educated" regions have suffered from a mass migration of industry, commerce, and the associated prosperity, don't you think? Do you suppose that may be due to the backwards and strange views that rednecks held, reflected in their legislature? Very curious.


Back to the etymology of the term .
You refer to late 19th early 20th century and call it of questionable provenance.
The term in America is established in the early 19th century, there are at least 3 publications from the same decade which use it specificly in that manner, though as an interesting side note "cracker" which has even earlier origins was being applied specificly to scottish and ulster-scots presbyterian settlers in Georgia 70 years earlier than the 1830s use of redneck to describe them.
Also of interest with the link to the confederacy is that one of those 1830s literary references to rednecks was written by an anglican minister whose descendant became a rather famous confederate general.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the General was either Stuart or Forrest; Stuart, because of the Scottish name, or Forrest, because I suspect you might seek to equate rednecks with the KKK. How far off was I? I enjoy a bit of trivia.

Back to the etymology question. During your absence I actually found two credible references to the term "redneck" that pre-dated my supposition, so I'm going to give you that point. It seems that you've learned this redneck something.

Visit the Knights party website, I am unsure if it is permissible to post link to it on this forum due to the nature of the material it contains. Or look at a certain ulster-scots presbyterian minister giving a speech to the EU.
I found a white supremacist site, which appears to be the political face of the KKK.
I deduce from your statement that you are equating the actions of Scottish clergy with those of extremist groups in the US. May I humbly suggest that the work of clergymen in a relatively racially homogenous nation might not reflect the political attitude of a completely different group of people in a much larger and racially, politically, and ethically heterogenous nation?

That would take a post which would make Skybirds longest contributions seem like mere footnotes.

I'd like to read that post. Skybird's contributions sometimes exceed the text limit, and I've had the privilege of reading some of his .pdf essays, which are much longer, I assure you. I have no fear of reading.

I would be very interested in a post which somehow divorces the cause of the Three Kingdoms' Wars from the political desire to impose universal religious beliefs.

If you have the time to write it, I have the time to read it.

There were many contributing factors, State rights were the main issue but also the issue over new states and the issue of slavery in territories which wanted statehood. Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a precursor to the war.
No, Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a recruiting incentive for the war. The North was not willing to go to war over slavery, as had been demonstrated on numerous occassions, not the least of which was the Northern tolerance of slave states within its' alliance well after the war had begun, and finished.
The North went to war because the state-industrial complex would not tolerate dissent when it came to eliminating competition from foreign enterprise in the form of a tariff. Special interests were proportionately just as active then as they are today, my friend, as was the inherent immorality of fiat power. Men of power were willing to send other men to their deaths for the preservation of their own selfish interests.


what is funny is that you appear to make assumptions about my views on that topic when I have written nothing about it and then go off on those assumptions.
But you have written things about it. Many of your previous posts indicate that you believe in socialist or centrist ideals. In fact, you support that hypothesis in your next paragraph.


...though what makes that even funnier is that people were hailing Irelands recent "economic miracle" with its unrestricted free market approach coupled with de-regulation and corporate tax reductions as a great success that other countries should emulate, when the truth is that it is a thoroughly corrupt country
Please allow me to stop you right there. I have no doubt that corruption is a problem in Ireland but why is it a problem? What caused it? What kind of a problem is it?

I'm going to hazard an educated guess and suggest that most of the corruption involves the principle political party and parties that are a lot like it or directly support it. I'm also going to guess that the corruption generally falls under the category of "bribes and political favors". I'll bet that a lot of it also involves corporations "skirting the rules" and using or somehow ignoring legislative barriers to further their own agendas, and I'll bet that most of those actions ultimately serve the purpose of outlawing competition in production, trade, and labor.

I say this because I know that Ireland is a notoriously centrist nation, almost on par with what the US is rapidly becoming. Where political harmony reigns, there is power. Where there is power, there are those who seek it. Where those who seek power are present, there are invariably a number of them who seek it for personal gain, if not all of them. Where power is used for personal gain, there is immorality, because the use of power over others to further one's own agenda is immoral. Where there is immorality, there is corruption.

That is why I say that there is no "third way", an ideal that I know must be championed in Ireland simply because of its' political structure, which I I have deduced from the opinions you have heretofore presented. Isn't it interesting that I could know all that with a very limited understanding of Ireland beyond its' geographical location and government?


which was following the same path that Thatcher used of an artificial bubble which will inevitably be followed by a massive downturn(though the difference is that Britain had the capacity to ride out the downturn better). Even calling it the Celtic Tiger should have been a clue for those who were hailing it as a success if they had looked at the pattern the asian tigers economies followed.

Corruption or no, Ireland still ranks somewhere in the 30's for GDP, worldwide. Pretty impressive for such a small nation with such limited resources. The Asian Tiger economies are similarly impressive, despite their vulnerability to global economic trends. The standards of living have been improved a great deal, even if they are not yet on par with the US. The US has spent most of its two hundred and thirty-three year history fostering a free market economy. It has spent all of that time fostering a more free-market than nations with comprable resources, so the discrepancy is understandable.

Thatcher's Britain continues to suffer from the exact same malady that your nation does: the continued and increasing presence of an overbearing and corrupt state made of people who seek to impose their will upon others. Economic freedoms can only do so much in the face of overtaxation and plutocracy. Sooner or later, they will slow down and be reversed as an established power structure takes root and grows.


So once again you made an assuption and went off on it, but this time managed to attribute a position to me which was more akin to that which many of the republican(and Democrat) politicians were using.
That is because your position is ultimately the same. You can spout ideals and legislative initiatives all you want, but at the end of the day you are still trusting the person who does the best job of asking you to cede your money and your freedom to them in exchange for the promise that they will "make it all better".

That is strange since I often just pose questions (sometimes quite cryptic) for people to answer for themselves.
They may seem cryptic to you, but they aren't to some of us. They are just evidence of your inability to defend your position and a perversion of Socratic method. If you're going to use questions to teach, you should probably make them more clear, or at least discontinue the use of emoticons as responses. People aren't going to respond to :har: with introspection, they'll just think you're a dick.


Did I refer to you as such?

Not specifically, but you treat me as such, on occasion, including most of this occassion.


See above.
See above.


Actually I question just about everything, and if the state told me it was tuesday I would check a calendar before I believed it to be true.

That's probably the wisest thing I've ever seen you type.:salute:

Question the state. Question others. Question me. Question yourself. As biological machines, we are only as good as the information we posess. Querying others is sure to enhance our understanding of ourselves and the world, so long as we have the proper means of filtering information.

My worry is that you lack those means. Your consistent and casual disregard of others' views on this forum suggests that you do not question or even believe your own views by virtue of the fact that you can't be bothered to defend them with anything more than insult, real or implied. What you usually post implies that you are a product of indoctrination, seeking to prove the truth you have been taught and oblivious to outside influence.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I'd like to see a little proof. The virtues and failings of any person or group are ultimately defined by their actions (heh, kind of like rednecks and jihadists). Show me some real proof of the validity of your views, logical or emprical, and I, as well as others, will be more inclined to adopt your perspectives.

[Tribesman]

Two quick things Samurai.
If you look at the 3 sources I put as preceeding Hackett then you should see Longstreet was the general and his uncle was the writer.
Secondly, that racist political site you found, was it run by a "christian" pastor who came out of the rocky mountain gospel institute?

[August]

So what makes it ok to use such racist pejoratives anyways?

[onelifecrisis]

Thatcher's Britain continues to...

Excuse me for butting in here but can I ask you to clarify what you mean? I would normally assume that by "Thatcher's Britain" you mean Britain as it was in the 80's, but you followed it with "continues to" which suggests you actually mean Britain today? I'm probably just being dense... but are you saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher? I'm not trying to disagree with anything you said, I'm just trying to understand that bit of it.

[onelifecrisis]

So what makes it ok to use such racist pejoratives anyways?

Are you referring to the OP?

[August]

Are you referring to the OP?

Not in particular but people here do seem to be rather free with using it as a disparaging term don't you think?

[onelifecrisis]

Not in particular but people here do seem to be rather free with using it as a disparaging term don't you think?

Oh right, sorry, I thought you meant something else entirely.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Excuse me for butting in here but can I ask you to clarify what you mean? I would normally assume that by "Thatcher's Britain" you mean Britain as it was in the 80's, but you followed it with "continues to" which suggests you actually mean Britain today? I'm probably just being dense... but are you saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher? I'm not trying to disagree with anything you said, I'm just trying to understand that bit of it.

Your interjection is most welcome, you are not being "dense" at all, only inquisitive, and I will be happy to address your arguments. Through discussion, we may discover that I am the one who is dense.
In truth, it is I who should be offering apologies, since I did not make my point more clear.

I am not saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher. What I am saying is that Thatcher's Britain of the 80's has suffered under political agendas since her departure. it still exists, to some degree, but it has been largely destroyed by centrist agenda.

Since Thatcher, new legislation has been imposed and companies both dometstic and extranationial have found ways of taking advantage of that legislation to secure their own positions, not to mention politicians.

For comparison, consider the US. As I said to Tribesman, it has a history of supporting the free market more than other nations. Diregarding its' resources and size, the key word is "more". Business, and the associated prosperity, is always attracted to the most favourable venue. If it cannot establish a place in a social-industrial complex, it will simply seek the next most favourable place, usually a less-established social-industrial complex or a free market. Basically, it goes where the prospects for success are most favorable.

Under Thatcher's reforms, the United Kingdom began to advance in the way that a free-market nation should. Though the advances were rapid, they were not instantaneous, and much of the population became disillusioned with them. They turned instead to promises of prosperity and reform that were never quite delivered.

One of the curiosities of human nature is the willingness to exchange prosperity for the promise of greater and supposedly more expedient prosperity based upon rhetoric alone. I blame it on our genetic nature, which equates positive social interaction with reproductive potential. Actual success can be superceded by the promise of greater success delivered in superior wording. It all comes from being a social species. I'll be happy to explain more along that line of reasoning via PM, but I don't think it responsible to just display it in public. If I am right, it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone, and if I am wrong it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone for no reason.

In any case, the point is that Thatcher's reforms never really got a chance to impress themselves upon the public consciousness. I have no doubt that she was mostly right in her views, but the political structure did not change enough in time to vindicate them. Despite the leaps Britain made under Thatcher's reforms, the ingrained power structure managed to mitigate and even reverse them with a yet-undelivered promise for greater success. In short, the success of the free market could not override the public desire for instant gratification.

[Shearwater]

My point is that they are not "just like" Islamic fundamentalists. Compared to Islamic fundamentalists, Socialists, and the variety of other "ists" and "isms" they are relatively forward thinkers in that they stalwartly defend individual rights, even if that is just because they are more interested in the preservation of their own rights.

Just to add my 0.02€:

Keep in mind that many 'isms" lie at the root of American society, among them concepts such as liberalism (meaning Classical liberalism, not the present-day 'liberals'), republicanism and individualism. An 'ism' in itself does not necessarily denote excess or radical... well, ism.
Concerning socialism: The whole idea of socialism can't be separated from the industrial revolution, and it's no coincidence that Marx wrote his major works in the country that set the whole revolution in motion. Though it had a heavy impact on both Europe and North America, it's essential to realize that the circumstances under which that process took place were different in some crucial areas:
While Europe had to deal with the fact that its population grew steadily in an already populated country, the US - despite immigration - were almost virgin soil by comparison. The result was a worker surplus Europe, but a worker shortage in the US. Thus, work in Europe was ridiculously cheap while comparably high wages in the US led to a process of steady rationalization.

All of the major problems socialism sought to adress - the most severe of them being mass poverty - were a direct result of the worker surplus. The root of socialism is, in a sense, humanitarianism. To say that it was simply some clever spin by a lazy bum who sought to increase his personal power (as some have suggested) is missing the point by a couple of leagues (in which he didn't succeed, by the way). As I've said before - good analysis, bad prognosis. And if I might add, some of the most brutal and inhuman regimes implemented by the very people that claimed to bring its goals about. The charming thing about socialism is that it lends itself so wonderfully to abuse in a humanitarian disguise.
I'm not trying to defend socialism or any ideology here. I just want to say: Credit where credit is due.

Just wanted to point it out. (I know it's a simplification and way OT.)

I believe in the preservation of personal liberty for everyone at any cost, because life is nothing without freedom.

That, and human dignity.

Make no mistake - freedom has always been fragile and delicate, and I would agree that Islamic fundamentalism could well be its largest threat today. But speaking about government and trust in it: I'm uneasy about people who seek to defend "Western civilization as we know it" through questionable means. The moment we are willing to take this bait and stop asking these questions, we have done more for the fundamentalists than they could hope for.

@Lance: By the way, I don't know how long it takes you to write these posts, but I think most of them are really well composed.

[onelifecrisis]

Your interjection is most welcome, you are not being "dense" at all, only inquisitive, and I will be happy to address your arguments. Through discussion, we may discover that I am the one who is dense.
In truth, it is I who should be offering apologies, since I did not make my point more clear.

I am not saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher. What I am saying is that Thatcher's Britain of the 80's has suffered under political agendas since her departure. it still exists, to some degree, but it has been largely destroyed by centrist agenda.

Since Thatcher, new legislation has been imposed and companies both dometstic and extranationial have found ways of taking advantage of that legislation to secure their own positions, not to mention politicians.

For comparison, consider the US. As I said to Tribesman, it has a history of supporting the free market more than other nations. Diregarding its' resources and size, the key word is "more". Business, and the associated prosperity, is always attracted to the most favourable venue. If it cannot establish a place in a social-industrial complex, it will simply seek the next most favourable place, usually a less-established social-industrial complex or a free market. Basically, it goes where the prospects for success are most favorable.

Under Thatcher's reforms, the United Kingdom began to advance in the way that a free-market nation should. Though the advances were rapid, they were not instantaneous, and much of the population became disillusioned with them. They turned instead to promises of prosperity and reform that were never quite delivered.

One of the curiosities of human nature is the willingness to exchange prosperity for the promise of greater and supposedly more expedient prosperity based upon rhetoric alone. I blame it on our genetic nature, which equates positive social interaction with reproductive potential. Actual success can be superceded by the promise of greater success delivered in superior wording. It all comes from being a social species. I'll be happy to explain more along that line of reasoning via PM, but I don't think it responsible to just display it in public. If I am right, it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone, and if I am wrong it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone for no reason.

In any case, the point is that Thatcher's reforms never really got a chance to impress themselves upon the public consciousness. I have no doubt that she was mostly right in her views, but the political structure did not change enough in time to vindicate them. Despite the leaps Britain made under Thatcher's reforms, the ingrained power structure managed to mitigate and even reverse them with a yet-undelivered promise for greater success. In short, the success of the free market could not override the public desire for instant gratification.

Thanks for the clarification!

Ugh... don't get me started on Thatcher. Some of her changes were good/necessary but others had nothing to do with free-market economy. The poll tax for example (which caused riots and was replaced by council tax, which we still have) was/is just a way to rape the proletariat. You say people became "disillusioned" (with capitalism, if I'm not mistaken) but I don't think that's accurate. What they became was hungry. Thatcher didn't break illusions, she broke wallets - but only wallets below a certain size. I think that here in Britain "capitalism" is almost synonymous with "aristocracy", thanks to people like Thatcher. Perhaps that's the disillusion you refer to.

[NeonSamurai]

Another interesting post Samurai, but firstly may I suggest that you read it again and then go back and read your first post in this topic.
Secondly I would like you to focus on that first post of yours and then re-read the posts I wrote.
Can you then combine the two stages and apply the criticisms in your last post to your first post.

I debated replying to this, as honestly I think you are being somewhat disingenuous and trying to sidestep and avoid what I said. Both my comments to you were generalized observations on your posting methodology overall (of all of the posts I have read of yours on this forum) and not the specific content contained within or of the person behind the posts.

As for applying my criticisms from my second post to my first post. Well let's see. I did not ridicule or insult you or your ideas, though perhaps you feel that I did; if is so that was not my intent and I apologize for any harm done. I do not see any hints or use of cryptic messages in my first post and I feel that my post had plenty of substance behind it. I also do try to foster a positive intellectual environment with my posts, that one included.

Are my posts effective? I think they generally are. I don't expect total agreement with what I say, and I am not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But I feel that what I say tends to be respected by the other members here, even if they do not agree with a single word of what I said. With a little luck perhaps some of my words have a positive effect on others.

so you were writing in a topic but not about the topic, yet were criticising what was written in the topic because of who had written it not what was written
My posts though not entirely on the original topic, did follow the general flow of the thread (the topic in this thread has branched in several different directions). I commented on some of the different branches ongoing in this thread, in each post. Furthermore I did not criticize what was written in the topic by you, or who had written it, but rather how you present your arguments in general. Those criticisms were intended to be constructive, as I do not feel that your current methodology is very positive, constructive, or effective. So I offered a few suggestions that could enable you to have a more satisfying intellectual experience here. Whether you pay attention to my suggestions or not is your problem; I don't foster any emotion towards you in any direction, or any ill will.


Anyhow I am done commenting on your posting methodology.


Two quick things Samurai.
If you look at the 3 sources I put as preceeding Hackett then you should see Longstreet was the general and his uncle was the writer.
Secondly, that racist political site you found, was it run by a "christian" pastor who came out of the rocky mountain gospel institute?

I think you got me and lance mixed up :DL

[UnderseaLcpl]

Just to add my 0.02€:

Keep in mind that many 'isms" lie at the root of American society, among them concepts such as liberalism (meaning Classical liberalism, not the present-day 'liberals'), republicanism and individualism. An 'ism' in itself does not necessarily denote excess or radical... well, ism.
:damn:

You're right and I seem to have misspoken myself. I should have said "a variety" rather than "the variety". My own linguistic inadequacies aside, the point stands.



Concerning socialism: The whole idea of socialism can't be separated from the industrial revolution, and it's no coincidence that Marx wrote his major works in the country that set the whole revolution in motion. Though it had a heavy impact on both Europe and North America, it's essential to realize that the circumstances under which that process took place were different in some crucial areas:
While Europe had to deal with the fact that its population grew steadily in an already populated country, the US - despite immigration - were almost virgin soil by comparison. The result was a worker surplus Europe, but a worker shortage in the US. Thus, work in Europe was ridiculously cheap while comparably high wages in the US led to a process of steady rationalization.

All of the major problems socialism sought to adress - the most severe of them being mass poverty - were a direct result of the worker surplus. The root of socialism is, in a sense, humanitarianism. To say that it was simply some clever spin by a lazy bum who sought to increase his personal power (as some have suggested) is missing the point by a couple of leagues (in which he didn't succeed, by the way). As I've said before - good analysis, bad prognosis. And if I might add, some of the most brutal and inhuman regimes implemented by the very people that claimed to bring its goals about. The charming thing about socialism is that it lends itself so wonderfully to abuse in a humanitarian disguise.
I'm not trying to defend socialism or any ideology here. I just want to say: Credit where credit is due.

Just wanted to point it out. (I know it's a simplification and way OT.)

Well said. I don't really see anything to disagree with other than the supposition that Europe had a glut of workers whilst the US had a shortage. That's another debate for another time, perhaps.


That, and human dignity.
I always kind of thought that dignity came with freedom. There's something to be said for making one's own life and accepting the consequences of failure with your head held high.
I suppose it all depends upon how you define "human dignity"

Make no mistake - freedom has always been fragile and delicate, and I would agree that Islamic fundamentalism could well be its largest threat today. But speaking about government and trust in it: I'm uneasy about people who seek to defend "Western civilization as we know it" through questionable means. The moment we are willing to take this bait and stop asking these questions, we have done more for the fundamentalists than they could hope for.

I assume that by "fundamentalists" you mean Islamic Fundamentalists, in which case I tend to agree. One of the main failings of my redneck bretheren, and other groups with individualistic ideals (and myself) is their propensity for overreaction. The moment they percieve a threat to liberty, real or imagined, they are all set to go and kick somebody's arse all over the place, whether that is the best course of action or not.

If the US hadn't been so determined to intervene in the affairs of Europe and the Middle East during and after WW2, there would be no conflict with the jihadists. They would have no reason, even in their bizarre mindset, to target the US, at least for the forseeable future.

But no, we had to go and help the British erase a 2,500 year-old Muslim nation to establish and sustain a homeland for the Jews, the ancestral enemies of the Muslims. No wonder the Muslims are pissed at us.

IMHO, we would have been better served by leaving Europe and the Middle East to their own devices. If they want to fight to establish political hegemonies and screw around, let them. The US can only stand to benefit from their silliness.

Unfortunately, we did get involved and we did incur the wrath of nations by doing so. The question now is how to address the current situation. On the one hand, we have the warhawks who want to deploy more troops with the aim of quelling what amounts to a cultural ideal, which is going to be difficult, if not impossible. On the other, we have peace adovcates who want to reconcile our differences with Islamic nations, which is also difficult, if not impossible, given the strict moral code that defines Islamic law.

As much as I hate many of his domestic policies, I think Obama is on the right track with international diplomacy. He is trying to portray the US as a neutral entity, one that is ready and willing to establish peace with any nation that desires it. I don't entirely agree with his methodology because I think it could be done in a better fashion, but again, I think he is on the right track.

Ideally, I'd like to see him divert Islam's attention away from the US and onto Europe, but that's almost another discussion entirely.

@Lance: By the way, I don't know how long it takes you to write these posts, but I think most of them are really well composed.

Thanks, Shearwater. That means a lot coming from you.

As for the time it takes to write my posts, I can only say that it varies.

[NeonSamurai]

Ok there is a lot that you wrote that I must take issue with Lance



If the US hadn't been so determined to intervene in the affairs of Europe and the Middle East during and after WW2, there would be no conflict with the jihadists. They would have no reason, even in their bizarre mindset, to target the US, at least for the forseeable future.

If the US had not entered WW2 (assuming of course Japan had not attacked). I don't want to imagine what would have happened. Germany probably would have won in the end due to many reasons (their manufacturing would have been more intact due to the lack of constant US bombing raids, they probably would have succeed in starving out England, and they would have had far more resources to conquer Russia). If Nazi Germany had won they would have finished the final solution and murdered all the Jews in Europe and the middle east, then moved on to wiping out all the Baltic and other 'inferior' races. They would have also gained the nuclear bomb before anyone else (they were very close at the end of the war, there was even some evidence that they did have an early working prototype).

Second the US got involved in the middle east after the war primarily for its own selfish interests (principally oil). Furthermore the jihadists still would have had plenty of reason to target the US for it's, in their view, corrupt and immoral ways, not to mention being infidels etc. I can cite many examples of attacks by Islamic people, on countries and peoples which have had nothing to do with the middle east or Islam other then to refuse to convert. I could expand further on this but I'll leave it for now

But no, we had to go and help the British erase a 2,500 year-old Muslim nation to establish and sustain a homeland for the Jews, the ancestral enemies of the Muslims. No wonder the Muslims are pissed at us.Ok... what 2,500 year old Muslim nation exactly? Islam hasn't been around that long (Islam is about 1600 years old). Second the Jewish people have a much older claim to the land (going back at least 4000 years from archeological evidence), and were there well before the desert tribes (which became Muslim) came to the area. They also never left; there has always been a strong Jewish presence in the region of Israel/Judea, in spite of all the massacres and invasions, and repeated enslavement. Third the US and Britain governments did nothing to create the state of Israel, in fact they did their best to prevent it happening, and tried to stop it when it did. The Jewish people created Israel themselves, which was not very surprising after what was done to them during world war 2 (aside from the rest of history). The US and Britain only very grudgingly recognized Israel as a state after many years of war between the Jewish people and surrounding Muslim countries (which by the way happily increased their own borders from the aftermath). Palestine was never a country, or an identifiable people, Its borders, name, and existence were created by the British when they partitioned off the middle east I believe after WW1. Finally it's the Christians who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims. The crusades, the inquisition, etc, along with the colonization of the middle east by France and Britain, makes it so. It was the crusades that spawned the Muslim concept of Jihad.

IMHO, we would have been better served by leaving Europe and the Middle East to their own devices. If they want to fight to establish political hegemonies and screw around, let them. The US can only stand to benefit from their silliness. I don't ever see this changing unless the US looses its dependence on oil. Oil is the key reason the US involves itself with the middle east. It is also a key reason why the US supports Israel (aside from the Christian and Jewish lobby groups), as they want a solid base from which they can operate from if needed.

Unfortunately, we did get involved and we did incur the wrath of nations by doing so. The question now is how to address the current situation. On the one hand, we have the warhawks who want to deploy more troops with the aim of quelling what amounts to a cultural ideal, which is going to be difficult, if not impossible. On the other, we have peace adovcates who want to reconcile our differences with Islamic nations, which is also difficult, if not impossible, given the strict moral code that defines Islamic law.

As much as I hate many of his domestic policies, I think Obama is on the right track with international diplomacy. He is trying to portray the US as a neutral entity, one that is ready and willing to establish peace with any nation that desires it. I don't entirely agree with his methodology because I think it could be done in a better fashion, but again, I think he is on the right track.No real comment here, other then the US stuck its nose into things (like the first gulf war) mainly for its own interests. The United States rarely gets involved in things unless it (or the power people behind it) has a stake in things, can gain financially from it, or it is forced to.

Ideally, I'd like to see him divert Islam's attention away from the US and onto Europe, but that's almost another discussion entirely.I don't see why Europe should bear the brunt of it frankly. The US is plenty responsible for its own situation and have done plenty on its own to tick off the Muslim population aside from supporting Israel. 'Radical' Islam would still hate the US even if it did nothing, just as it hates Canada which has done far less then the US.

I really only skimmed the surface with this, as the whole thing is rather large and complicated.


I was going to write something rather long here about Jewish people and Israel: why it should exist, it's right to exist, about Jewish history, the holocaust and other similar events which have happened to them through out time, and anti-semitism. Also about why certain large primarily fundamentalist christian groups particularly in the US support Israel. But I don't have the energy to launch into it right now. Perhaps later on I will.

[onelifecrisis]

If the US had not entered WW2 (assuming of course Japan had not attacked). I don't want to imagine what would have happened. Germany probably would have won in the end due to many reasons (their manufacturing would have been more intact due to the lack of constant US bombing raids, they probably would have succeed in starving out England, and they would have had far more resources to conquer Russia). If Nazi Germany had won they would have finished the final solution and murdered all the Jews in Europe and the middle east, then moved on to wiping out all the Baltic and other 'inferior' races. They would have also gained the nuclear bomb before anyone else (they were very close at the end of the war, there was even some evidence that they did have an early working prototype).

I think that's rather unlikely. A more likely end result would have been Europe conquered by Russia.

The vast majority of German forces in WW2 were defeated by Russia long before the US took part in the invasion of Normandy, in which the US sent a relatively small force (in comparison to the number that had already fought and died in Europe and Russia) to join other relatively small forces gathered by the Allied nations, resulting in one medium sized force which invaded Normandy and basically mopped up what was left of the German forces there. I'm not saying it was easy for the western allies to do that, but I reckon it was a picnic compared to what the Russians had already gone through. I think it likely that without our mopping up exercise Russia would still have eventually beaten Germany without any assistance from us, and then they would probably have claimed Europe as their own.

As for the point you make about the US getting "dragged in" to foreign affairs by Europe... I suspect you've swallowed the US government's marketing a little too easily, but I lack the knowledge to back up that opinion with facts. What I will say is that most people learn at an early age that pointing a finger at someone else and saying "he made me do it" does not rid a person (or a nation) of responsibility for their actions.

[August]

The vast majority of German forces in WW2 were defeated by Russia long before the US took part in the invasion of Normandy, in which the US sent a relatively small force (in comparison to the number that had already fought and died in Europe and Russia) to join other relatively small forces gathered by the Allied nations, resulting in one medium sized force which invaded Normandy and basically mopped up what was left of the German forces there.

You're forgetting that the US also fought in North Africa, Sicily, Salerno and up the boot of Italy long before the Normandy landings. You're also forgetting the huge air war over Germany and occupied Europe. I don't recall hearing about thousand plane SOVIET bombing missions against the nazi industry.

AND lets not forget that while all this was going on the US was also involved in a titanic struggle in the Pacific against the Japanese.

Speaking of the Japanese. How well do you think Russia would have done if it had to fight them at the same time as Germany? A definite possibility if the US had never entered the war.

Stalingrad, considered by many to be the turning point in the European war, was finally won because the Soviets were able to strip their troops from the east and use them as reinforcements in the west. Without them the 6th Army might well have been victorious.

We can debate levels of contribution all day but bottom line here is that it was an ALLIED victory in WW2. Without any part the Axis just might have won.

[Letum]

Speaking of the Japanese. How well do you think Russia would have done if it had to fight them at the same time as Germany? A definite possibility if the US had never entered the war.

If their performance in '45 is anything to go by; they would have
done well.
The Russian army took a slice of Japanese territory larger than
Germany, France and Spain combined in less than a month.
This wasn't a result of chucking huge force in the area either. The
majority of the soviet army remained in Europe.
Neither was it a result of the Japanese not expecting the attack.

The incredible speed of advance may not have been matched before
the fall of Germany, but they certainly would not have been on the
defensive.

Japan and mobile land warfare just wern't compatible.


it was an ALLIED victory in WW2. Without any part the Axis just might have won.

I think we might have managed without the French.

[onelifecrisis]

You're forgetting that the US also fought in North Africa, Sicily, Salerno and up the boot of Italy long before the Normandy landings. You're also forgetting the huge air war over Germany and occupied Europe. I don't recall hearing about thousand plane SOVIET bombing missions against the nazi industry.

No I'm not; it all adds up to a tiny fraction of the war between Germany and Russia. Kid yourself if you like but the facts speak for themselves: the US and all other western allies were bit players in the war against Germany.

AND lets not forget that while all this was going on the US was also involved in a titanic struggle in the Pacific against the Japanese.

Speaking of the Japanese. How well do you think Russia would have done if it had to fight them at the same time as Germany? A definite possibility if the US had never entered the war.

Stalingrad, considered by many to be the turning point in the European war, was finally won because the Soviets were able to strip their troops from the east and use them as reinforcements in the west. Without them the 6th Army might well have been victorious.

We can debate levels of contribution all day but bottom line here is that it was an ALLIED victory in WW2. Without any part the Axis just might have won.

Fair points, although I think that describing the US vs Japan war as "titanic" might be a bit of an exaggeration from a certain perspective. Germany was the primary threat, and Russia was their primary foil. Those two nations lost each more lives in one battle than the US lost in the entire war. Your struggle against Japan was difficult and valiant but not, I think, the most significant victory. That belongs to Russia.

[Letum]

Kid yourself if you like but the facts speak for themselves: the US and all other western allies were bit players in the war against Germany.

Ahh, now that's not quite true.

It may appear that way if you look at the UK/US/Commonwealth
contribution compared to the Russian contribution, but I think you get a
better picture if you look at the volume of resources the Germans sent
to each front.
Russia is clearly still the main ingredient in the soup, but the other
fronts are far, far from 'bit parts'.

I think you might be overstating your point a little.

[onelifecrisis]

Ahh, now that's not quite true.

It may appear that way if you look at the UK/US/Commonwealth
contribution compared to the Russian contribution, but I think you get a
better picture if you look at the volume of resources the Germans sent
to each front.
Russia is clearly still the main ingredient in the soup, but the other
fronts are far, far from 'bit parts'.

That's news to me. Got a link to anywhere that talks about the "volumes of resources" (bit of a vague term :O:) or did you read it in a book?

[onelifecrisis]

You post editor you...

I think you might be overstating your point a little.

Me? Never.

[Letum]

I read a piece on the spending difference, but I can't remember if it was
in a book or on the net.
I'll have a look for a good source tomorrow.

The casualty split for German was roughly ~80/20% East/West, but it is
arguable that the West was more industrially intensive for the Germans.
things like the air war, submarine campaign and V-weapons don't show
up well on casualty figures.

The casualty rate alone should be enough not to discount the West as
a 'bit player'.


Ed:
Perhaps 35-45% (wild guess) of the force in the west was American.
Would an extra 5-15% have swung things in Germany's favor in the East?

pfft! Dammed if I know!

[CaptainHaplo]

Bit players.... thats funny.

Without those "bit players" devastating the industrial heart of Germany, ruining its strategic ability to produce war machines, the Soviets would not have had the success they had in the West late in the war.

The air war in Europe, as it played out, tore the warmaking ability out of the Reich's hands. Not something Russia could have done, since it could not reach the industrial regions. Had the peace that Hitler repeatedly offered to those same "bit players" been accepted, Russia would have been facing a foe much larger, much better equipped, and much more fight worthy.

Stalingrad happened because the German army was overextended and unable to press forward properly. The relieving army failed to breakthrough and reopen supply lines. 500 additional fighters and bombers, along with another field army of panzers and infantry added in to the rescue force would have easily done so, and stalingrad would not have been a German defeat. But Germany didn't have those resources, because its industrial might was reduced to rubble.

In the end, the Germans and Russians would have ended up at a standstill, neither able to hit the others industrial heart, and reduced to a more modern version of trench warfare, trading lives for no real gain.

As for a Japanese-Russian conflict, that had happened repeatedly and most of those times the Russians lost. However, in all fairness, it was Khalkhin-Gol that kept Japan from targetting Russia when Germany invaded them. Had Japan done so, Russia would not have been able to concentrate on one front, as they did. They also would not have had the benenfit of Zukov on both front.....

Germany proved that its troops and people were as tough as the Soviets. Had they had the equipment and supplies, the Germanic-Russo conflict would have had a drastic different outcome, and for that you can thank those "bit players".

[Freiwillige]

I have read that 70% of Germany's ground forces were in the east. But by mid 44' the majority of the Luftwaffe fighter force was in the west or Germany proper.

I think that with how close a struggle it was in the East 30% could do allot...but nobody would ever know if it would be enough. There are Historians who debate that Germany could have still won with its forces had it used better planning and the high command had sure war aims instead of constantly changing its goals for example Making Moscow the main goal and then stripping forces then making Moscow the main goal again.

[onelifecrisis]

I read a piece on the spending difference, but I can't remember if it was
in a book or on the net.
I'll have a look for a good source tomorrow.

The casualty split for German was roughly ~80/20% East/West, but it is
arguable that the West was more industrially intensive for the Germans.
things like the air war, submarine campaign and V-weapons don't show
up well on casualty figures.

The casualty rate alone should be enough not to discount the West as
a 'bit player'.


Ed:
Perhaps 35-45% (wild guess) of the force in the west was American.
Would an extra 5-15% have swung things in Germany's favor in the East?

pfft! Dammed if I know!

My reasoning wasn't based soley on casualties. I read (a long time ago, can't remember where) figures on tanks, planes... admittedly there were no figures on ships/subs that I can remember, but the land (and air) war in Russia dwarfed the rest by any measurement.

Anyway (and this is in response to Haplo as well) I'm not saying the other allies didn't contribute, I'm just putting things in perspective. When the superhero of the story gets a helping hand from his trusty sidekick, you don't see the damsel swooning over the sidekick after the day has been saved.

Edit:
As for the theoretical Germany vs Russia conflict, who can say? I still don't think Germany could have taken Russia. One may talk about resources and manufacturing and those things certainly matter a great deal, but they're also the "western" way of looking at things I think. Russia was already at a severe disadvantage to Germany in terms of tech and resource, but she made up for it with sheer bloody-mindedness.

[Tribesman]

Stalingrad happened because the German army was overextended and unable to press forward properly. The relieving army failed to breakthrough and reopen supply lines. 500 additional fighters and bombers, along with another field army of panzers and infantry added in to the rescue force would have easily done so, and stalingrad would not have been a German defeat. But Germany didn't have those resources, because its industrial might was reduced to rubble.

While it would be true for later in the war it wasn't at the time of Stalingrad, Britains bombing effectiveness was still developing at that time and Americas bombers didn't really strike industrial targets in Germany until a week before Stalingrad surrendered.
You are right though that the air war by the western allies did mean that germany had to allocate lots of aircraft, artillery, men and supplies to defending the home front that they could have done with on the fighting front.(I think it turned out that 70% of the Luftwaffe was just used for home defence)

[August]

If their performance in '45 is anything to go by; they would have
done well.
The Russian army took a slice of Japanese territory larger than
Germany, France and Spain combined in less than a month.
This wasn't a result of chucking huge force in the area either. The
majority of the soviet army remained in Europe.
Neither was it a result of the Japanese not expecting the attack.

The incredible speed of advance may not have been matched before
the fall of Germany, but they certainly would not have been on the
defensive.

Japan and mobile land warfare just wern't compatible.

I don't think it's valid to use a 1945 campaign as an indication of how an early war campaign would go.

In 1945 the Red Army was at the peak of it's ww2 military power in experience, equipment, and organization, whereas the Imperial Army in Manchuria had withered on the vine for almost half a decade. Any troops go soft just sitting around and the Japanese are no exception.

In 1940 it was a different story. The Japanese still had the military edge from their years fighting in Korea and China, their troops were veterans, their officer corps experienced and confident, their supply lines intact and their industry already on a war footing. The Red Army on the other hand was completely green, ill equipped and still recovering from the purges to their officer corps. Their industry and their fuel production on a peacetime footing.

Also, no US means no US assistance. No tankers and freighters full of war material making the Murmansk run. Once the Germans overrun the Caucasus the Russians are no more mobile than the Japanese. With the east under attack their factories and shops have nowhere to pull back to. I don't think it's unreasonable to figure they'd fold under the pressure of a two front war.

[August]

No I'm not; it all adds up to a tiny fraction of the war between Germany and Russia. Kid yourself if you like but the facts speak for themselves: the US and all other western allies were bit players in the war against Germany.

We'll have to agree to disagree. IMO Russia without the western allies looses against the Germans even without Japan providing a second front. With it they just loose faster.

In fact I'd say that of all the WW2 allies it was the US who had the only realistic chance to beat the Germans, or more accurately, not be beaten by the Germans and that's mainly because of the difficulty inherent to mounting an invasion from across a 3000 mile ocean while still occupying their conquered territories in Europe and North Africa.

[onelifecrisis]

August, either you've misunderstood me or you've twisted my words. I didn't say Russia would still win if you take out ALL the other allies, I said Russia would still win if you leave the US out of the equation. I thought you understood that, given your posts mentioned only US operations.

[Skybird]

From Islam in Britain to "what if" scenarios in WWII - this is only possible in GT! :DL

[Platapus]

We just need posts about Obama, Bush, 911 7/7 and we can make a complete circle. :salute:

[August]

August, either you've misunderstood me or you've twisted my words. I didn't say Russia would still win if you take out ALL the other allies, I said Russia would still win if you leave the US out of the equation. I thought you understood that, given your posts mentioned only US operations.

Well ok but actually I think you've misunderstood me.

Yes I say that even without just the US only the Germans would still have won. Where I think we get into misunderstanding is that I also say that without the just the UK the Germans would have won too, just like without just Russia the Germans would have won.

WW2 was an allied effort and to attempt to single out one ally or another as being singlehandedly responsible for victory does a disservice to all. FWIW I don't believe that was your intention.

[onelifecrisis]

Well ok but actually I think you've misunderstood me.

Yes I say that even without just the US only the Germans would still have won. Where I think we get into misunderstanding is that I also say that without the just the UK the Germans would have won too, just like without just Russia the Germans would have won.

WW2 was an allied effort and to attempt to single out one ally or another as being singlehandedly responsible for victory does a disservice to all. FWIW I don't believe that was your intention.

Oh, okay, then yes we can agree to disagree.

One thing I will point out, just to be clear, is that either way (German/Russian victory) Europe would IMO be a worse place today if the US had not entered the war.

[August]

Oh, okay, then yes we can agree to disagree.

One thing I will point out, just to be clear, is that either way (German/Russian victory) Europe would IMO be a worse place today if the US had not entered the war.

As the far east would have been if the Commonwealth hadn't stood by our side against the Japanese.

[onelifecrisis]

As the far east would have been if the Commonwealth hadn't stood by our side against the Japanese.

Haha... I'm not sure whether to say "aww shucks" or "touche" ;)

[August]

Haha... I'm not sure whether to say "aww shucks" or "touche" ;)

Just returning the salute so to speak. America and Britain are allies for a reason.

[onelifecrisis]

Oh crap...
With the discussion seemingly over, for now, I just re-read the thread to see how much of a prat I had been this time, and realised I got NeonSamurai confused with someone else. Sorry Neon. We really need more personalised avatars on this forum. :oops:

[Letum]

I don't think it's valid to use a 1945 campaign as an indication of how an early war campaign would go.

In 1945 the Red Army was at the peak of...



I wasn't!
I was thinking more mid '44.
Why would Russia attack in 1940?
The Japanese certainly could not.

The Japanese where no threat. Until, and even after, '42 they where
still having trouble in Western China against Chinese resistance that
still held plenty of territory.
This was a Chinese army with hardly a field gun or tank to speak of.

If Japan did try to attack Russia in '42, they would face a 4000+ mile
supply run across the Himalayan Foot hills, the Gobi Desert or
Siberia.
When they did get the the Russian industrial land, East of the Urals, it
would be a joke for the Russians.

[clive bradbury]

To bring things back on track, and to answer Neal's initial question:

'Isn't this treason? Why don't the British just kill these guys?'

Because in the UK at least, we can still recognise a numpty when we see one.

[Skybird]

Clive,

just because I see you being online and haven't seen you since long - have you gotten my apology from some months ago: for me having messed up that old second chess match of ours? It's still a sting in my soul that I left you stranded due to my own fault and thoughtlessness.

Please see the very last post here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141556

[Dimitrius07]

Oh my.. Same old news over and over and over again. Islamic madness agains the entire world.

[Dimitrius07]

0.26-0.33 :haha::har::har::har:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Ok there is a lot that you wrote that I must take issue with Lance
That's cool. Many people have many issues with things I say about weighty topics like this. There are many instances where I do not embrace the generally accepted perspective, and I have good reasons for doing so, though they often take a good deal of explaining by virtue of the fact that they are not the generally accepted perspective.
Please allow me to apologize for the inconvenience I have caused you by prompting your excellent and thorough response - as well as the great deal of reading you are about to have to do, should you so choose. My sympathies in advance to your mousewheel.
----------------
What I am about to say is intended to prompt you to rethink your views concerning the history of US interventionist policy, or at least challenge them.
If the US had not entered WW2 (assuming of course Japan had not attacked)
And why did Japan attack? Was it because of some kind of indoctrinated distrust of the US? Was it because of a credible threat to the Phillipenes, which the Japanese stated in numerous diplomatic communiques that they would not attack? Was it because the Japanese desired Axis domination of the world?

As I'm sure you've guessed, the answer is "none of the above". Japan went to war with the US because of the strict diplomatic stance that the US adopted.

FDR, a self-proclaimed anglophile, wanted to get into WW2. His "New Deal" had done little for the US economy, which remained in decline until (1943,IIRC) the mid-forties. The former is evidenced by his shameless adoption of the lend-lease policy in the face of congressional and popular opposition.

Moreover, FDR was a person of the worst character. He attempted to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, with the intent of establishing a means of circumventing the seperations of powers established in the US constitution. He was a potential dictator in every sense of the word, no different than Hitler or Stalin in that he desired to eliminate freedom to further his own agenda. Fortunately, his own political party helped block his initiative, and the Supreme Court was left alone - a victory for self-determination. FDR was far from finished, though.

From 1939 to 1941 he encouraged a series of diplomatic initiatives aimed at getting Japan to declare war on the US, presumably with the intent of getting the US into a war with Germany. These intiatives had one overriding purpose; To pick a fight with Japan. No matter what concessions the Japanese made, the US consulate rejected them.
We are both educated people, NS. We both know Japan wouldn't have declared war upon the US unless there was no percieved alternative.
What would Japan stand to gain? What would it stand to lose? The military and political leaders of Japan were wrong about many things, but they were not idiots. Faced with the perceived inevatibility of conflict with the US, Japan did the only rational thing; It launched a surprise attack in order to gain initiative- a gamble which ultimately failed.
--------------------------------------------
Now, let us move on to the European front.

There was absolutely no reason for the US to assist England in her struggle, mostly because the US populace was rightly dissatisfied with the outcome of the Great War and the Versailles Treaty.

If you would like, we can discuss the causes of WW1 in great detail, but I am certain that we will both arrive at the same conclusion; WW1 was both uneccesary and foolish, a conflict brought about by the whims of men who were given virtual fiat power over the destinies of their nations.
The results of WW1 speak for themselves. Millions of people on both sides sacrificed for the purpose of shifting millions of other people from one form of fiat, imperialistic control to another. Pure insanity, if you ask me.

US involvement in WW1 turned what would have been a German victory into a political quaqmire wherein nations not responsible for the Allied victory squabbled endlessly over fiscal and territorial concessions. President's Wilson's ideal of a League of Nations was torn apart in favor of exacting concessions from Germany, a power which had been "winning the war" in every sense of the term until the US got involved.

The Versailles treaty tore nations apart, and assembled nations which never should have existed. Iraq was born by cartographers who lumped Jews, Kurds, and Shiite and Sunni Muslims into one geographical area for the sake of expedience. The result should have been predictable.
Czecheslovakia was made with the intention of creating a French ally, and instead resulted in the predictable disharmony of Czechs and Slovaks, who hate each other. Yugoslavia was ostensibly created with the same intent as Czecheslovakia, and it yielded similarly favorable results.
I could go on and on about the harms of the Versailles treaty and the US war involvement that allowed it, but I'll rest my case here.

I don't want to imagine what would have happened. Germany probably would have won in the end due to many reasons (their manufacturing would have been more intact due to the lack of constant US bombing raids, they probably would have succeed in starving out England, and they would have had far more resources to conquer Russia). If Nazi Germany had won they would have finished the final solution and murdered all the Jews in Europe and the middle east, then moved on to wiping out all the Baltic and other 'inferior' races. They would have also gained the nuclear bomb before anyone else (they were very close at the end of the war, there was even some evidence that they did have an early working prototype).

I've already posited the argument for US non-involvement in WW1, which would have precluded WW2, but let's take this as a seperate argument.
The first assumption I would like to challenge is that Germany would have won the war against the Soviet Union had it not been for US involvement. This is a false assumption.
Hitler doomed Germany to defeat the very instant that he diverted army groups north and south towards Leningrad and Stalingrad, respectively.
His fallacy violated the extremely successful concept of Schwerpunkt (Literally "Spearpoint",the application of superior force upon a concentrated area) , and he undid the success of German tactics in a matter of months.
For clarification, please note that the capture of Moscow would have been decisive. Moscow was the center of Russian logistics because it was the major rail hub in all of Russia. If railroad logistics had been cut, it would have spelled the end for the Soviet Union. There was simply no other way to transport the tremendous amounts of supplies and manpower needed by the Red Army, or any other modern-ish army for that matter.

Hitler sought to prevent the mistakes of Napoleon by destroying the Russian Army in the field, rather than by taking Moscow. Ironically, his strategy backfired because like Napoleon he did not understand his enemy. Germany literally came within sight of winning WW2, but Hitler botched the attack on Moscow by diverting Army Groups North and South. He also delayed Operation Barbarossa by several months by supporting Mussolini's attack on the Balakans and enforcing the "Pact of Steel" by invading the politically unstable state of Yugoslavia. The result was that the Germans were unable to capture Moscow before a brutal winter set in. The Soviets used the time afforded them to move their industry east and muster something around 40 Siberian divisions to the German front, sealing Germany's fate.

From that point onwards, there was no way that Germany's superior tactics and soldiers could have won out against Soviet numbers. For every tank that Germany produced, the Soviet Union produced five. For every soldier that Germany produced, the Soviet Union produced ten. I'm generalizing, but the point is quite valid. One of the drawbacks of using a comparitively small and elite force of soldiers to win a war is that mistakes are very costly. Hitler made too many mistakes. He didn't properly utilize the Wehrmacht's strengths and it cost him the war.

There was no way that Germany could have won the war against the Soviet Union, whether or not the US was involved. At the time of the Normandy invasion, 98% of the Wehrmacht proper (which had been dilluted by an influx of Luftwaffe troops and new recruits) was on the Eastern Front. Most of the troops in France were conscripts drawn from France, Romania, Bulgaria, and even Russia. These troops were substandard, lacking even basic Wehrmacht training, but they held the greatest amphibious invasion force ever assembled for quite some time - several months, in fact. Even then, the Western Allied forces took months to achieve the territorial gains that the Soviets had achieved in weeks.
The sheer numbers of Soviet forces guaranteed victory, and the pitiful contributions of substandard US equipment like the P39 AeroCobra or the obsolescent Stuart tank made little difference.

Finally, I'd like to address the argument that US strategic bombing somehow impeded German production enough to allow the Soviets to win. That argument is based on the false assumption that strategic bombing was effective at its' intended task: destroying German war industry.
German industrial planners utilized a system of de-centralized production to counter inevitable bombings. This was a tremendous leap in military-industrial reasoning. At the outset of WW2 there was still enormous regard for the theory that bombers could win a war, and the Germans had the foresight to counter that theory.

The idea was that sufficient numbers of bombers with high-power engines could outrun and out....altitude...(I'll make up words when I see fit, thank you:DL) interceptors. This logic was based upon combat performance of "interceptors" in WW1, which were not particularly successful in destroying bombers, all things considered.

Notwithstanding the fact that there were precisely zero purpose-built interception aircraft produced or designed in WW1, the theory is ridiculous. The number of bombers and aerial ordnance it would take to literally bomb a strong-willed nation into military submission is virtually incalculable, especially when the target nation, if devoid of capacity to counter bombing raids, takes the logical course of action and starts hiding things underground or building very thick concrete superstructures over otherwise vulnerable assets. We know this now, but at the time the theory was considered valid.

German wartime production, which was never large to begin with, actually continued to climb after strategic bombings were begun en masse by the US 8th Air Force in in 42'. It only declined when production facilities were overrun or cut off by troops on the ground - very late in the war.
Strategic bombers made a very impressive-looking mess of German towns and cities, and the media reported as much, but the truth is that they did very little to impede German war production when compared to ground forces that physically occupied positions.
-------------------
As for imagining the consequences of US non-intervention, I'll admit that some of Europe was spared Communist rule due to the presence of US forces. Given Stalin's blatant disregard for the terms agreed upon at the Yalta conference, I have little doubt that he would have just rolled on through Europe, but that is only part of the argument.

What fate did those under Stalin's rule suffer? How did it differ from the fate of those under Hilter's rule? Wartime casualties aside, Stalin- to say nothing of the Soviet regime- murdered far more people than Hitler ever did. At least Hitler had the decency to limit his mad "cleansing" to a few particular sectors of the popualace (not just Jews, although many people tend to forget the other millons of victims:nope:), and the residents of the concentration camps had relatively brief and merciful lives compared to those left to rot, starve, or die of exposure and overwork over a period of many years like those sentenced to the Gulags and the Lubyanka. It's a morbid truth, but truth nonetheless.

My thoughts are that the systematic elmination of people is not much different than the systematic elimination of a people. I suppose the argument could be made that the latter is more evil than the former, but in my mind there is no difference. People are people, and murdering them is wrong. In cases like the Hitler vs Stalin debate, I find Stalin more evil.
The horrors of the holocaust are nothing to be taken lightly or set aside, but ask the families of the more numerous victims of Soviet pogroms or NKVD or KGB purges if the fate of their loved ones was any less horrible.
Is it worse to be branded with a star and led to your inevitable death in a gas chamber or to be snatched from your home in the middle of the night for no apparent reason and led to your inevitable death? I see little difference between the two, other than that the latter breeds more fear and misery because it is so indiscriminate.
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are also other harms you have not taken into account in your assessment.

Communism is, by virtue of its' very nature, International socialism. It requires worldwide conflict, or at best confrontation, to be realized.
You would think that alone would have been enough to deter allied leaders from seeking alliance with the Soviet Union -and it was, for quite a while-
but the desperate desire to preserve their interventionist policies led them to deal with the secular devil. They thought they could handle the beast, and they were quite wrong.

Soviet victory in WW2 heralded the onset of nearly half a century of misery and conflict for most of the world. To this day, some nations and their peoples struggle on and punish themselves (except for their leadership) in the pursuit of Communist ideals, mostly because the Western world allowed a Communist victory against its better judgement.

National socialism is, of course, National socialism, and in the form of the Nazi party it sought no further aim than to re-establish ancestral German lands and destroy/exploit the threat of Bolshevism. Hitler said as much in Mein Kampf. He had no intent to invade France or the Balkans, but was forced into doing so by the interventionist approaches of other nations.

I consider the Polish war guarantee to be one of history's greatest jokes, and one of its greatest evils. Two nations with no ability to defend a third- which was itself much like the nation attacking it- pledged to defend it though they had no means to do so. The whole thing was nothing more than an excuse to get into a war with Germany for no reason other than that Britain and France wanted to beat Germany down, mostly becuase they feared Germany's potential economic power.

Germany had a legitimate claim to Danzig, and the citizens of Danzig agitated for reuinification. Germany even made concessions by demanding only a small corridor of largely unused Polish territory to link it with Danzig,
but the British and French pledged to defend Poland against German military pressure, nonetheless. This would somewhat akin to Britain and France offering a war guarantee to the Soviets if the Berlin Wall was destroyed for the purposes of preventing German aggression. Not quite identical, but madness all the same.

Had Germany been allowed to lay claim to Danzig against the military dictatorship to its East, the Second World War would never have happened. The worst possible result I can conceive is that Germany, and possibly France, Britain, and Poland, not to mention a host of Eastern European nations, would have gone to war agains the Bolsheviks and crushed them. That outcome was, in fact, what Hitler detailed in Mein Kampf. As a veteran of the Great War, he stated that had no desire to see Western Europe plunged into chaos again.

I'm hesitant to base much of my belief upon sheer speculation, but I think that German rule would have been preferable to Soviet rule or the Islamic extremism resulting from the breakup of European power structure. We cannot ever know what really went on in Hitler's mind, but we can know his military means, and those means did not include a capacity for conquering the world, despite what decades of propaganda have led us to believe. In the words of Otto Krestchmer himself:(as best I can recall) "I laughed when I saw US newspapers claiming that Germany would take over the world. I thought to myself; "With what? We have nothing. Everyone knows this."

Second the US got involved in the middle east after the war primarily for its own selfish interests (principally oil). Furthermore the jihadists still would have had plenty of reason to target the US for it's, in their view, corrupt and immoral ways, not to mention being infidels etc. I can cite many examples of attacks by Islamic people, on countries and peoples which have had nothing to do with the middle east or Islam other then to refuse to convert. I could expand further on this but I'll leave it for now

Well, I certainly agree with the first point. That's what you can expect from a powerful central government, all of which are vulnerable to being co-opted by other interests.

As for Islam targetting nations that have done no harm to it, I cede that point as well. My solution is not to fight Islam but to redirect its wrath upon someone else for the time being, preferably itself, but more likely, Europe.

I don't have a long-term solution for Islamic extremism. The Muslim desire for eradicating or converting others has been around for a long time, and I haven't seen any diplomatic initiatives that would be more successful than a modern-day Reconquista or Crusade, which themselves bred lasting conflicts. My only solution is to buy time to either come up with an alternative, induce Islam to evolve somehow(greater jihad), or, failing all else, allow them to dig their own grave.

Ok... what 2,500 year old Muslim nation exactly? Islam hasn't been around that long (Islam is about 1600 years old). Second the Jewish people have a much older claim to the land (going back at least 4000 years from archeological evidence), and were there well before the desert tribes (which became Muslim) came to the area. They also never left; there has always been a strong Jewish presence in the region of Israel/Judea, in spite of all the massacres and invasions, and repeated enslavement.
I actually meant 2,500 yr old region that was predominantly Islamic, but I still dispute the Jewish claim to the land. Though Jews may have been around for most of what is now Israel's history, they were not the sovereign people. The region was home to others before they invaded and briefly occupied it for the first time, much as it was the second time.

I admit that I don't know a great deal about Israel's history. Most of my views come from Asimov's Guide to the Bible, and his history is based entirely upon evaluation of biblical texts.


Third the US and Britain governments did nothing to create the state of Israel, in fact they did their best to prevent it happening, and tried to stop it when it did. The Jewish people created Israel themselves, which was not very surprising after what was done to them during world war 2 (aside from the rest of history). The US and Britain only very grudgingly recognized Israel as a state after many years of war between the Jewish people and surrounding Muslim countries (which by the way happily increased their own borders from the aftermath).

This, however, I do know a great deal about. Israel was created in 1948 as the result of a prolonged period of conflict between Jews, Arabs, and British authorities. It was recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN less than a year later.

Though sectarian violence in the region had been present for some time, it had been kept under control by the French, and later; the British.
After WW2, the British were faced with bankruptcy, and the collapse of their Empire. It was no longer to possible to control far-flung territories like Palestine. Thus, they simply ceded control of the region to the Zionists in an attempt to gain an ally.

I can't say that I really blame them for their decision, but I can certainly blame them for their attempts (along with those of the French) to use Israel to their advantage in the Suez incident more than a decade later.

I have no doubt that British foreign policy in 1949 was much different from British foreign policy in 1919.

Palestine was never a country, or an identifiable people, Its borders, name, and existence were created by the British when they partitioned off the middle east I believe after WW1.
You are correct in the belief that Britain was responsible for the partioning of what had been the Ottoman Empire. It was also, in my view, responsible for the resultant conflicts. Just as in the Balkans, Britain redistributed peoples and borders without a thought to the consequences.

This is partially why I think it possible to redirect the wrath of Islam upon Europe.


Finally it's the Christians who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims. The crusades, the inquisition, etc, along with the colonization of the middle east by France and Britain, makes it so. It was the crusades that spawned the Muslim concept of Jihad.


No, my friend, it is the Catholics who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims, and a wise US foreign policy would make mention of this. This is another part of why I believe we can redirect Islam's wrath.

Btw, the crusades did not spawn Jihad. That word is mentioned several times in the Koran, which predates the Crusades.

I seem to recall a school of thought that equates the Crusades with modern Jihad, but I can't remember the damn word. I have a hard time remembering Arabic words because the language and script are so different from what I am used to. If you know of the term and could remind me, I'd be most grateful.

I don't ever see this changing unless the US loses its dependence on oil. Oil is the key reason the US involves itself with the middle east. It is also a key reason why the US supports Israel (aside from the Christian and Jewish lobby groups), as they want a solid base from which they can operate from if needed.

That is a very valid perspective, and I must admit that I cannot offer definitive proof to the contrary, though I support it. Part of the reason I wish for the US to avoid foreign entanglements is that there is no thin red line between state or private interests and those of the people. At what point does a war become just? I do not think that the furthering of state or corporate interests is a valid casus belli, but there is certainly an argument to be made for the welfare of the Iraqi people, especially the murdered Kurds and Shiites. I suppose it all depends upon what the value of an innocent's life is worth compared to that of a soldier.
-----------------------------------
I agree with your original premise, but I find fault in your reasoning. Israel is quite possibly the worst place that US forces could find as a base for expanding oil interests. It doesn't really offer a direct or easy route to oil-rich nations, other than by air, and it is surounded by hostile and comparitively oil-poor nations. Better and more diplomatic/economical choices lie to the east and southeast:03:

I can cetainly attest to the presence of Christian and Jewish lobby groups in determining US support for Israel. They are amongst the most vocal and well-funded groups.

No real comment here, other then the US stuck its nose into things (like the first gulf war) mainly for its own interests. The United States rarely gets involved in things unless it (or the power people behind it) has a stake in things, can gain financially from it, or it is forced to.
I don't see why Europe should bear the brunt of it frankly. The US is plenty responsible for its own situation and have done plenty on its own to tick off the Muslim population aside from supporting Israel. 'Radical' Islam would still hate the US even if it did nothing, just as it hates Canada which has done far less then the US.

I almost completely agree, and I agree that the US is screwed. We would have been far better off by not sticking our nose into things, but we did.

I've already explained my reasons for trying to shift the brunt of the conflict on to Europe, but I'll add one additional reason: Europe is a more viable target.

There. I said it. Call it Realpolitik or whatever you want, but the point is sound. There is already a lot of resentment for Islam in Europe and the US stands only to gain from the inevitable conflict. We can't be morally justified in eradicating Islam, and we can't be morally justified in supporting it, so what else is there to do? It's like WW1 and WW2 all over again, except we've had the chance to learn twice. They have issues to resolve, so let's let them fight. Why not benefit from their ancestral conflict when we can do nothing to stop it? Sooner or later they are going to learn their lesson. Europe has already learned its' lesson, and Islam as a whole is in the process of learning the lesson.

The US can only harm things with interventionist policy. We've only just begun and look at what has happened. We've only polarized Islamic sects by providing an external threat.

Peace and free trade with all nations, I say. We invite less harm that way, and we can destroy nations that harm their people through economic viability.


I really only skimmed the surface with this, as the whole thing is rather large and complicated.
I was going to write something rather long here about Jewish people and Israel: why it should exist, it's right to exist, about Jewish history, the holocaust and other similar events which have happened to them through out time, and anti-semitism. Also about why certain large primarily fundamentalist christian groups particularly in the US support Israel. But I don't have the energy to launch into it right now.

I'd be most interested in your views, should you desire to present them. You can use PM if you wish. I won't promise to agree, but I will promise to keep an open mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though we often desire the same outcome, as you mentioned before, we may not agree upon the methodology, and therein lies the function of argument.:DL We must butt heads until we arrive at a mutual conclusion, even if that conclusion is that there can be no agreement.

On a more personal note, I appreciate your respect, NS, but I must point this out:
Even if we do not always see eye to eye, you do present your arguments very well and I respect that.

Lawyers and politicians present their arguments very well, but we all hate them. ;)

Rhetoric can be very persuasive, powerful, and harmful. Most of my arguments are presented in rhetorical form. I usually have the knowledge to back them up, but not always. Like anyone else, I draw conclusions from what I have learned or been taught.

One of my few talents is rhetoric, especially verbal rhetoric. But that is no reason to respect my arguments.

[JU_88]

Pretty wild! (http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2009/11/12/robertson.london.radicals.cnn)

Isn't this treason? Why don't the British just kill these guys?
Where are all the rednecks when you need them?


I hate stuff like this.
These guys are just a bunch of idiots,
But we dont kill them for the same reason we dont kill Christian/Jewish/White supremecy extreamists (all have backward veiws and retarded Ideas such as this.)

We have freedom of speech..... remember?

The fact is there are no more islamic extremists in the uk than there are
of other types of extremist. Unless they are making bombs or buying guns. we ignore them like we ignore all stupid people.

I have met many Muslims, a couple are best friends of mine, they are just ordinarny folks trying get by in life, without hurting themselves or anyone else.
Stuff like this makes them even more furious than us - because

1) It give their relegion a bad name.
2) it makes the more ignorant Non Muslims judge all Muslims as evil conspritors
3) They also see it as scare mongering by the media - why give these morons any air time on the news? when it achives nothing other than to incite racial hatred.

a Quoted response from one of my Muslim friends when he watched the above link.

"UH If they dont like here they should piss off back home and stop whining"

I agree with him...

Here is a question that anyone with a racial or relegiouse predjudice should ask them selves:
"How many of these people do i actually know?"
Answer is most likley to be: none.
people are scared of what they dont understand.

[Skybird]

Or people are scared because they understand it all too well. ;) You seem toi imply that critical attitude towards islam must be equated with prejudice, that'S how I got oyur last paragraph. Actually, that statement is a prejudice of yours in itself - against people criticising islam.

and to answer your question, yes, I knew and knwo Muslim people. And some where like you described. Others were of the like I - and others - attack them for. Most living in the West, however, form a silent, never caring majority that is sticking to itself and isolates itself as best as it can, and that is not just my subjective imoression and personal experience, but that is data from various sociological reasearches on these matters, the latest in Germany has been published just ten days ago. All this is not a very constructive way to try integrating oneself into a new living place one has moved to.

[onelifecrisis]

You seem toi imply that critical attitude towards islam must be equated with prejudice.

Duh. Read what you just wrote. Then look up "prejudice" in the dictionary! I know English isn't your first language but still...

Most living in the West, however, form a silent, never caring majority that is sticking to itself and isolates itself as best as it can, and that is not just my subjective imoression and personal experience, but that is data from various sociological reasearches on these matters, the latest in Germany has been published just ten days ago. All this is not a very constructive way to try integrating oneself into a new living place one has moved to.

I'm sick of hearing this BS from you. I dated a Muslim girl for a year, used to 'hang out' at her mothers house and sometimes at the houses of various aunts she had. They all lived in frickin Muslimville where the generation above us all wore Saris and spoke Urdu or some sh!t... and our generation all wore jeans and t-shirts and spoke English. You should spend less time reading reports and more time in the real world with your eyes open.

[JU_88]

and to answer your question, yes, I knew and knwo Muslim people. And some where like you described. Others were of the like I - and others - attack them for. Most living in the West, however, form a silent, never caring majority that is sticking to itself and isolates itself as best as it can, and that is not just my subjective imoression and personal experience, but that is data from various sociological reasearches on these matters, the latest in Germany has been published just ten days ago. All this is not a very constructive way to try integrating oneself into a new living place one has moved to.

Sure, but the same can be said for half the imigrants in western countries.
they like to keep them selves to them selves. Why? because they want to accociate with people who have the same things in common, same veiws and beliefs etc. isnt that human nature?
Hell here we like drinking in the Pub, muslim friends will come, but they cannot drink alchahol - so its not the same for them. Granted its there choice, but they always feel more comfortable meeing in coffee shops and cafes etc.

So What do you do as a nation? In the Britain we have become a bit hypocrital in our attitudes.
On the one hand we have always said to them, "you can come here an be free to practice you beliefs & culture.
Then post 9/11 - that turns into: actually, you have to intergrate in to our society and adopt british values....

Come on... You can have it one way or the other not both.

Way too much public and media hysteria over terrorism. then we start waving out flags, like bunch of brainlwashed patriotic zombies... (little different from the terrorists themselves in my eyes)

then we start giving up civil liberties to our govenments in exchange for more security,
We Lose many poor young souls from our armed services and spend billions of $$ / £ on two wars, that have done little other increased hatred toward the West... hence increasing the chances of terrorism.

Have the terrorist won? Not exactly no...., but they sure have done a pretty damn good job in screwing us over, we are not as 'free' as we were in 2000 thats for sure...
I blame the terrorists 60% for carrying out the evil deed, but then I blame our selves 40% for our foolish reactions, we should know better, all of us.

I f**king give up on mankind sometimes I tell you.

[Skybird]

Sure, but the same can be said for half the imigrants in western countries.


No, it cannot. We have very very less problems with immigrants from non-Muslim countries. I often said that. Even those groups that have somewhat a history to form some kind on insider-only societies (Chinatowns :) ) nevertheless usually try to establish good relations and open contact to their hosting nation. eurppean immigrants are not our problem. Nothamericans are not the porblem. not Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans. Not Southamericans. In the sopecial case of Jews, they have totally sunk into our societies and molten with them again, and before the war even were the motor of blossoming in European matropoles, like Berlin.

whenever I see reports on troubles, read sociometric data about crisis in ethnic subcommunities, chances are EXTREMELY high that it involves Turks, Albanians, Pakistani, Algerians, Moroccans, Saudis.

No other immigration groups demand so noisily so wide reaching special rights and special recogntiion and claim the role of being victims of racism so readily, like muslim immigration groups. No other immigration groupos for siloated sub-cultures and parallel societies so systemtically, like uslim immigrants. no other immigration group actively and willingly refuses to integrate itself, like muslim groups often do. we have seen that even porven in reaserach statistics by university seeveral times in theb past 3-4 years. I linked I think 2 British studies showing that in the past 4 years, and just days ago the third or 4th of such a study in the past 3-4 years has been released in Germany. that is basing not on single individuals only, but on groups. the group forms the rule. The individual may present the exception from the rule - or not. ;)

and another insight that gets statistically boosted since some time: that assuming we would fund our shaking social system in europe by importing immigrants, can already be shown by numbers black on white to be a self-deception. Becasue most immigrants fromMuslim countries are not well-trained members of specialised labour branches, with educated social backgrounds in their families. Instead, most are poor, uneducated members of social low class, while Muslim managers and entrpreneurs are the total exception from the rule. Statistics show that from the social low class we allow in en masse, only very very few manage to raise in social status and education. Mayn even actively resist that. The conclusion is that all in all we do not gain wins but that it puts additional stress on our social systems that we do not select more carefully whom we let in and whom we sent back, and that the assumption the presence of unselected imigration would secure our social safety fopr our aging socieites - is an urban myth. again: most immigration from Muslim coutnries is not the social middle class or upper class, but most is lower class, poor, unedcuated, ressisting to integration, and with very very bad chnaces to ever make a social raise.

I knew some Asiens in earlier years, at university, and afterwards. Most were students, but some were immigrants from Japan and china. The contrast to Muslim immigration in general - could not be any clearer.

You should spend less time reading reports and more time in the real world with your eyes open.

You believe you know me and my information background quite well, eh? I have had my share of experiences with staying in Muslim countries, and for not just summertime holidays you know. Some of my former colleagues are social workers in Frankfurt and Berlin, I still get insider feedback from them. I have read a whole lot of literature on the issues with Islami immigrant groups, and I have had my share of private experience with Islam and Muslims in Germany as well. Some experiences were pleasant if I met the right indioviudual. Most were not. The death threats I received in written mail two years ago probbaly were the most unpleasant of them all.

You you dated a girl and met her family for one year. I don't know how often somebody todl me ont his board that he knows that guy living in the room at the end of the floor and that is usually os very kind. Sorry dude, I think my persective exceeds yours by far. ;)

I think you people always thinking and assuming just the best about Islamic ideology withouit ever having studied it in detail, and assuming any motives of immigrants to be only the most noble, really have tunnel-eyed views in order to exclude any perspective AND FACT that does not match your desired peace-no-matter-the-cost attitude. and when this leads as far that even the findings of sociological research gets refused for illustrating not the truth that you want to see proven, then it really becomes absurd.

In the end, you will get the messy outcome that you wanted, and deserve.

[onelifecrisis]

You believe you know me and my information background quite well, eh?

That's a pretty ironic statement, given what you went on to post later. But first...

I have had my share of experiences with staying in Muslim countries, and for not just summertime holidays you know. Some of my former colleagues are social workers in Frankfurt and Berlin, I still get insider feedback from them. I have read a whole lot of literature on the issues with Islami immigrant groups, and I have had my share of private experience with Islam and Muslims in Germany as well. Some experiences were pleasant if I met the right indioviudual. Most were not. The death threats I received in written mail two years ago probbaly were the most unpleasant of them all.

My words clearly fell on deaf ears. What do the Muslims in Muslim countries have to do with the secularisation of Muslims in western countries?

"Inside information" from your friends in Frankfurt and Berlin? Books on ideology? You just don't get it do you?

I am at least glad to hear you can look past your own BS long enough to form friendships with some Muslim people. As for the death threats... wow. Out of all the Muslims I know and have known in my life, I've never once received a death threat, nor has anyone I know for that matter. Interesting that you have.

You you dated a girl and met her family for one year. I don't know how often somebody todl me ont his board that he knows that guy living in the room at the end of the floor and that is usually os very kind. Sorry dude, I think my persective exceeds yours by far. ;)

Yer... nice try, but I'm not biting that one.

I think you people...

Classic!

...always thinking and assuming just the best about Islamic ideology withouit ever having studied it in detail, and assuming any motives of immigrants to be only the most noble, really have tunnel-eyed views in order to exclude any perspective AND FACT that does not match your desired peace-no-matter-the-cost attitude. and when this leads as far that even the findings of sociological research gets refused for illustrating not the truth that you want to see proven, then it really becomes absurd.

You pulled that whole paragraph right out of your arse. It demonstrates only one thing: that you have pigeonholed my comments based on your perception of me as a person, probably without so much as a second thought. Presumably you will now go back to preaching your anti-Islam BS, as unaware as ever of your striking resemblance to the extremists you find so concerning?

I wonder, if I found enough reports and case studies saying that reports and case studies and heresay and books on ideology are no substitute for actual experiences... would it make any difference?

[JU_88]

@ Skybird Ill stick to what and who I know, I do not have the energy to dicuss it any further tbh.
It just pisses me off when people feel the need to stick labels and hold groups responsible for the actions of a few ******* inderviduals, to me that is a retarded and ignorant way of thinking.
That is all.

[Skybird]

My words clearly fell on deaf ears. What do the Muslims in Muslim countries have to do with the secularisation of Muslims in western countries?

Another urban myth: that Wetsern culture has the opower and infoluence to make musloims becoming althogether as secular as you claim.But that is a claim that statistics already have proven wrong. In Germany for example we find the third generation immigrants to be much more orthodox in there religious views than there parents and grandparents ever have been, further boosted by massive Turkish nationaoism and a majority of the young peoplpe not older than 25 saying they do not want to be German. nationaolism and relgious orthodoxy - good mixture. Go on dreaming abiout secularisation of islam. That only shows you have no feeling and understanding of the power inherent to the Quran's ideology. It is also just a eurocratic dream.

Europe is old, overaged, has grown weak, it's times of ruling are over, it's economy gets czhallenged, it's values get pushed back in the world and replaced by restrengthening feelings of local clture's identity and customs. How could anyone assume that this sick old man the West has become has the power and cinvincing argument to tame a vital, drastcially boosting ideology of conquest that is brimming with life and is carried by the currently very young populations in the muslim countries? and are you maybe, by chnace , familiar with the model of Gunnar Heihnsohn, being called "Youth Bulge" , saying there is a link between the average age of the male population in a society, and the expansive drive of that culture? The according book would be "Söhne und Weltmacht. Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen."

Secular islam is a contradiction in itself. To assume the West is still as convincing and shiny to make islamic ideology change itself, is absurd. statistics show that the young turn orhtodox instead of secular, and that they strongly reject integration and becoming part of their hosting nation's idedntity. that'S why they want to turn the hosting nation islamic.

and I have often had it that right this was told me right into my face, both in Germany, and other countries.


"Inside information" from your friends in Frankfurt and Berlin? Books on ideology? You just don't get it do you?

Feedback from professional social workers about their experience with having to deal with immigrants and the young fsamioy members is worth much more than a book or an official statistics. I know these guys from university times, since I studied psychology back then and had some courses in sociology as well. they stayed in that propfession, I left. If that is a problem for you, I'm sorry.

I am at least glad to hear you can look past your own BS long enough to form friendships with some Muslim people.

Lacking mouth size does not seem to be your problem. Let me give you some details on myself. I am 42, and was becoming interested in Islam short after school. Two of my four best friends from schooldays were a Christian Armenian and a Muslim Turk, both families very well integrated, and educated. My first real friendship with a comrade I experienced at the age of 5, and he was a Turkish boy and Islam yes or no did not concern our minds back then. After school I started to massively read and educate myself on islam, and inhaled a whole lot of literature about, around 30-35 books, some of which academic standard works, and this reading included the Quran and parts of the currently existing Hadith texts and secondary literature on Sharia as well as books on sociology, politology, history. Do I have all that details always avaialable on my mind? No. what I have available is the general picture from that input. Back then I had not started travelling, and when starting to read all that stuff I was a young man very similiar in opinion to you now and to many other wishful thinkers that sometimes defend Islam and talk of how misunderstood it just is. That led to conflict: I was influenced by the leftist pro-Islamic propaganda and was thinking friendly of Islam, and saw that in contradiction to most of what I read about Islam in the academic books. Even greater my confusion became when I started to visit and stay in several Islamic countries: Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Iran both having been major stations, and a short stay in Pakistani-Afghan border region. That all in all were around 15 months, and some travels were private with an Algerian buddy and another friend ( the young fools travel in disreghard of risks and fight it easy...), but I also was there for having been engaged by a Belgian-British correspondent team, for security. that was in the mid-90s, roughly. when I was back, europe felt alien, and my confusion was complete. I could not bring together my former image of Islam with what I had seen in Islamic countries, and what I had seen in ideology supremacism especially in Turkey. Iran was a bag of mixed experiences, but all in all this was the best station in my programs, I met both very orthodox, radical people, and very educated, tolerant, burgeois-like people. As an atheist I soon learned to hide that in Islamic countries, but in iran it was the smallest problem for people. This all is the reason why I am very split on Iran over the nuclear issues. I am determined not to allow them nuclear wepaons even at the cost of destroying the whole country, but I also feel that would be very tragic, becasue I hold not only bad but also good memories of that place. Somehow I like Iran. well, parts of it.

You see, my confusion resulted from my wishful thinking colliding with reality, and academic information. It took me two or three years to get that sorted out, and it cintunued with debates on this board some years ago. when I let go my wishful thiniiung, the contradictions solved themslves and all the previously "contradictive" informations fell into place. so you see, i know the thing from sides, I now how it feels to be in defense of Islam, but I also know how misled that thinking is and I know why I have come to that uncompromised confronting attitude of mine today.

All this, i admit althiugh it may sound arrogant, gives me the feeling my attitude today is a bit better reasoned than just referring to one or two close friends of mine.

As for the death threats... wow. Out of all the Muslims I know and have known in my life, I've never once received a death threat, nor has anyone I know for that matter. Interesting that you have.
Hard to say whether it was for somebody having found a way to learn my identity from internet, or because it was due to my role in a local civil movement that prevented a mosque building by betrayal at court. That I also have engaged and finally scared away Muslim infomation stands in the pedestrian zone by raising public attention with counter arguments to their candy-sweet propaganda, may have contributed to some Muslims learning to hate me. revealing is th erole of the german police. they looked at the letters and told me that I better shut up about the issue if I do not want to be interrogated by the BKA on my assumed Nazi background. Which is my fourth of five totally disappointing experiences with the German justice system. That'S why I do not put trust into it anymore.

I hate Nazis and confront them as uncompromised as I do with Islam.


You pulled that whole paragraph right out of your arse. It demonstrates only one thing: that you have pigeonholed my comments based on your perception of me as a person, probably without so much as a second thought. Presumably you will now go back to preaching your anti-Islam BS, as unaware as ever of your striking resemblance to the extremists you find so concerning?


You are such a nice cutie, have you ever been told?

Unfortunately I started to reply without having read all your reply in full first, else I would have kicked you where you belong when choosing a rude tone like this: the waste bin.

My concern is not some extremists. My concern is the islamic ideology by content, which is extreme in itself, and people like you trying to minimise that and try to rewrite it's very basics although they are existing reality throughout the Muslim world.

[CaptainHaplo]

OLC - You talk about dating a muslim girl, and how "your generation" was secularized by wearing jeans, etc, while the parents in the home are conforming to the islamic strictures of dress - and this somehow shows that muslims are not "extremists".

First of all, what you just did was exhibit the EXTREME differences in people of one religion. I don't think anyone has said that every muslim is an extremist, and I know in the past Skybird has acknowledged that fact. However, look at the sheer number of "honor killings" that have occured not only in Europe, but also in the US. These are acts of that same "older generation" upon the younger. Yet you claim that because the kids wear jeans, no one can be an extremist. I wonder if the girls whose familes have killed them for being to secular, or dating non-islamic guys thought the same way? We will never know, but if they did, we are assured they were wrong.

There are extremists in every religion. However, what you are refusing to address is that those who follow Islam are following a religion based upon the use of violence to control a society and people. A religion who clearly states its goal is world domination under its strictures, and advocates violence against those who refuse to follow its tenents.

Not every muslim is a nut job. However, when muslim societies do all they can to isolate themselves, when their is such a large theological divide between the older and younger generation - which leads to internal strife, you are going to see the older generation further insulate itself, and take refuge even further into its "fundamentalist" beliefs, creating additional problems.

The problem that you struggle with is not recognizing the danger of a muslim person because of their belief, what your failing to deal with is the danger of the belief system itself. You can not ever tell how deeply a person's faith is. Because that is the case, you must look at what they claim as their belief, and judge IT by its own statements. Only by understanding what they believe can you then begin to understand them on a personal level.

This is why there is so much political correctness - too many people don't want to know about Islam, and only want to say its "nut jobs" that do violence in the name of the religion. However, a closer study shows that Islam not only condones, but blesses such acts, so those that follow the religion must be looked at in that light, regardless of if they are "nut jobs" or not.

The more they insulate themselves, the more they do "speak out" only when a act of violence has occured, and most importantly, the more they REFUSE to weed out and eject the "extremists" in their own theology, the more they all become suspect.

[Skybird]

@ Skybird Ill stick to what and who I know, I do not have the energy to dicuss it any further tbh.
It just pisses me off when people feel the need to stick labels and hold groups responsible for the actions of a few ******* inderviduals, to me that is a retarded and ignorant way of thinking.
That is all.

Again, I am not about terroism and extremists. This we could cope with, easily. the obvious violence is not what makes us shaking. The Islamic ideology as it is praticed reality in much of the Muslim world on the basis of the Quran is radical, fundamentalist, intoerant and deeply hostile towards anything that is not itself - it is a conqueror'S ideology, using religious claims to justify it'S driven expansion. It is not the peaceful tolerant humanistic manifest that you want it to be.

THIS is the problem, and it manifestates it's consequences on all levels and in all aspects of Muslim immigration to western societies, immigration gets used as a weapon agaunst us, and you take it as a gift. My, repeatedly Muslim spokesmen, even governmental officials and leaders at the UN have said it loud and clearly that they intent to take over the West by sending immigrants and more immigrants to the West to make it structure collpasing and then being replaced with the ruling of Islam. They even tell it right to your face and smile while doing it - and you still think you know better what it is about then they do?

It's not about just some terrorists. It's about an aggressively expanding culture claiming the right to dominate in it's very basic and essential theology which it does not keep separate from politics. It's supremacism by ideology and religious content. And you mistake it with a willingness to coexistence and tolerance so that you can live on with illusions of how well you and it can communicate and that it will sooner or later gets westernised due to your "superior" and "convincing" western culture corrupting it? the Western culture is old, and weak - and that'S what makes it an inviting, ripe prey, after several attempts of military conquest in the past have failed.

[JU_88]

THIS is the problem, and it manifestates it's consequences on all levels and in all aspects of Muslim immigration to western societies, immigration gets used as a weapon agaunst us,.

You are an intelligent guy - but a deluded one if you really think some immagrants can enforce there belives on the nationals of the nation they reside in, and then what....topple the govenment?

I laugh at people who think the Islamists have the power or even the DESIRE to take over western countries.
That kind of paranoid BS only demonstrates how little someone knows about the culture.

In this world there are good people and there are @ss holes, and they can come from any creed, nation or relegion.
Simple as that.

[NeonSamurai]

Please allow me to apologize for the inconvenience I have caused you by prompting your excellent and thorough response - as well as the great deal of reading you are about to have to do, should you so choose. My sympathies in advance to your mousewheel.
No worries here, like you I do not mind reading, providing I have the time to do so :)

Also forgive me if I dice up your post a bit and don't respond to everything. I either agree, or have no real comment on it.
And why did Japan attack?...

No real argument from me, Japan attacked as it was provoked into it by the US. The US was trying to starve Japan of industrial resources, particularly oil. This is why I went with the assumption of what if Japan had not attacked, if the US had really stayed neutral.

If you would like, we can discuss the causes of WW1 in great detail, but I am certain that we will both arrive at the same conclusion

Ya pretty much my opinion as well. It was a clash of empires which in the end smashed all of them

The first assumption I would like to challenge is that Germany would have won the war against the Soviet Union had it not been for US involvement. This is a false assumption.

I am not assuming they would have won, but the odds of them winning went up significantly.

Before we get to operation Barbarossa, there are a couple of things that may have played out differently from the start of the war. For one thing if the US had remained truly neutral and not so heavily supplied Britain, Britain would have had far less war materials available during the battle of Britain. The English barely won the battle of Britain as it was, but with increased material shortages, it could have easily lost. This would have followed with operation Sealion, which would probably have been successful (the UK was in no position at that point in time to fend of an invasion). Now this would have shattered English resistance in Africa and elsewhere, which would have freed up the Africa Korps, Rommel, a large chunk of the Luftwaffle, and other frontline combat units to participate in Barbarossa.

Hitler doomed Germany to defeat the very instant that he diverted army groups north and south towards Leningrad and Stalingrad, respectively.
His fallacy violated the extremely successful concept of Schwerpunkt (Literally "Spearpoint",the application of superior force upon a concentrated area) , and he undid the success of German tactics in a matter of months.

Part of the reason to my understanding why he split his forces was to secure the oil resources to the south, which were very needed at the time. I think though if he had won against England that he would have had the forces available to achieve victory.

For clarification, please note that the capture of Moscow would have been decisive.

No argument

He also delayed Operation Barbarossa by several months by supporting Mussolini's attack on the Balakans and enforcing the "Pact of Steel" by invading the politically unstable state of Yugoslavia. The result was that the Germans were unable to capture Moscow before a brutal winter set in.

With the UK out of the picture Italy probably could have handled the Balakans on its own.

From that point onwards, there was no way that Germany's superior tactics and soldiers could have won out against Soviet numbers.

Don't forget though that the UK and then the US played an important role particularly early on in supplying Russia with war material from 41-42 onwards.

There was no way that Germany could have won the war against the Soviet Union, whether or not the US was involved.

Needless to say I don't quite agree, it depends on circumstance.

Finally, I'd like to address the argument that US strategic bombing somehow impeded German production enough to allow the Soviets to win. That argument is based on the false assumption that strategic bombing was effective at its' intended task: destroying German war industry.
German industrial planners utilized a system of de-centralized production to counter inevitable bombings. This was a tremendous leap in military-industrial reasoning. At the outset of WW2 there was still enormous regard for the theory that bombers could win a war, and the Germans had the foresight to counter that theory.

That is not exactly true to my knowledge. No the bombing campaigns of the US and UK did not make it possible for the USSR to win, but they made it a heck of a lot easier. Sure Germany tried to decentralize production and move underground as much as they could, but most of their production capacity was above ground and vulnerable. Particularly their sythetic fuel refineries. Towards the mid/end of the war Germany was facing massive fuel shortages, and a lot of this was due to the US bombing the crap out of Germany's oil reserves and oil production facilities from 42 on. This created an unrecoverable spiral as they could not get enough fuel to put enough fighters in the air to stop the bombing, while fighting on 2 fronts at the same time. That plus their war industries being constantly hit limited their ability to produce tanks and arms in sufficent numbers. That and of course all the wasted resources on the V weapons (which also wouldn't have happened if the UK was out of the picture).

The number of bombers and aerial ordnance it would take to literally bomb a strong-willed nation into military submission is virtually incalculable, especially when the target nation, if devoid of capacity to counter bombing raids, takes the logical course of action and starts hiding things underground or building very thick concrete superstructures over otherwise vulnerable assets. We know this now, but at the time the theory was considered valid.

It did work though, Germany was a heap of rubble at the end of the war, and a lot of the damage was caused by bombing, including its industries.

German wartime production, which was never large to begin with, actually continued to climb after strategic bombings were begun en masse by the US 8th Air Force in in 42'. It only declined when production facilities were overrun or cut off by troops on the ground - very late in the war.
Strategic bombers made a very impressive-looking mess of German towns and cities, and the media reported as much, but the truth is that they did very little to impede German war production when compared to ground forces that physically occupied positions.

For a European country, its production was quite high. Also the bombing did screw up German production. That is evidenced by the various shortages they were constantly facing, particularly ball bearings, and oil (as I mentioned above) which was a direct result of the strategic bombing effort. Lastly if Germany wasnt getting bombed its production would have been far higher than it was, as it would have still had its preexisting factories, and wouldn't had to have wasted so much manpower and resources constructing so many underground production facilities. Also by all accounts I have read, German industry was totally shattered by the end of the war. It took massive amounts of money and effort to rebuild them, along with the obliterated cities and towns.

As for imagining the consequences of US non-intervention, I'll admit that some of Europe was spared Communist rule due to the presence of US forces. Given Stalin's blatant disregard for the terms agreed upon at the Yalta conference, I have little doubt that he would have just rolled on through Europe, but that is only part of the argument.
yep that was certainly another posibility, especialy as D-Day probably would not have happened with out US involvement and production.

What fate did those under Stalin's rule suffer? How did it differ from the fate of those under Hilter's rule? Wartime casualties aside, Stalin- to say nothing of the Soviet regime- murdered far more people than Hitler ever did.
Ya he certainly did a lot of purges, and did plenty of horrid things himself.

At least Hitler had the decency to limit his mad "cleansing" to a few particular sectors of the popualace (not just Jews, although many people tend to forget the other millons of victims:nope:), and the residents of the concentration camps had relatively brief and merciful lives compared to those left to rot, starve, or die of exposure and overwork over a period of many years like those sentenced to the Gulags and the Lubyanka. It's a morbid truth, but truth nonetheless.
I think you need to do more reading on the Holocaust. First of all the Jews were the largest number killed by several million, followed by the gypsies and Russian POWs. This was organized slaughter and slave labor, particularly with the Jews and Gypsies. Second, millions of Jews (and other peoples) died in exactly the way you described in the slave labor concentration camps. Only in the handful of dedicated death camps was the expirence somewhat brief (if you forget all that happened to them long before you reached the death camps), and even then not for all as someone had to process all the bodies. Those that could work were not usualy killed off right away, but rather worked mostly to death and then killed off (or just worked to death). Last I would never call Hitler's actions decent in any sense of the word.

The motivations between him and Stalin were different. Stalin was in his (insane) mind getting rid of threats to his power, Hitler was exterminating/enslaving all the peoples he considered inferior. If Hitler had won and taken over the USSR, the resulting death toll would have made the number of people Stalin killed off look like a sunday picnic. He planed to murder off all the jews, gypsies, and other "sub human" races, and enslave and work to death the not quite so sub humans (russia, and the non western european countries).

My thoughts are that the systematic elmination of people is not much different than the systematic elimination of a people. I suppose the argument could be made that the latter is more evil than the former, but in my mind there is no difference. People are people, and murdering them is wrong. In cases like the Hitler vs Stalin debate, I find Stalin more evil.
The horrors of the holocaust are nothing to be taken lightly or set aside, but ask the families of the more numerous victims of Soviet pogroms or NKVD or KGB purges if the fate of their loved ones was any less horrible.
Is it worse to be branded with a star and led to your inevitable death in a gas chamber or to be snatched from your home in the middle of the night for no apparent reason and led to your inevitable death? I see little difference between the two, other than that the latter breeds more fear and misery because it is so indiscriminate.

I would argue that there is a difference, though both men were "evil" in action. Again I suggest you do a lot more reading on the holocaust as I feel your understanding, and knowledge of it is lacking. This is a subject I have read extensively about, from witness reports to archeological examinations of the sites (including one rather gruesome report where an archeological team recently took soil core samples from one of the more notorious death camps). For one thing the Jews in many countries were terrorized and worse for many years long before the final solution started. Then there are the Ghettos the Germans set up and all that happened there. Then there are the slave labor camps such as Dora and Auschwitz (Only Auschwitz-Birkenau was a death camp and even then a large chunk of it was slave labor, It also had a massive slave labor camp in addition) where millions were worked to death in the most abhorrent conditions you can dream of. Then there were the so called medical experiments and other stuff where people were tortured and died in some of the most horrific experiments imaginable. Finally there were the death camps.

The way people died in the death camps was not at all merciful, it was only designed to be efficient and easy for the guards to do. First of all the most common form of death was not poisoning (this comes from Nazi reports btw) from cyanide (zyklon b) or carbon monoxide (the most common method used), but caused by overheating/dehydration, and slow suffocation. That is because they use to pack the people into the 'showers' so tightly together that they could barely breath, and their own body heat, with lack of air would slowly kill them off. Even after the motor was started, or zyklon-b added, it could take over 20 minutes before the noise (screaming) inside the chamber would stop. There was also plenty of evidence when the chambers were opened that death was neither swift, nor painless. Peoples faces were frozen in agony, many had broken limbs, people were trampled and crushed underneath, human excrement, and blood was everywhere. This is the way it was when things were going 'smoothly'. There were many times when things would go 'wrong', such as the engine not starting, or a bad batch of zyklon-b, and death would be even slower and more agonizing still.

Stalin didn't do half of those things, mainly just slave labor and bullets to the back of the head (which is also horrible too). I also only listed a few of the things that happened in the Holocaust, which I only very lightly touched on. There was so very much more that went on.

There are also other harms you have not taken into account in your assessment.

I don't have a lot to say about this stuff. Sure it would have been really bad, yes the Stalinist regime was horrible, no question. It would however been a lot worse if the US had not been involved, and Germany had lost.

National socialism is, of course, National socialism, and in the form of the Nazi party it sought no further aim than to re-establish ancestral German lands and destroy/exploit the threat of Bolshevism. Hitler said as much in Mein Kampf. He had no intent to invade France or the Balkans, but was forced into doing so by the interventionist approaches of other nations.

I don't believe the words of a psychopath (or sociopath if you prefer). There is evidence that Hitler had planned for an eventual war with France/UK before he invaded Poland, just as he had always planned to invade Russia. He also invaded plenty of other countries which had nothing to do with the situation and had not intervened. Anyhow rule number one when dealing with psychopaths, don't believe anything they tell you, they are almost always pathological liars.

I consider the Polish war guarantee to be one of history's greatest jokes, and one of its greatest evils. Two nations with no ability to defend a third- which was itself much like the nation attacking it- pledged to defend it though they had no means to do so. The whole thing was nothing more than an excuse to get into a war with Germany for no reason other than that Britain and France wanted to beat Germany down, mostly becuase they feared Germany's potential economic power.

This is true to some degree, they certainly didn't care about what Germany was doing to a number of it's citizens, Jews or otherwise. I don't think however that France or the UK really wanted a war with Germany, they were still dealing with the costs of WW1, and their populaces did not want another war. But they felt they had to stop German aggression and expansion. They had also made many many concessions to avoid war with Germany.

Germany had a legitimate claim to Danzig, and the citizens of Danzig agitated for reuinification. Germany even made concessions by demanding only a small corridor of largely unused Polish territory to link it with Danzig, but the British and French pledged to defend Poland against German military pressure, nonetheless. This would somewhat akin to Britain and France offering a war guarantee to the Soviets if the Berlin Wall was destroyed for the purposes of preventing German aggression. Not quite identical, but madness all the same.

If I recall both countries had legitimate claims on Danzig, it depends on how far back in history you go. Poland also was well within its rights to deny Germany. France and the UK had decided to take a stand against Germany and hoped that the threat would stop Hitler. It didn't and war ensued.

Had Germany been allowed to lay claim to Danzig against the military dictatorship to its East, the Second World War would never have happened. The worst possible result I can conceive is that Germany, and possibly France, Britain, and Poland, not to mention a host of Eastern European nations, would have gone to war agains the Bolsheviks and crushed them. That outcome was, in fact, what Hitler detailed in Mein Kampf. As a veteran of the Great War, he stated that had no desire to see Western Europe plunged into chaos again.

Like I said I do not believe that, nor do I believe his stated claims in Mein Kampf. The man was with out question a psychopath, as were most of his cabinet. Even if your supposition is correct, Hitler still would have done his best to murder all the Jews and gypsies and other sub humans he could get his hands on, and everything else. War was inevitable with him as far as I am concerned.

I'm hesitant to base much of my belief upon sheer speculation, but I think that German rule would have been preferable to Soviet rule or the Islamic extremism resulting from the breakup of European power structure. We cannot ever know what really went on in Hitler's mind, but we can know his military means, and those means did not include a capacity for conquering the world, despite what decades of propaganda have led us to believe. In the words of Otto Krestchmer himself:(as best I can recall) "I laughed when I saw US newspapers claiming that Germany would take over the world. I thought to myself; "With what? We have nothing. Everyone knows this."

Personally given all that happened I think Nazi rule of Europe, the middle east and Russia, would have been much worse. As for taking over the world, no. The axis powers together did plan to take over most of the world (and had partitioned off the globe). If Germany had won the war in Europe, it probably would have eventually reached the Americas. Germany would have definitely had atomic weapons by then, and the US probably not if it had remained isolationist. Start nuking US cities and the US would probably surrender pretty quick. Plus Germany with Russia and the rest of Europe would have been able to easily out produce the US and Canada. It might have left the US and Canada alone, who can say, unless Canada insisted on continuing the war. I don't think the US would stand idly by if Axis forces decided to invade Canada.

Ironically this is the strategy I use when playing Germany in HOI2. I make nice with the US and keep them out of the war, trade with them for lots of oil and resources, take out Poland, take out France (and Netherlands/Belgium), take out the UK, Take over Russia (which is a lot harder as I have to take over most of the USSR, not just Moscow). I then usually take over Italy and the middle east, then invade Canada and Mexico, then squish the US in between. After that I can take over Africa, South America, and Asia at my leisure. With out allying with Italy or Japan.

I don't have a long-term solution for Islamic extremism. The Muslim desire for eradicating or converting others has been around for a long time, and I haven't seen any diplomatic initiatives that would be more successful than a modern-day Reconquista or Crusade, which themselves bred lasting conflicts. My only solution is to buy time to either come up with an alternative, induce Islam to evolve somehow(greater jihad), or, failing all else, allow them to dig their own grave.

I don't either, frankly I only see the problem getting worse with time. I am also concerned that it is our grave that is being dug.

I actually meant 2,500 yr old region that was predominantly Islamic, but I still dispute the Jewish claim to the land. Though Jews may have been around for most of what is now Israel's history, they were not the sovereign people. The region was home to others before they invaded and briefly occupied it for the first time, much as it was the second time.

That's not entirely correct. First of all Israel existed far longer the the US has, by many hundreds of years (some estimates are around 1000-1500+ years that Israel existed as a people/state). The region was not predominantly Islamic till long after Israel ceased to exist as a nation (it was still predominantly Jewish for several hundred years). Second, just about every country existing today has been built on taking over land from another group, North America in particular. The Jews were also the sovereign people there for a long period of time (over 1000 years). Lastly the people who claim ownership are also invaders themselves, the people now referred to as Palestinians were not native to the region, but came later after the fall of Israel. They also actively tried to drive the Jews out for a very long period of time. Out of the peoples in the territory, they have the oldest and strongest claim to the the place, as the original inhabitants no longer exist, but migrated or merged with the Jewish people. Plus if all else fails, might equals right, right? Otherwise the US (and Canada) should give all the land back to the Native Americans, which it seized by violence.

This, however, I do know a great deal about. Israel was created in 1948 as the result of a prolonged period of conflict between Jews, Arabs, and British authorities. It was recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN less than a year later.

The process started many centuries before that (since the start of the diaspora Jews have always dreamed of returning to and reforming their homeland). It really got going when Zionist Jews after what happened to them in WW2 decided that they needed a land of their own, so as to protect themselves and makes sure the Holocaust would never ever happen again. They learned that they could never again depend on their adopted country to protect them. They funded and supplied their war to take back (in their view) their homeland, which they succeeded in doing.

Though sectarian violence in the region had been present for some time, it had been kept under control by the French, and later; the British.
After WW2, the British were faced with bankruptcy, and the collapse of their Empire. It was no longer to possible to control far-flung territories like Palestine.

To save some time I am just going to reference Wikipedia. The sections I am citing are more or less correct to my knowledge, but as usual are lacking in certain details, and generaly glazing over things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
from "Early Roots" to "Independence and first years"

Thus, they simply ceded control of the region to the Zionists in an attempt to gain an ally.

They didn't have any choice in the matter, the now Israelis utterly refused anything else, and had successfully fought off the surrounding Arab countries. Also at that point Israel was hardly an ally of any of the western powers. Also put bluntly I believe many of these countries were more than happy to unload their Jews onto Israel (the US, UK, France, etc were just as anti-Semitic as Germany or Russia).

I can't say that I really blame them for their decision, but I can certainly blame them for their attempts (along with those of the French) to use Israel to their advantage in the Suez incident more than a decade later

Well that's what people and countries do to each other, they try to use and take advantage of each other as much as they can. Israel uses the west for money, weapons, and military backing, the west uses Israel for its own purposes.

You are correct in the belief that Britain was responsible for the partioning of what had been the Ottoman Empire. It was also, in my view, responsible for the resultant conflicts. Just as in the Balkans, Britain redistributed peoples and borders without a thought to the consequences.

This is partially why I think it possible to redirect the wrath of Islam upon Europe.

Oh sure, Europe has caused plenty of problems down there too, over their own interests in the region.

No, my friend, it is the Catholics who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims, and a wise US foreign policy would make mention of this. This is another part of why I believe we can redirect Islam's wrath.

I really don't think they distinguish between the branches, any more then we do as far as their religious branches. A Christian is still a Christian in their eyes, an unbeliever who must convert or die. Also you forget that Germany and the UK are Protestant, and were imperial powers down there for a long (along with later US meddling). So they have just as much reason to hate Protestants as Catholics, as they do to hate the US as much as Europe.

Btw, the crusades did not spawn Jihad. That word is mentioned several times in the Koran, which predates the Crusades.

The Koran and associated writings was still being written during the first Crusade. Initially Islam was an evolving religion and it takes many centuries for the religious writings to take shape after the supposed creator of the religion lived. The same thing happened with Christianity. Also I was referring to the concept of Holy War (not the word itself), which triggered Islams military/religious expansion into North Africa, Spain, and elsewhere.

I seem to recall a school of thought that equates the Crusades with modern Jihad, but I can't remember the damn word. I have a hard time remembering Arabic words because the language and script are so different from what I am used to. If you know of the term and could remind me, I'd be most grateful.
Unfortunately I cannot think of it, or do not know it

I agree with your original premise, but I find fault in your reasoning. Israel is quite possibly the worst place that US forces could find as a base for expanding oil interests. It doesn't really offer a direct or easy route to oil-rich nations, other than by air, and it is surounded by hostile and comparitively oil-poor nations. Better and more diplomatic/economical choices lie to the east and southeast:03:

It's not a base to launch invasions from, but rather a secure place from which to project air power (something vitally important to the type of warfare the US currently employs). The advantage with Israel is that its interests are totally different from the Arab countries in the region, and are far closer to that of the US. It is a reliable and trustworthy ally, where as Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are not at all. As for hostile surrounding nations, that isn't a grave concern as Israel's military can (and has repeatedly in the past) deal with them.

The US can only harm things with interventionist policy. We've only just begun and look at what has happened. We've only polarized Islamic sects by providing an external threat.

They were already polarized imho, they are indoctrinated to be that way. As for intervention, sometimes it is necessary and just to do so. Problem is it is almost never done for that reason. Its done purely for greed and self interest, with a smoke screen of justice, and freedom thrown over top to mask the real reason.

Peace and free trade with all nations, I say. We invite less harm that way, and we can destroy nations that harm their people through economic viability.

Too bad that peace is not a basic instinct of man, conflict and greed is. Conflict will never go away, and no matter how innocent, or how just your society, it will come get you eventually.

I'd be most interested in your views, should you desire to present them.You can use PM if you wish. I won't promise to agree, but I will promise to keep an open mind.

If I had the time to I would be happy to, I didn't get into it as I didn't have the time to get into a long dissertation on the subject. Perhaps I will have some time in the future to do so, but that thought seems unlikely

Though we often desire the same outcome, as you mentioned before, we may not agree upon the methodology, and therein lies the function of argument.:DL We must butt heads until we arrive at a mutual conclusion, even if that conclusion is that there can be no agreement.
Ya that is often the way it goes. Of course though the irony is even if we do agree it probably won't change anything. Even if we came up with the perfect solution to whatever.

On a more personal note, I appreciate your respect, NS, but I must point this out:

Lawyers and politicians present their arguments very well, but we all hate them. ;)

Rhetoric can be very persuasive, powerful, and harmful. Most of my arguments are presented in rhetorical form. I usually have the knowledge to back them up, but not always. Like anyone else, I draw conclusions from what I have learned or been taught.

One of my few talents is rhetoric, especially verbal rhetoric. But that is no reason to respect my arguments.

Hehe well I meant more that your arguments are usually well crafted and you have put thought into them, which is what I respect (basically you don't just drone off party/group lines/rhetoric, and are willing to at least listen to other arguments). We all use a lot of rhetoric here, as it is so much easier and less time consuming then actually backing up arguments with citations. I myself try to only argue from positions which I can back up with solid evidence/data if called on, which is why I often pick out certain parts of a thread and ignore other parts. :DL

[NeonSamurai]

You are an intelligent guy - but a deluded one if you really think some immagrants can enforce there belives on the nationals of the nation they reside in, and then what....topple the govenment?

I laugh at people who think the Islamists have the power or even the DESIRE to take over western countries.
That kind of paranoid BS only demonstrates how little someone knows about the culture.

Oh if they get majority, or close to it they can. It's one of main ways Islam has been taking over countries in Asia and Africa. In Europe and the Americas they will take over by numbers, by having far more children then Europeans. European and North American birth rates currently are barely at replacement levels, while Muslim families in western countries tend to be well beyond replacement levels.

I honestly don't like being forced into taking such a position, but I see little choice in the matter any more. Its not about phobia, or racism, or whatever. I could care less what religion you follow, or what color you are (I've personally dated women from just about every major 'race' and religion so its obviously not an issue for me), I do care though when you try to subvert my values, rights, and freedoms with your own, or those of others. Unfortunately Islam is one of those religions which generally tries to do just that. I also have issues with certain Christian groups for the exact same reason.

In this world there are good people and there are @ss holes, and they can come from any creed, nation or relegion.
Simple as that.

That is true, there are also many of the exact opposite, and everyone else who falls somewhere in between. The problem I have is too many that are in between, are not taking issue or doing anything against the bad ones.

[Respenus]

You are an intelligent guy - but a deluded one if you really think some immagrants can enforce there belives on the nationals of the nation they reside in, and then what....topple the govenment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_coups_of_1987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_coup_of_2000

Yes, there is absolutely now way that immigrants could take their place at the top of the political system. :hmmm:

[JU_88]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_coups_of_1987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_coup_of_2000

Yes, there is absolutely now way that immigrants could take their place at the top of the political system. :hmmm:

Oh for god sakes, what the matter with ya?...
Fiji is tiny little island, I am talking about MODERN DAY WESTERN COUNTRIES.. USA, U.K EUROPE etc.... where muslims are still an ethnic minority

[Respenus]

Oh for god sakes, what the matter with ya?...
Fiji is tiny little island, I am talking about MODERN DAY WESTERN COUNTRIES.. USA, U.K EUROPE etc.... where muslims are still an ethnic minority

The fact still stands. Immigrants can through the course of time take over power from the ethnic "majority" of a country. The fact that you say that such an event is impossible in "modern" countries borders on the absurd. The fact that people are ever more complacent and that our "democracies" are from what they were in the past even increases the odds and the danger of some lunnies taking control. NSDAP was also a minority, remember? The guys who were going to take care of communities and that everyone was complacent with until it was too late? If we lived in a country with a classic public and public sphere are presented by Habermas, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Considering how things are now, with only a small number of people realising the full extent of the influence immigrants have on an already developed society makes matters only worse and I concur with European governments that ensuring that they accept with our values is a must, as long as it doesn't turn into discrimination.

About Islam in general. I admit, I have far too little knowledge to discuss about its influences in Europe and Islamic countries. What I do know and it instils fear deep down my spine is the fact that certain individuals think that it is us, who should accept their point of view, they beliefs, their system of governance just because they say so and consider it superior.

There was a case in France not to long ago on the issue of the burka. The court upheld the French tradition of laïcité and decided that the French system was right not to give her citizenship. What's her response? They allow it in Saudi Arabia. Now this scares me.

[Skybird]

Immigrants/colonists must not take over wetsern societies in "open field battles". It is enough to infiltrate public eduaction system, legislation, decision and law-making procedures. It starts with reaching a law that equates criticism of relgion in ngeneral and Islam in special with racism and pout it under penalty. It leads over school needing to grant special status to Muslim students with special rights that are not given to memebers of any other elgious group. It goes on with attempts to break up the separatio0n of poltiics and relgion, making it possible to push islamic policies and making them defended by the laws that protecxt free reglion. It end with Muslim immoigrants in Germany now considering in seriousness the founding of a Muslim nmmigration party. In between you have a Turkish prime ministre who visits Cologne and in shameless arrogance called his people in a huge public rally not to become German and resist any pressure to integrate, and aTrukish state that was able to make stupid German authorities acepting that the Turkish state ministry for religion (yes, they have that, so much for secularism) does sent its own Imams to Germany to head the turkish mosaque-socieites even if not speaking a single word of German, and unmonitored by german authorities. In fact the turkis religion minstry runs a Turkish sub-state inside germany, unopposed and uncontrolled. You finally take into account criminal statistics that offsporings from Muslim immigrantion families are overrepresented in youth crime statistics by several factors, you also consider that a majority of youngster said in a research project that they will the honour killings of female family members who have been raped or brought shame ofver the family in other ways, and that a relatoive majority of around 40% accepted violence to be sued topple Western order and replace it with Sharia law both in Germany, and Britain. You next reflect over the fact that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants most of the times is remarkably quite when being asked to take clear position against extremist ele,ents in their middle, or when being asked to cooperate with the police to identify and catch such extremist elements.The German interior minsitry felt the need to comlain in public about the lacking willingness of muslims to cooperate with German authorities in these regards, and he put it in - for poltiicians's standards - remarkably blunt, open words. It was the same interior minsitre who trie dto show good will when establishing what is called the Isolam conferenc eover here (we do not have a Judaism conference, no christianity conference, Buddhism conference or conferences dealing with Asian or any other but Muslim immigrants, I wonder why the hell Islam is so special that here again it needs and gets special status).

And finally you pay attention to the many legal sentences of the past years that distorted Wetsern standards and laws by referring to the speciality of the Muslim cultural background of the muslim perpetrator when for exmaple beating up his wife. several examples from Germany, France, sweden, America and i think England as well. You also pay attention to the obedience in advance the West pays to Muslim culture when even in theory imagining that eventually, maybe, who knows, Islam may claim to be offended over something again.

You do all that, and then you tell me thatb Islamic colonisation in the West has no drive and no momentum to eventually come to power and take over control. I then remember my psychologic education, grab a diagnostic manual and give you a proper diagnosis for pathologic rejection of reality.

the single Islamic individual can but must not be a problem. Islam itself is the problem. and although it is not nice to say it, but with every single friendly or unfiendly Muslim person in the West, Islam'S power in the West has grown by one head. It is demograophic warfare, not by the individual person, but by the theologicans and powerpoliticians in Muslim countries. And on accasion they even named it by this very erm I just used: they sometimes called and call it DEMOGRAPHICAL WARFARE. If you call me cynical, i wonder what you call them.

Both our secularist constitutions and Western values and humanistic tradition do not offer us any defence or protection against this tactic. As long as we stick to these, we loose. and that is what happenign since the early to mid 60s, after the seocnd Vattican council: we are made to fall back one small step by one small step, and then another small step, and the next one. We are used to it, since we consider compro9mise to be reasonable. One small step back. And another one. Can't hurt to do so, it's just a small step, isn't it, so for the sake of peace and illustrating tolerance: step back another small step. keep smiling, they do, too. Step back another small step. That was easy, wasn'Ät it,. so step back another one. and while we are at it, do it again: step back. And look, they are becomign noisy and threaten to protest and become vioent, so: step back a small step to appease them. And nwo that we are so poerfectly used to it, we step another small step, and another one.

Many small steps make a journey.

[onelifecrisis]

Another urban myth: that Wetsern culture has the opower and infoluence to make musloims becoming althogether as secular as you claim.

I snipped the rest of that paragraph as I've seen it before in your other posts. I'll grant you that the power of the west to secularise its people is not a proven fact, but I hardly think you can dismiss it as an urban myth. I couldn't say what is or isn't going on in Germany, but my experience here in the UK is vastly different from what you claim is going on there, and I'm not going to put the preachings of some guy on the internet above my own experiences.

But that is a claim that statistics already have proven wrong.

I'll give you a statistic: 70% of the UK is Christian. You believe that? I know I don't. I've lived here all my life and I can count on one hand the number of Christians that I've met. Of course it all depends on how you define Christian. Most people think there may be a God, and probably remember a few stories from the Bible, but for me those things alone don't make a Christian. More to the point, they certainly don't make a religious zealot. Nevertheless, when asked in the census they will say they're Christian because that's what fits them best.

Statistics based on subjective data should be treated with caution, and not just because the data is subjective. There are motives to consider as well.

If you don't mind I will skip past more of you repeating yourself and get to...

Europe is old, overaged, has grown weak, it's times of ruling are over, it's economy gets czhallenged, it's values get pushed back in the world and replaced by restrengthening feelings of local clture's identity and customs. How could anyone assume that this sick old man the West has become has the power and cinvincing argument to tame a vital, drastcially boosting ideology of conquest that is brimming with life and is carried by the currently very young populations in the muslim countries?

Two quick asides:

First, if this "sick old man" is so weak, why do you spend so much time doing your bit to rally him? If he is so doomed then why not let him die in peace?

Second, a quote: "If you want to know who someone is, don't ask them about themselves. Ask them about the world, then you will learn who they are." Or something like that. I can't remember who said it. I'll come back to this later.

and are you maybe, by chnace , familiar with the model of Gunnar Heihnsohn, being called "Youth Bulge" , saying there is a link between the average age of the male population in a society, and the expansive drive of that culture?

Yup, the Muslim countries in the east are scary. So what?

Secular islam is a contradiction in itself. To assume the West is still as convincing and shiny to make islamic ideology change itself, is absurd. statistics show that the young turn orhtodox instead of secular, and that they strongly reject integration and becoming part of their hosting nation's idedntity. that'S why they want to turn the hosting nation islamic.

Again with the statistics. Sorry but they just don't reflect what I've experienced. Maybe things are very different in Germany. Thinking out loud: Germany isn't exactly renowned for being comfortable with itself. Perhaps when given the choice between adapting Germany's troubled mentality, or sticking with the seeming strength of Islam, immigrants there choose the more attractive option?

Lacking mouth size does not seem to be your problem. Let me give you some details on myself. I am 42, and was becoming interested in Islam short after school. Two of my four best friends from schooldays were a Christian Armenian and a Muslim Turk, both families very well integrated, and educated. My first real friendship with a comrade I experienced at the age of 5, and he was a Turkish boy and Islam yes or no did not concern our minds back then. After school I started to massively read and educate myself on islam, and inhaled a whole lot of literature about, around 30-35 books, some of which academic standard works, and this reading included the Quran and parts of the currently existing Hadith texts and secondary literature on Sharia as well as books on sociology, politology, history. Do I have all that details always avaialable on my mind? No. what I have available is the general picture from that input. Back then I had not started travelling, and when starting to read all that stuff I was a young man very similiar in opinion to you now and to many other wishful thinkers that sometimes defend Islam and talk of how misunderstood it just is. That led to conflict: I was influenced by the leftist pro-Islamic propaganda and was thinking friendly of Islam, and saw that in contradiction to most of what I read about Islam in the academic books. Even greater my confusion became when I started to visit and stay in several Islamic countries: Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Iran both having been major stations, and a short stay in Pakistani-Afghan border region. That all in all were around 15 months, and some travels were private with an Algerian buddy and another friend ( the young fools travel in disreghard of risks and fight it easy...), but I also was there for having been engaged by a Belgian-British correspondent team, for security. that was in the mid-90s, roughly. when I was back, europe felt alien, and my confusion was complete. I could not bring together my former image of Islam with what I had seen in Islamic countries, and what I had seen in ideology supremacism especially in Turkey. Iran was a bag of mixed experiences, but all in all this was the best station in my programs, I met both very orthodox, radical people, and very educated, tolerant, burgeois-like people. As an atheist I soon learned to hide that in Islamic countries, but in iran it was the smallest problem for people. This all is the reason why I am very split on Iran over the nuclear issues. I am determined not to allow them nuclear wepaons even at the cost of destroying the whole country, but I also feel that would be very tragic, becasue I hold not only bad but also good memories of that place. Somehow I like Iran. well, parts of it.

You see, my confusion resulted from my wishful thinking colliding with reality, and academic information. It took me two or three years to get that sorted out, and it cintunued with debates on this board some years ago. when I let go my wishful thiniiung, the contradictions solved themslves and all the previously "contradictive" informations fell into place. so you see, i know the thing from sides, I now how it feels to be in defense of Islam, but I also know how misled that thinking is and I know why I have come to that uncompromised confronting attitude of mine today.

Very honest, thank you for taking the time. Now allow me to clarify some things.

I have no rosy image of Islam. I do not 'love' Islam (far from it). I've seen no pro-Islamic propaganda, unless you count the vote-grabbing politicians on TV. Is Islam is 'misunderstood' IMO? No idea. From the conversations I've had with Muslims on the subject, it seems that even they can't fully agree on what Islam is (same as every other religion I suppose).

There is no contradiction in my mind in need of resolution, because I am able to separate a religion from those who claim to be a part of it.

Hard to say whether it was for somebody having found a way to learn my identity from internet, or because it was due to my role in a local civil movement that prevented a mosque building by betrayal at court. That I also have engaged and finally scared away Muslim infomation stands in the pedestrian zone by raising public attention with counter arguments to their candy-sweet propaganda, may have contributed to some Muslims learning to hate me. revealing is th erole of the german police. they looked at the letters and told me that I better shut up about the issue if I do not want to be interrogated by the BKA on my assumed Nazi background. Which is my fourth of five totally disappointing experiences with the German justice system. That'S why I do not put trust into it anymore.

I hate Nazis and confront them as uncompromised as I do with Islam.

Thanks for the insight.

My concern is not some extremists. My concern is the islamic ideology by content, which is extreme in itself, and people like you trying to minimise that and try to rewrite it's very basics although they are existing reality throughout the Muslim world.

I'm not trying to minimize anything about the "Muslim world" meaning the countries you named, like Turkey and Iran. I have no love of those places, based on what little knowledge I have. But people who come from those places to live here? And their descendants, who grow up here from the first day in their life? Those people I will judge on their own merits and behaviours, as and when I meet them. I find it remarkable that you cannot see any difference between the two groups. The general gist of your argument is this: Islam is an extreme religion, and Muslim people come from places where depictions of western Christians getting slaughtered in a Jihad is the favoured pre-match entertainment at a sporting event, so beware of them and all their descendants! I say that's a flawed perspective which, if it were widely adopted, would not have a desirable outcome. I don't expect to change your mind, but I find it difficult to stomach your endless fear-mongering and feel the need to add some counterweight.

[onelifecrisis]

@Haplo
I painted a picture, or tried to. Getting more specific than jeans/t-shirts/English would require that I talk about each individual. Rather than do that I'll simply say that the second generation seemed to me, both culturally and religiously, less foreign than their parents.

[OneToughHerring]

Islam itself is the problem.

I agree. For example, the Palestinians. If the Palestinians weren't so stifled by the irrational tenets of Islam they would have whooped Israel's butt ten times over already.

[Tribesman]

I agree. For example, the Palestinians
What religions are Palestinians?
If the Palestinians weren't so stifled by the irrational tenets of Islam they would have whooped Israel's butt ten times over already.
How many groups in the PLO are not religious ?
How many are religious but not islamic?
The tenets of Islam have bugger all to do with their failure, the failure is due to all the groups and all the other nations supposedly backing them following thier own different agendas based on their own national and political interests

[JU_88]

Quite a few Islamaphobes here, I'm pretty dissapointed I guess. :down:
Just like Christianity, Islam is divided in to gazillion different sects that all disagree with each others interpretation of the Koran.
Muslims are far from being united as one, just look at what went down in Iraq and Pakistan the last few years.

So as Non-muslims, do we see one group in particular that we dont like because they dont like us (chicken & egg), then then do we go merrily sticking our label of ignorance on to one quarter of mankind?
Well i guess that brings us down to the same level as those who hate US for not being like them.

IMHO being anti islam is no different from being anti Christian, Anti Jew, Anti-caplitaist, etc. No matter how we try to justify it, it still makes us prejudiced, which is not something we should really be proud of (after thousands of years of human evolution.)

I am not relegious whatsoever, as I dont feel the need to apply such principles and values to my life.
But I still I respect those who are, hey if it works for them - then great!

I only object to those who try to enforce there beliefs on to me and others, or those whos abuse their faith to justify criminal acts. (when all the major religeons clearly preech that such crimes are pushishable by eternal suffering)

but I still like to think I am big enough and ugly enough to seperate those narrow-minded inderviduals from the rest of that particular culture.

You cannot intelligently judge 1000 people based on the acts of one person (just because they have a cultural similarity.)
When it come to making those kind of judgments I will more readily believe someone who has studied that culture for years - as a profession, than chow down a bail of hay served by some jackass from CNN, whos primary concern is viewer ratings - Pass the salt please.

Ah well... each to his own and all that.

[OneToughHerring]

What religions are Palestinians?

How many groups in the PLO are not religious ?
How many are religious but not islamic?
The tenets of Islam have bugger all to do with their failure, the failure is due to all the groups and all the other nations supposedly backing them following thier own different agendas based on their own national and political interests

Christian Palestinians aren't any smarter. Of course being religious makes them dumber, it works with them just as it does with everyone else.

[Tribesman]

Christian Palestinians aren't any smarter. Of course being religious makes them dumber, it works with them just as it does with everyone else.
So it isn't because they are muslims its because they are dumb as they are religious.
I suppose the non-religious groups involved must be just dumb because they are palestinians then.
Thats a nice contribution you have made, it makes a pleasant change for your usual racism to be directed at a different group every once in a while Herring.

[Schroeder]

I'm afraid I'm sharing Skybird's point of view here. When I was in elementary school in the mid 80ies I can't remember to have seen a single girl with a headscarf on the school ground. When I go past my old school now and see the kids going home it seems headscarfs have become a new standard for Muslim girls and most of them also dress in the traditional way with long dresses.
So secularisation of immigrants does only happen to a certain degree (don't get me wrong I also know quiet some Muslim immigrants who have integrated themselves very well but the optical presence of Islam has risen immensely over the last two decades ).
When you read then the news reports about violent crimes then there is a very high chance that the offender is described as someone with "Mediterranean background".
The hate speech of Erdogan here in Germany against integrating into the society was outrageous as well!
It was more or less a direct declaration of war against our way of life. If a German politician had said the same things about Turkey and the Islamic culture he would have been branded as a reincarnation of Hitler.
I don't say that every Muslim here is a problem, but the strength of Islam is definitely growing here and I don't think that will be for the benefit of the non Muslim population.

[OneToughHerring]

So it isn't because they are muslims its because they are dumb as they are religious.
I suppose the non-religious groups involved must be just dumb because they are palestinians then.
Thats a nice contribution you have made, it makes a pleasant change for your usual racism to be directed at a different group every once in a while Herring.

Nope but there are so few of the non-religious ones in comparison the more or less religious majority that they are unable to sway the overall status quo.

[Skybird]

I snipped the rest of that paragraph as I've seen it before in your other posts. I'll grant you that the power of the west to secularise its people is not a proven fact, but I hardly think you can dismiss it as an urban myth. I couldn't say what is or isn't going on in Germany, but my experience here in the UK is vastly different from what you claim is going on there, and I'm not going to put the preachings of some guy on the internet above my own experiences.

Strange that there are reasearch results in your own country that have shown the same tendency like in Germany: that the young are more orthodox than the old, and that in general uneducated social low class people immigrate to the UK - not educated specialist with a medium or upper social class background. I do not look up links again, but I posted according links repeatedly over the past years. And we do not mean telephone polls, but university researches (that this year were countered by a research done by a think tank close to Labour and being payed by the government, which may explain why it is so very friendly on the "success" of government policies).

I'll give you a statistic: 70% of the UK is Christian. You believe that? I know I don't. I've lived here all my life and I can count on one hand the number of Christians that I've met. Of course it all depends on how you define Christian. Most people think there may be a God, and probably remember a few stories from the Bible, but for me those things alone don't make a Christian. More to the point, they certainly don't make a religious zealot. Nevertheless, when asked in the census they will say they're Christian because that's what fits them best.

Statistics based on subjective data should be treated with caution, and not just because the data is subjective. There are motives to consider as well.

I do not mistake statistics with reality, though there is an obvious link, and for the most I do not talk about individual people, but Islam as a principle ideology. But that does not change the content of that ideology, and you overestimate the importance of different schools in islam, you ignore two things. First: it's clear language that in the given sentence leaves little room for interpreting manouvers (that was not what Muhammad wanted, but he wanted unity, mind you he meant his preachings in order to silence critics and unify and rally his fighters behind him and his ambitions), and second: that it is filled with details on a given issue but these being scattered around, by that you can point at this statement and, when desired, leave out that just some verses later it gets relativised by another statement. the effect is that it can change it's appearance opportunistically to avoid criticism while always sticking to it'S principles nevertheless. For example it is said Islam does not allow suicide. That is correct, there is a passage saying that Muslims are prohibited from suicide. This usually is given as an example why Suicide bombers cannot be seen as Islamic. That is wrong, because at another passage that usually gets not quoted (in Quran versions they distribute on public infomation stands it even already got deleted or replaced by a completely different sentence at times) Muhammad explicitly justifies the self-killing if it helps in the attack on infidels, and he makes mockery of his followers fearing death and shying away from killing, saying this is only because they do not know the rewards that are waiting for them. And finally, for male members of Islam, the participation in the fight against infidels and their killing, is no voluntary service, but a mandatory duty. A Muslim telling you he would not do that, may be a kind guy, but he is violating principles of his "religion" he claims to belong to. Maybe he even does not know it, but the basic problem with the ideology's content remains.

You are right, not everybody claiming to be Muslim or Christian, really is that, but there is a lot of misunderstanding about what Islamic ideology is, even amongst Muslims themselves. It's more about what individual people want it to be in order to not needing to rethink their position. But that does not change neither the content of the ideology itself (which has not seen reforming attempts like Protestantism in Christinaity, for example, and always until today was far more determined - and successful! - than the Catholic church ever was in supressing opposing views and strengthening the orthodoxy), nor does it make it understandable that a massive silent majority of Muslims stay silent when it comes to demands to cooperate with our law enforcement in order to identify dangerous elements in their middle, or accept free opinion being dominant to relgious demands for censorship, or taking a clear stand against act committed in the name of Islam that are of the more unpleasant kind. I want to ask you why there is such an unwavering determination to push islam forward throughout the West, even there were no Islmaic communities do exist. and finally I cannot save anybody wanting to be seen as both following western ideas of humanism and freedom etc, and Islam, why he insists on being seen as a follower of islam, when at the same time he wants to follow freedom, democracy, secularism, humanism, etc. Something like a "democratic Nazi" or a "liberal-tolerant Stalinist"cannot be imagined, and the teaching of Islam is anti-democratic, in total rejection of secularism, and in clear expression of islamic supremacism and the Muslim man being the goal of evolution, while dividing the world clearly in the house of war and the house of peace, and defining peace as the cojmplete absence as anything that is not Islam and by that difference could pose a challenge to Islam'S claim for power. Not before this has been reached, there can be ultimate peace.This, and nothing else, is the content of Islamic ideology, and if you think it is about tolerance and peace and coexistence, than you simply do not know it. "Peace" means "having won", "tolerance" means "accepting the others if they accept to live in a state of subservience to Muslims, "coexistence" means "existence under islamic ruling". I have no doubt that you will think tjhat is extreme, and that i misunderstand it or lie about it, but I do not. And not only do I read these things, but have been told these things in my face.

Considering all this, you say the ideology is no problem in the West? Although it has direct or indirect influence on people's mentality and social identity and thinking? Add to the problems with Islam what I said about lacking education, social low class, and the stress this means for the solcial security systems of ours (always keeping in mind that immigrats get moved around liike foot soldiers by islamic stratgeists who think of dmeograohic warfare and want to make the West collapsing by overloading it's social structures). And then consider the deeply hostile attitude of islam towards females, the patriarchalic social structures in families, the pathology this causes in the minds and hearts of the young men, and the aggression this creates and that needs valves - in becoming orthodx, and supressive to women. If you get all this toegther, eventually, you may get a hint why I call the ideology a problem even if not all Muslims are the same.

You are right, quite some people do not want to be like the Quran demands them to be. And this speaks in their defence and favour. It is the desire to be a better human than just what the Quran and muhammad want them to be. I will not attack such a person for that. But I will ask such a person again and again - why the hell do you still want to be seen as and called "Muslim", if by your deeds and thinking and desires of your heart you nalready have rejected that? We have had a converted member here longer time ago who said he took offence from me telling him that he is no real muslim. But in fact what I told him - was a compliment, and an expression of sympathy.
Mind you that there are people smart enough and brave enough to become apostates, and in principle they are risking their lives by becoming that, even more so when making it public, and criticising Islam. There criticism often is founded on substantial insight, obviously. I hold such courage in high esteeem, since I have made at least two german Muslims leaving Islam myself and saw what tremendnous conflict this caused in their lives, with their families, and how they suffered from that. One of the most prominent voices of criticism against Islam and Turks in Germany - is a Turk herself, and she attacks her countrymen sometimes with real favour about their poblematic atttitude and integration-hostile behavior. But there are other people whose olive really is at risk, who has been tortured, broguht to prison, for having left islam, or foighting for women's equality. By refusing to see the brutal truth about islamic dogma and it'S influence both in East and West, you minimse these peopleS courage and suffering, and you ridicule and mock their cause and in principle declare them fools fighting against windmills. You do not take them serious when refusing to see some grim facts about Islam, much like the British laughed abiuzt first reports of the Nazis running killing factories behind the front. This attitude, theirs and yours, have something in common: the idea that it could not be what according to one's own civilised views should not be.

First, if this "sick old man" is so weak, why do you spend so much time doing your bit to rally him? If he is so doomed then why not let him die in peace?
I hate to loose, and even more i hate the idea of Islam taking over. I also think of the generations comijg n after us. Nobody deserves by birth to live under the rule of Islam, or any other form of totalitarian, inhumane tyranny like this, and no woman deserves to be minimsed to a status comparing to that of a village dog, being held like livestock and for comparable reasons. You could as well ask why the resistance to the Nazis tried to fight back although their chances for success or survival were grim. Some people even willed to get killed while trying to assassinate Hitler - stupid, eh? Not that I want to compare myself to these resistance fighters. Just for illustration. Some people, nowadays many people would follow your advise, and just give up. I'm not like that. I may be frustrated and dislilluzsioned, but I still try to fight. something you probably cannto understand. Maybe it is because I have seen quite some miserable things.

Only somebody not having seen the lack of freedom and always having taken it for granted, could trade it away carelessly. that's why I sometimes say that 70 years of peace have caused havoc in people's minds.

Second, a quote: "If you want to know who someone is, don't ask them about themselves. Ask them about the world, then you will learn who they are." Or something like that. I can't remember who said it. I'll come back to this later.

Okay, I have asked the Quran and the islamic history how it sees the world, and i see the behavior of the crowd indeed reflectin g the answer I got. The answer I got was such that first I was confused, then was in disbelief that what I heared could be meant serious, and finally decided to fight against it.
And now an aside to you. compare the teaching of Jesus (and I do not say Bible, I say the teaching of Jesus as he is quoted in the gospels), and compare it with what Muhammad said. compare the lives of both man: the one preaching peace and not even resisting in self-defence to the violence that was directed against him and that ultimately murdered him, the other having demanded, commanded and ordered 60-70 wars and raids, having slain men with his own hands before he even had become known as a kahin (a seer), and spend his life with submitting others, bribing others, intimidating others, silencing his critics with threatened and/or executed assassination. And then tell me how you can avoid to conclude that in order to be a reasonable, peaceful, civilised person in Christian tradition you follow the teachings of Jesus, but in Muhammeddan traditon you need to violate the teachings of Muhammad. Some ifnantile, braindead zombie-preachers in christian churches think they must take it upon them to compare Jesus with Muhammad and even want to ceolbrate Muhammad's birthday in Christian churches. Well, I can only hope that heaven deicdes to let some serious accidents happen to them as fast as possible before they give birth to even more stupidity, as if the world is not already confused more than enough. - And if somebody wants to be such a rational, reasonable, peaceful, tolerant "good" being - why could he then want to be seen as a Muhammeddan nevertheless - if for no other reason than being in ignorrance of who Muhammad was and what he taught and what he practiced like in life? If he would live today, we would bring him to the tribunal in The Hague, I mean.
Again with the statistics. Sorry but they just don't reflect what I've experienced. Maybe things are very different in Germany. Thinking out loud: Germany isn't exactly renowned for being comfortable with itself. Perhaps when given the choice between adapting Germany's troubled mentality, or sticking with the seeming strength of Islam, immigrants there choose the more attractive option?

No. even more so when seeing the problems with Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands, Sweden, England as well. Muslim integration throughout europe has failed, simply that. In Germany, we have had turks, Greek, Italians, Spanish, Yugoslavs. Except the Turks, most of them have returned to their home countries meanwhile, or stayed and are well-integrated. Just the Turks gave us problems, not every indovoidual, but the group as a whole. the problems grow, and they are today bigger than ever before. I think you just ignore what you do not want to see. Statistics, if collected correctly and by clean methodologic procedures, do not lie. the way they get interpreted is open to misunderstanding (often due to lacking knowledge about statistical methods and principles), or intentional manipulation. But the data itself, if following the known statistical methodology, does not lie. It cannot. I am no mathematics expert, and no statistical analyst by profession, but having studied psychology, statistics and according methodology followed me 8 semesters long, from entering university to final written exams.

I have no rosy image of Islam. I do not 'love' Islam (far from it). I've seen no pro-Islamic propaganda, unless you count the vote-grabbing politicians on TV. Is Islam is 'misunderstood' IMO? No idea. From the conversations I've had with Muslims on the subject, it seems that even they can't fully agree on what Islam is (same as every other religion I suppose).

You might be surprised but I agree: your impression is absolutely correct, I have seen that in germany as well as in ME countries. But you have to understand: there is a difference between the behavior of one or several individual, and that of the mass. In Iran, you might be surprised how many very well educated, west-friendly burgeoise people there are at least in the bigger cities, and many of them in admiration for what the US once promised to be - could you believe that!? If you think they all are just antiamerican, religious hotshots waiting to turn fanatic again in the streets, then you are wrong. This is only one side of Iranian society, of course there are the fanatics as well. But as a whole, the society tends to behave differently again, and often is ripped apart (like you hve seen in the demonstraions against elections). Family dynamics set in. tadition. Tribal relations and the one clan owing to the other. Fear. Habit. and last but not least: humans often being contradictive in their behavior, saiyng one thing, doing something different.

It is not that different, in principle, with Muslim subcultures in the West. The whole community - is something different, not only more but is something different than the sum of all the individuals and their statements you may gain.

that'S why academics differ between psychology (focussing on the individual), and sociology (focussing on group dynamics). The relation between the individual and the collective most of the time is not just linear, and can be one of severe contradictions
There is no contradiction in my mind in need of resolution, because I am able to separate a religion from those who claim to be a part of it.

Islam does not make that separation, but claims every person born from Muslim parents to be it'S own possession. you do not decide for yourself, but you get subjugated. there also is a link to Islam not separating between politics and religion. In Islam/Quran, politics IS religion, and religion IS politics. One of those unpleasant news that illustrate how incompatible Islam is with western constitutional orders, nevertheless exploiting this vulnerability of theirs to the max.

I'm not trying to minimize anything about the "Muslim world" meaning the countries you named, like Turkey and Iran. I have no love of those places, based on what little knowledge I have.

I did not say you were minimising those countries, I said you were minimising (glossing over) the importance of the fact that Islam is a radical fundamentalist ideology in itself.

But people who come from those places to live here?
what'S with them? They have no right to demand form us that we necessarily must accept them. They have a right to ask us whether we want them to stay with us or not. And we have a right to ask in return "Let's see, what do you have to offer us in return, is there some value in your skills or your person that makes you a valuabe addition to our existing community?" We also have the right to say "No, thanks, get away." And also we have any right there is to demand that the newcomer we decided to accept has to sink into our community and has to live by our values and rules and in case of conflict between his past tradition and our rules, his past tradition has to fall back, or he has to pack his things and leave. It is often said that people have a right to live whereveer they want. I totally reject that hilarious claim. No person on earth has the right to move somewhere, meeting an existing community, enforce his presence in this community even against their will and saying "Here I am, now accept that, I demand you to let me live with/amongst you." A community has rights, too. The right to refuse newcomers, for example. - If the West is guilty of one thing, then it is that we still encourage people to move over here even if we have no use for them, and that we refuse to select carefully which candidates we really could use and that would be a valuable contribution to our communities, and which candiate is not. The same type of hilarious hestation you see in the EU refusing to make a clear decisoon on Turkey since many decades now. I can at least understand that the nTurks are pissed by this, althoiugh I totally reject their EU membership. It is non-negotiable for me.

And their descendants, who grow up here from the first day in their life? Those people I will judge on their own merits and behaviours, as and when I meet them.

Again you have to learn that statistics tell a clear language not only in Germany regarding social class, education, and chances for social rise. No sociologist seriously denies that social class decides on education, but also on later social chances. We even have enterd a phase were eduaction falls behind the importance of social class when it comes to job chances - a good education (parents, shcool, university) is no longer a guarantee for a job. Careers depend more and more on social class, we seem to see a re-invitation of the medieval "Ständegesellschaft", as a German commentator wrote some days ago, and I agree. And whether you like it or not, the phenomenon of the youngsters of third generation turning more conservative and orthodox than their grandparents have been, is not a German only phenomenon, but since 2 or 3 years gets reported from all of europe - including England, no matter your impression.

I find it remarkable that you cannot see any difference between the two groups. The general gist of your argument is this: Islam is an extreme religion, and Muslim people come from places where depictions of western Christians getting slaughtered in a Jihad is the favoured pre-match entertainment at a sporting event, so beware of them and all their descendants!

then you must read again what I wrote, for that nonsense I haven't ever written neither here nor anywhere else. And I have adressed history and certain illusions, Grenada for example, several times in past years.

I say that's a flawed perspective which, if it were widely adopted, would not have a desirable outcome. I don't expect to change your mind, but I find it difficult to stomach your endless fear-mongering and feel the need to add some counterweight.

I feel the need that you must add some substance to your "counterweight". Much of what you say in reply, is PC hear-say, or is depending on false assumptions and interpretations, may it be regarding me, or the content and the effectiveness of islamic ideology. Just having an arbitrary opinion, is not enough - such could be chosen by throwing dice. When I check your opinion against reality, I see huge deficits. Not all what you say is wrong. But it is very much uncomplete, often by intended choice of yours. I see a determination to blend out everything that hurts your friendly image of islam while you are trying to rewrite it in such a way that wetsern civilisation and social life could reach and change it. and nthat is the principle idea of eurocrats in Brussel dreaming of creating an euro-Islam that should repalce real Islam.

Islam is a conqueror, and currently it is young, vital, strong and brimming with life, which for demographic reasons will stay that way for the coming half century or so. If we do not take care, it will teach us some lessons on who educates who.

[Skybird]

Quite a few Islamaphobes here, I'm pretty dissapointed I guess. :down:

Dann wein doch! ;)

[Onkel Neal]

Speaking of "communist" China ... (http://www.slate.com/id/2236703/):cool:

PS: @ NeonSamurai, I think your post #136 set some kind of record here. :)

[NeonSamurai]

PS: @ NeonSamurai, I think your post #136 set some kind of record here. :)

haha that could be, certainly one of my longest even if ya trim out all the quotes :DL

[onelifecrisis]

@Skybird

You openly admit that there is a difference of opinion among Muslim's as to what exactly is and is not Islam, and you have the audacity to state that you have determined exactly what Islam is and is not, to the point that you will even attempt to persuade those Muslims who will listen of the merit of your perspective! You say, "I have travelled, and read books, and so I know what Islam is really about - in fact, I know it better than the Muslims do!" WTF? And all the while you fail to realise the arrogance and hypocrisy in your stance?

Take for example the part of your post where you compare Jesus with Mohammed, in which you explicitly declare the contents of the Bible to be null and void in order to make your point about Christianity... then compare that to your insistance that the full contents of the Qu'ran must be considered when evaluating Islam. Not only is your "logic" inconsistent, it's also just plain silly both fronts, since neither Christians nor Muslims follow their holy books to the letter. I'm sure you well know that there's some pretty disturbing stuff written in the Bible. An outsider could easily read that stuff and conclude that we're all freaking bonkers, and start trying to persuade us of his point of view and campaign to stop churches being built... and eventually some pr!ck claiming to be Christian might get annoyed and send him a death threat. It doesn't prove anything other than that guy is a pr!ck.

People are not defined by what it says in a book, nor by the teachings of prophets. If that were the case then Christians would be defined by forgiveness and we both know that's a load of bollocks.

I shared a flat with a deeply religious Muslim guy for two years. He took his religion very seriously, but also intelligently. He said, "The Qu'ran says I can marry more than one woman as long as I love them equally. I don't think it's possible to love two (or more) women equally, so I'll just marry one." He also used to eat bacon for breakfast and get sh!tfaced with me on Saturday nights. So you say he was not a true Muslim? Then I say: there is no such thing as a true Muslim, at least not by your definition, just as there is no such thing as a true Christian.

[JU_88]

@Skybird

You openly admit that there is a difference of opinion among Muslim's as to what exactly is and is not Islam, and you have the audacity to state that you have determined exactly what Islam is and is not, to the point that you will even attempt to persuade those Muslims who will listen of the merit of your perspective! You say, "I have travelled, and read books, and so I know what Islam is really about - in fact, I know it better than the Muslims do!" WTF? And all the while you fail to realise the arrogance and hypocrisy in your stance?

Take for example the part of your post where you compare Jesus with Mohammed, in which you explicitly declare the contents of the Bible to be null and void in order to make your point about Christianity... then compare that to your insistance that the full contents of the Qu'ran must be considered when evaluating Islam. Not only is your "logic" inconsistent, it's also just plain silly both fronts, since neither Christians nor Muslims follow their holy books to the letter. I'm sure you well know that there's some pretty disturbing stuff written in the Bible. An outsider could easily read that stuff and conclude that we're all freaking bonkers, and start trying to persuade us of his point of view and campaign to stop churches being built... and eventually some pr!ck claiming to be Christian might get annoyed and send him a death threat. It doesn't prove anything other than that guy is a pr!ck.

People are not defined by what it says in a book, nor by the teachings of prophets. If that were the case then Christians would be defined by forgiveness and we both know that's a load of bollocks.

I shared a flat with a deeply religious Muslim guy for two years. He took his religion very seriously, but also intelligently. He said, "The Qu'ran says I can marry more than one woman as long as I love them equally. I don't think it's possible to love two (or more) women equally, so I'll just marry one." He also used to eat bacon for breakfast and get sh!tfaced with me on Saturday nights. So you say he was not a true Muslim? Then I say: there is no such thing as a true Muslim, at least not by your definition, just as there is no such thing as a true Christian.


Well said OLC! :up:
At least... I agree with you....
My Mulism friend is opposite of your ex room mate LOL, he wont touch pork or booze, and he is deeply opposed to the practice of having mutiple wives in Islam.

There can be no right or wrong when something is open to interpretation, we only judge the difference between right and wrong based on our own set of morals what every they maybe.

Not even Islamic Scholors claim to fully understand how the Qu'ran should be followed -along with exactly how the Islamic faith should be practised, as its open to interpretaion and opinion.
Anyone who makes such claims is a fool. (Muslim or not)

[Respenus]

OLC, you're forgetting one thing. Radicalism, in any way or form, be it Christian, Muslim or pragmatic is dangerous. It is radicalism that we have to be afraid off, that we have to fight and particularly its influence in state affairs and also on the streets. I know deeply religious Christians, and just "Sunday" Christians and I know people in both groups that are acting radically as any Islamic zealot, unable to accept anything other than what they consider to be the truth and no amount of rational discourse or empirical evidence will change their minds. Make no assumption that you are exempt from this process, evidence of which I have seen in your posts which were close to an attack on Skybird's rational discussion and use of academic sources coupled together with empirical evidence.

I wanted to post this article earlier today and changed my mind. Now I changed it again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7710822.stm

[Skybird]

@Skybird

You openly admit that there is a difference of opinion among Muslim's as to what exactly is and is not Islam, and you have the audacity to state that you have determined exactly what Islam is and is not, to the point that you will even attempt to persuade those Muslims who will listen of the merit of your perspective! You say, "I have travelled, and read books, and so I know what Islam is really about - in fact, I know it better than the Muslims do!" WTF? And all the while you fail to realise the arrogance and hypocrisy in your stance?

Whether you like it or not, I make my own understanding of it the standard of my acting and opinion-forming, since I have a brain and thus intend to use it. I am capable to give the reasons why I think in this way, and no other way, and I do not see you bringing up convincing reasons why I have to revalue my basis. That others do not agree with me cannot be the deciding argument for me to give up my own opinion, if I do not see the reasons why I came to this opinion being falsified and being shown as wrong.

It makes little sense to refer to the great flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in order to illustrate the content of the sermon on the mountain. Obviously, the tone of both things, the image of that deity behind them, could not be any more different. The Quran compares to the old testament, and to orthodox Judaism, it seems to me. jesus introduced a new understanding of the image and concept of good. His god is more a metaphor, and is different to that tyrannic bloodhound the old god in the old testament is. - you do not see such changes introduced in muhammad's teachings, with before him and after him no other form of Islam or Quranic teaching having been. And to be exact, before Jesus the "Christ", there was no Christianity as well. The church refers to all the bible, yes. and right this contradiction is why I always differ between the teachings of Jesus, and the church. And that I do for very precise and legitmiate reasons even if they oppose the populistic messing up of terms.

And could you at least try to post without needing to fall back to harsh language like "from your a###" and "WTF" and "pr!ck" etc. It makes it annoying to deal with you and throws a bad light on you as well, giving an impression that you are just some juvenile in his teen years not being able to control his hormones. We are no close friends knowing each other since schooldays and sitting together and being drunk at the bar.


Take for example the part of your post where you compare Jesus with Mohammed, in which you explicitly declare the contents of the Bible to be null and void in order to make your point about Christianity... then compare that to your insistance that the full contents of the Qu'ran must be considered when evaluating Islam.

I did not compare "churchian christianity" or the bible and islam there, I did compare Muhammad's and Jesus' life as being known to us, and the preachings that go back to them. Neither did Muhammad author the abrahamic religion of the Jews (he just copied it and altered it to fit his intentions), nor did Jesus create the content of the old testament. Jesus is being called "the Risen, the Christ", and that is where the term "Christianity" comes from. He was a non-violent revolutionery, because he introduced a new concept of what "god" means that is totally different to the conception before him. The old testament has more to do with the old abrahamic religion of the Jews, than with Jesus' teachings. And that is the reason why the old testament is showing as many examples of hate and intolerance and calls for murder and genocide as does the old abrahamic religion and does the Quran. The four gosples went beyond this stage - the Quran never did. In the first two or three centuries after Muhammad's death, there were several different versions of the Quran, which hat undergone local manipulations by local rulers that wanted to use it to justify their own power, but these changes were cosmetically as much as we know, and finally one binding version of the Quran was decided on which in principle is the one that reflects the collection of Muhammad's quotes and sermons (he did not write it himself) until today. The Hadith has seen greater changes in volume and content, and fluctuated massively from up to an estmated I think 280 thousand quotes to as few as just 3 or 4 thousand, because the Hadith canon does not deal with the basics of Islam, but give a guiding line for practical problems and challenges of more prgamatic life and politics, also it's content does not orginally refer back to the mouth of muhammad. Maybe one could say that the Hadith and Sharia compare to the Quran like law codes compare to a constitution, but I am a bit hesitent to really put it that way since there is no separation between politics and religion in islam.

is your "logic" inconsistent, it's also just plain silly both fronts, since neither Christians nor Muslims follow their holy books to the letter.
You have not understood the argument correctly. I compared the content of Jesus and muhammad's preachings, becasue this is what decides how the ideology of Islam and christianity must be understood if you want to talk about the ideology indeed, not about something else you just happen to have on your mind or have been told by a church or a sectarian leader. And I pointed out that the content of Muhammad's preachings was how to legitimise the use of force and violence to defend his conquests and aggressions, while Jesus obviously preached anything but such things. islam did not form tyrannies and violent opressive governments and did not go on conquest in violation but in explicit following of Muhammad's demands and teachings. The church, the crusaders turned violent, oppressive and barbaric in explicit violation of Jesus' teachings. Two totally different ways to come to the violence and intolerance you see in the church, and islam.

I'm sure you well know that there's some pretty disturbing stuff written in the Bible. An outsider could easily read that stuff and conclude that we're all freaking bonkers, and start trying to persuade us of his point of view and campaign to stop churches being built... and eventually some pr!ck claiming to be Christian might get annoyed and send him a death threat. It doesn't prove anything other than that guy is a pr!ck.

See above. What do I care for the terror god of the old "Abrahamism", none at all I care. It's the same brutal face in orthodox Judaism, the old testament, and islam. To hell with all three of them.

the point is: we have moved beyond that stage of literal believing bloodthirsty hear-say, a move expressed in the existence of the four gospels, the reformation, and the enlightenment. There are no parallels to these three historic facts in islamic tradition. It still is bogged down with the old testament, so to speak. In other words, it still is stuck with it'S head in history, 1400 years deep. Back then, Arbaia was far superior to the dark continent of medieval europe, and by all reason they should have become what later eurpope turned out to be. But in the 300 years after muhammad, something swictched, they lost their civilisational lead, their dynmaic for scientific invention, while europe won in pace of developement, anf finally overtook them and became the dominant global civilisation. I thinkn there is a good chnace that wiothiout Muhzammad, it would have gone the other way around, at least Arabia being en par with europe of the past era (obviously europe is past it's cultural climax nowadays ). that's how it goes, it's a cionstant up and down. But sometimes the phase can be short, and oemtime long. Islam locked down it's vitim societies for a VERY long time, it seems.

People are not defined by what it says in a book, nor by the teachings of prophets. If that were the case then Christians would be defined by forgiveness and we both know that's a load of bollocks.

Read again what in an earlier post I said on why the ideology nevertheless causes effects by group dynamics.

Anyhow. This thread has already going on for too long, and I am a bit tired to get in parts ignored, and in other parts being expected to repeat myself time and again, or to just correct the way I get quoted by others.

[JU_88]

Dann wein doch! ;)

Speaking of selective quoting Skybird, What was all that about? ^^

I agree that radicalism is the plague of this earth, anyone who lean towards any type of extremism, not only have severely clouds their own judgment, but in come cases it seems to completely disable the part of their brain that can think obectively altogether.

If a person puts too much energy and pride in to something. It makes it almost impossible for that person to admit they are wrong - because the stronger you views become, the harder you fall when they fail you.
And what happens when these people can no longer win an argument with words?
Usually they block there ears and walk away from what they dont want to hear.
But some times they will become abusive and resort to violence.....

Imho - we should keep these folks away from weapons and main stream politics :D

[NeonSamurai]

Just a quick comment, but the comparison between the Torah and old testament is not exactly correct. They are not the same thing. For one thing the stories (genesis, etc) are more an oral history of a people. Also there are translation problems since ancient Hebrew doesn't have any vowels, which caused trouble. The emphasis placed on sections of the Torah is also rather different. Last Jews have never realty considered the Torah to be an absolute (unlike many Christians and Muslims with their books). Its meanings, laws, etc have been debated for thousands of years. The Hebrew deity also was never really considered a vengeful god (unless you want to go back to the very early origins of the religion) but more of a balancing force, an eye for an eye or in another word, karma.

The old testament has more to do with the old abrahamic religion of the Jews, than with Jesus' teachings. And that is the reason why the old testament is showing as many examples of hate and intolerance and calls for murder and genocide as does the old abrahamic religion

Other then the stories/history part (which isn't taken overly seriously, and come from ancient history), I would like to know where the Torah commands Jews to commit hate, genocide, and murder?

[Skybird]

NeonSamurai,

I readily admit my knowledge on Judaism is not as much as what I know on islam and Christianity and the church. and I certainly have not read the Thora - nor have I referred to it!

However, before Jesus lived, there was only Judaism, and the texts on Jesus were not written earlier than two generations after his assumed death when he is said to have been crucified (something Islam denies to have happened, and since Islam sees Jesus not as God's son but as a high ranking prophet, this christian claim about crucification is one of the three things islam takes extremely queer about the christians, the other two being their suspicious concept of the divine trinity, and the upholding of a book/the bible - meaning a priests' hierarchy and dogma - instead of the idea, which means a profaning of the content, in their view, and they are probably right there).

As I see it, the Bible'S stories of the times before jesus base on the Abrahamic god of the Jews and represent some kind of "reformed", or chnaged/altered form of Judaism. the history of Judaism is a history of constant conflict and war, isn't it, the whole region there still lives and dies by this old tradition's "heritage", and the ,otives for this often were religious. Do nyou want to say the many tribal wars and conquests had nothing to do with relgious beliefs of theirs?

I did not refer to the Thora, becasue I do not know much about it, I do not even know if it is a changed, modernised version today or by content is still the same old thing they already carried in front of their army three thousand years ago (I fear the latter, when seeing orthodox Jews and their habits). But the old stories of the bible are basing on the Judaic concept of a god - as much as I know that is a god as tyrannic and punishing and psychotic like the god of the old testament, which makes sense if both traditions are linked, yes? I think here is a reason for the proverbial hairplitting philosophic thinking - and intellectual superiority - in Judaic tradition, for which already the pharisees in Roman times and earlier were famous: it really needed some tricks and efforts to re-interprete such a brutal deity and change it's image into a man-loving, forgiving, kind old grandfather who takes care for his children. I must admit I tend to see both the church'S and the Jews image of a god like this as truly schizophrenic: celebrating a god that rescues somebody's life after having send him the car that rolled over him, who tests his creations by asking them to sacrifice their children or wiping out opposing people/tribes, and promises salvation and forgiveness - not in life, no, not earlier than after death.

Anyhow, the church's dogma as represented in the full bible moved beyond the Judaic tradition, and Jesus teachings as included in the Gospels moved even further beyond the church'S dogmatic teaching. Muhammad also based on the abrahamic tradition, but took it and implemented changes to it that had the primary purpose of making muhammad's version of abrahamic traditon different to that of the Jews that at that time he already must have hated very much after his collision with their theologicans who showed him how little his insight into Judaism was - a big, narcissistic offence for him. I am convinced that Islam'S hostile attitude especially towards the Jews is nothing else but a echo from Muhammad'S narcissim that was offended so very much by the Jews not accepting him as somebody of equal woprth and qualification.

From all these four (!) traditions, I see the teachings of Jesus as the most advanced, and being the one of the four that is almost completely disconnected from the meaning of the old Abrahamic cult the other traditions (church, Judaism and Islam) are basing on.

[OneToughHerring]

From all these four (!) traditions, I see the teachings of Jesus as the most advanced,

I see them all as crap, equally so. What do you think about that?

[NeonSamurai]

I readily admit my knowledge on Judaism is not as much as what I know on islam and Christianity and the church. No offense meant but I can tell you don't.

As I see it, the Bible'S stories of the times before jesus base on the Abrahmaic god of the Jews and represent some kind of "reformed" form of Judaism.
The two religions are very different, and bare very little resemblance to each other. Later Christians (Greeks mostly) borrowed from the Torah, and in several cases screwed up the meaning of what they borrowed. Christianity has almost nothing to do with Judaism other then having had borrowed from their writings.

the history of Judaism is a history of constant conflict and war, isn't it, the whole region there still lives and dies by this old tradition's "heritage".

Sure, there is a lot of conflict and war. It is an oral history of the Israelites, and there was a lot of warfare and violence during those times (as with everywhere else). There were also times of peace, prosperity, and innovation (such as during the reign of king Solomon). As for what is happening now in Israel, it is hard to have peace when certain groups keep sending suicide bombers and mortar/rocket attack the bordering cities and towns. Its not that the people of Israel don't want peace, but they are not going to leave Israel to get it (which is what the other side wants). So the fighting continues.

I did not refer to the Thora, becasue I do not know much about it. But the old stories of the bible are basing on the Judaic concept of a God - as much as I know a god as tyrannic and punishing and psychotic like the god of the old testament, which makes sense if both traditions are linked.

That interpretation of the Judaic god is the one from their earliest history, when Yahweh was the fire god of the mountain. Also a lot of the earliest stories (genesis, the flood, etc) are also borrowed from other religions of the time, and altered to fit. The slightly more modern interpretation is that G*d is a balancing force, that every action taken by G*d in the stories was to balance out man's actions. For example god destroyed the pursuing army of the Pharaoh at the Red Sea, to balance out the killing of all the first born by the Pharaoh's order.

I think here is a reason for the proverbial hairplitting philosophic thinking in Judaic tradition, for which already the pharisees in roman times and earlier werew famous: it really needed some tricks and efforts to re-interprete such a brutal deity and chnage it's image into a man-loving, forgiving, kind old grandfather who takes care for his children.

I don't believe most Jews view G*d in that way, but more of an enigma that we try to understand, but cannot ever understand. the Pharisees and then Rabbis, have continued to debate and ponder the meanings behind the texts, but it is not hair splitting as you put it. Philosophically they do believe that G*d does care about it's creations.

I must admit I tend to see both the church'S and the Jews image of God like this as truly schizophrenic, celebrating a god that rescues somebody's life aftr having send him the car that rolled over him, and promises salvation and forgiveness - not in life, but after death.

Your mixing up Christianity and Judaism. There is no specific salvation or heaven per say in the Jewish tradition, no hell either. That is an unaddressed enigma. The view is that Jews have a purpose in life, to bring the divine to earth, and bring earth to the divine, or achieve balance between the two.

From all these traditions, I see the teahcings of Jesus as the most advanced, and being the one of the four that is almost completely disconnected from the meaning of the old Abrahamic cult the other traditions (church, Judaism and Islam) are basing on.

A lot of those teachings are not exactly new, and many were lifted from Jewish thinking (also from the Greek gnostics and others), many can't even be directly attributed to Jesus. To be a good Jew, you are to lead a good life, do your work in the world, do your mitzvah or blessings (good deeds basicly), find balance in your life, and show gratitude to G*d for what has been given you.


Honestly Skybird, you don't realy know the first thing about the old Abrahamic cult as you put it. Unfortunately neither do most others, which I think contributes to so much anti-semitism in the world.

I myself am not Jewish, though my stepfather was. I am agnostic, and was raised as one by my mother. I have to say though, if I had to choose one of the three, I would easily choose to be Jewish then the others, far more thought and philosophy, and much less dogma and mishegas.

[onelifecrisis]

And could you at least try to post without needing to fall back to harsh language like "from your a###" and "WTF" and "pr!ck" etc. It makes it annoying to deal with you and throws a bad light on you as well, giving an impression that you are just some juvenile in his teen years not being able to control his hormones. We are no close friends knowing each other since schooldays and sitting together and being drunk at the bar.

Upon reading your posts it is not hormones that I find difficult to control. As for my use of colourful language, if you don't like it? Then you can shove it up your arse.

islam did not form tyrannies and violent opressive governments and did not go on conquest in violation but in explicit following of Muhammad's demands and teachings. The church, the crusaders turned violent, oppressive and barbaric in explicit violation of Jesus' teachings.

Surely this only serves to strengthen the point I was making? Which is that people are just people, regardless of what book they claim to follow.

What do I care for the terror god of the old "Abrahamism", none at all I care. It's the same brutal face in orthodox Judaism, the old testament, and islam. To hell with all three of them.

I was wondering whether to make the same point about Judaism (I was told that Old Testament = Judaism, which is not correct if I'm reading Neon's post right, which doesn't surprise me given my dodgy source of information, but I digress) not because I agree with you, but rather to find out whether your views would remain consistent. And they do, which gives me no purchase, but at least lets me know exactly what I'm dealing with.

Anyhow. This thread has already going on for too long, and I am a bit tired to get in parts ignored, and in other parts being expected to repeat myself time and again, or to just correct the way I get quoted by others.

You are trying to make your point, I am trying to make mine. Making mine does not require that I respond to every single point you care to post, especially given your tendency to take any opportunity to stand on a soap box. The points you feel I've ignored are there for people to see and (since you are preaching after all) people can decide for themselves whether those points can hold up your case. If it's only me you're trying to convince then just give up.

Time will tell which of us is right. In the meantime you will no doubt go right on preaching your message, and I will carry on getting drunk with people... be they Muslim or otherwise. If all you say is correct then maybe one day, many years from now, you will have reason to say to people like me "I told you so". If that day comes then I hope the satisfaction you get is worth the price you paid.

[onelifecrisis]

G*d

Why? Out of curiosity.

[NeonSamurai]

Why? Out of curiosity.

In the Jewish tradition one is not supposed to name the all mighty in word or on paper, so in writing when using the word god they put G*d. In prayer they make reference to but do not directly name.

Since I was talking about Jewish ways I included that in my post.

[Skybird]

Upon reading your posts it is not hormones that I find difficult to control. As for my use of colourful language, if you don't like it? Then you can shove it up your arse.


Moderator, please.

Clearness is one thing, bigmouth - using excrements as language and behaving like a drunk sailor or a masturbating teen, is a very different.

Done with you. And woootch - to the ignore list your name goes.

[Onkel Neal]

Upon reading your posts it is not hormones that I find difficult to control. As for my use of colourful language, if you don't like it? Then you can shove it up your arse.



Let's try to make our point without bringing up people's posteriors, ok?

[Skybird]

No offense meant but I can tell you don't.



No offense indeed, but for the most: true.

The two religions are very different, and bare very little resemblance to each other. Later Christians (Greeks mostly) borrowed from the Torah, and in several cases screwed up the meaning of what they borrowed. Christianity has almost nothing to do with Judaism other then having had borrowed from their writings.

Well, I did not say they are similiar, but the old stories in the bible are soemwhat influenced by the judaic tradition. You mention yourself the fore god in the mountain somwhere below. and that is the same god concept you find in the old testament. In both traditions, there is a reference to abraham being a fundament, cutting it short here.

Sure, there is a lot of conflict and war. It is an oral history of the Israelites, and there was a lot of warfare and violence during those times (as with everywhere else). There were also times of peace, prosperity, and innovation (such as during the reign of king Solomon).
Yes, but the 12 israeli tribes, at least I read that ands saw that in TV, have also behaved as conqueror and even rivals at times, and based on the divine promise and command to move to Kanaan. The landtaking in Kanaan took place under expulsion of foreign tribes there around the 14th or 13th century before Christ. This is being called for both in the Judaic Tarnach, at least I read, and is decribed in the Bible as well. The Israelites were not always fighting wars of defence only, nor were they always only the vicitms of foreign agression. Sometimes they also were the attackers and conquerors.

As for what is happening now in Israel, it is hard to have peace when certain groups keep sending suicide bombers and mortar/rocket attack the bordering cities and towns. Its not that the people of Israel don't want peace, but they are not going to leave Israel to get it (which is what the other side wants). So the fighting continues.

the Israeli present today is a chpater in nitself that we must not touch upon here. Also, it certainly is not as simplistic as you make it appear here. And this I say although for the most I defend Israel's policies.



That interpretation of the Judaic god is the one from their earliest history, when Yahweh was the fire god of the mountain. Also a lot of the earliest stories (genesis, the flood, etc) are also borrowed from other religions of the time, and altered to fit. The slightly more modern interpretation is that G*d is a balancing force, that every action taken by G*d in the stories was to balance out man's actions. For example god destroyed the pursuing army of the Pharaoh at the Red Sea, to balance out the killing of all the first born by the Pharaoh's order.

He also terrorised a father by commanding him to kill his son in order to see if he would obey, admitted, he stopped him short before the deed, but the terror for the father was real. What for? He caused a global genocide because his creation - made bis his own hands - was not like he wanted it to be: obedient. Why hasn't he created man accordingly in the first? This whole theory of God setting up challenges to man to test him, simply makes no sense and simply illustrate a truly psychotic, blood-thirsty behavior. A cynic who has intentionally designed man to be able to fail, calling that "free choice" and then punish man for being like he designed him to be - but wanting to be worshipped as a man-loving benefactor. That is not only cynical, that is sadistic. the bible holds quite many stories illustrating this kind of divine cyncism and sadism and thirst for penalty and blood. Man gets punished for God having created him the way he did. Great.

I don't believe most Jews view G*d in that way, but more of an enigma that we try to understand, but cannot ever understand. the Pharisees and then Rabbis, have continued to debate and ponder the meanings behind the texts, but it is not hair splitting as you put it. Philosophically they do believe that G*d does care about it's creations.
Yes, but to come to that image of a god while basing on the fire god just memntioned above - that really needs some form of creative thinking. That'S what I mean. that modern Judaism tends towards what you just described, was my novice view, too, although I did base on a limited fundament only, on some literature on Kabbala (ynd you know better than I do, I assume, how compex and difficutl a theme that is), when studying some interlinks between Kabbala and Tarot in certain esoteric systems.

Yes, Skybird knows and does Tarot. Now that will earn me some jokes, will it! :DL


Your mixing up Christianity and Judaism. There is no specific salvation or heaven per say in the Jewish tradition, no hell either. That is an unaddressed enigma. The view is that Jews have a purpose in life, to bring the divine to earth, and bring earth to the divine, or achieve balance between the two.
Reminds of some more esoteric christian traditions, and the Christian mystics.


A lot of those teachings are not exactly new, and many were lifted from Jewish thinking (also from the Greek gnostics and others), many can't even be directly attributed to Jesus. To be a good Jew, you are to lead a good life, do your work in the world, do your mitzvah or blessings (good deeds basicly), find balance in your life, and show gratitude to G*d for what has been given you.

If that is all there is, one would wish that only more religious people would be like that.

Honestly Skybird, you don't realy know the first thing about the old Abrahamic cult as you put it. Unfortunately neither do most others, which I think contributes to so much anti-semitism in the world.

I never dealt explicitly with it in books on Abraham, but only indirectly in books about Islam, and Christian history (as matching the timeframe of Islam). But I am aware of these deficits of mine, at least. that'S why you will not read me writing about Judaism and Abraham as explicitly as I do about the relgion-atheism-confrontation, the church, Jesus or Islam.

Maybe I should add one or two books on Judaism and its theology and history, in the future. But currently too many other books are waiting.

[Tribesman]

In the Jewish tradition one is not supposed to name the all mighty in word or on paper, so in writing when using the word god they put G*d. In prayer they make reference to but do not directly name.

Really that is a modern affection that has spread from the more fundamentalist elements of judaism in the west.
Traditionally there are 7 names, and God or G*d ain't one of them.

Done with you. And woootch - to the ignore list your name goes.
:har::har::har::har::har::har:

[onelifecrisis]

It amazes me what does and does not get an infraction around here. Apparently personal insults are fine as long as they're worded without the use of "foul" language.

OLC, you're forgetting one thing. Radicalism, in any way or form, be it Christian, Muslim or pragmatic is dangerous. It is radicalism that we have to be afraid off, that we have to fight and particularly its influence in state affairs and also on the streets. I know deeply religious Christians, and just "Sunday" Christians and I know people in both groups that are acting radically as any Islamic zealot, unable to accept anything other than what they consider to be the truth and no amount of rational discourse or empirical evidence will change their minds. Make no assumption that you are exempt from this process, evidence of which I have seen in your posts which were close to an attack on Skybird's rational discussion and use of academic sources coupled together with empirical evidence.

I agree that radicalism is dangerous, however that's not what Skybird was saying and not what I was responding to. He's repeatedly stated that the whole Islam religion/ideology is the problem, not just the radicals.

Exactly what process are you talking about, when you say I think I'm exempt from it?

[Onkel Neal]

It amazes me what does and does not get an infraction around here. Apparently personal insults are fine as long as they're worded without the use of "foul" language.



You have to understand, there is no way to create a precise definition or standard for personal attacks. A lot of opinions are exchanged here and often in quite strong terms. A lot of times it's simply a judgment call.




I agree that radicalism is dangerous, however that's not what Skybird was saying and not what I was responding to. He's repeatedly stated that the whole Islam religion/ideology is the problem, not just the radicals.

Exactly what process are you talking about, when you say I think I'm exempt from it?


Well spoken, thanks for steering back to the topic :salute:

[NeonSamurai]

Well, I did not say they are similiar, but the old stories in the bible are soemwhat influenced by the judaic tradition. You mention yourself the fore god in the mountain somwhere below. and that is the same god concept you find in the old testament. In both traditions, there is a reference to abraham being a fundament, cutting it short here.

Ya they borrowed heavily from the Torah, then took it all as being absolute truth. Something the Jews never really did (unless you go way back perhaps).

Yes, but the 12 israeli tribes, at least I read that ands saw that in TV, have also behaved as conqueror and even rivals at times, and based on the divine promise and command to move to Kanaan. The landtaking in Kanaan took place under expulsion of foreign tribes there around the 14th or 13th century before Christ. This is being called for both in the Judaic Tarnach, at least I read, and is decribed in the Bible as well. The Israelites were not always fighting wars of defence only, nor were they always only the vicitms of foreign agression. Sometimes they also were the attackers and conquerors.Oh most definitely, they were not a culture of peace and love and harmony. In the bad old days they would also try to forcibly convert people, and all kinds of other nasty stuff. But that was the way of the times, for all cultures. They had their good moments, and bad moments.

the Israeli present today is a chpater in nitself that we must not touch upon here. Also, it certainly is not as simplistic as you make it appear here. And this I say although for the most I defend Israel's policies.No I agree it isn't quite as simple as I present it.

He also terrorised a father by commanding him to kill his son in order to see if he would obey, admitted, he stopped him short before the deed, but the terror for the father was real. What for? He caused a global genocide because his creation - made bis his own hands - was not like he wanted it to be: obedient. Why hasn't he created man accordingly in the first? This whole theory of God setting up challenges to man to test him, simply makes no sense and simply illustrate a truly psychotic, blood-thirsty behavior. A cynic who has intentionally designed man to be able to fail, calling that "free choice" and then punish man for being like he designed him to be - but wanting to be worshipped as a man-loving benefactor. That is not only cynical, that is sadistic. the bible holds quite many stories illustrating this kind of divine cyncism and sadism and thirst for penalty and blood. Man gets punished for God having created him the way he did. Great.Ya, lots of awful stuff in there. We have to keep in mind though that we are dealing with an ancient religion (3000-4000 years old). Modern Judaism is rather different from that practiced during the time of the Romans, or during the time of Israel. It has evolved and changed. A lot of the nasty stuff comes from when Yahweh was the fiery mountain god, who was an angry and vengeful god (modern research suggests this was due to large amounts of volcanic activity in the region way back in time, that put a great deal of strain on the peoples of the region). The Jews also at one point performed animal sacrifice just like most of the polytheistic religions of the time. Jewish scholars have long debated the meanings (if there even is any) behind those old stories. The key thing though is that part of the Torah is based on their oral history, from before Hebrew writing existed. These stories were told around the camp fire for millennia, so naturally are full of blood, guts, and other embellishments to keep the story interesting and entertaining.

Yes, but to come to that image of a god while basing on the fire god just memntioned above - that really needs some form of creative thinking. That'S what I mean. that modern Judaism tends towards what you just described, was my novice view, too, although I did base on a limited fundament only, on some literature on Kabbala (ynd you know better than I do, I assume, how compex and difficutl a theme that is), when studying some interlinks between Kabbala and Tarot in certain esoteric systems.

Yes, Skybird knows and does Tarot. Now that will earn me some jokes, will it! :DLA key point is that Judaism is an ever changing and evolving entity. If it had stayed unchanging, it probably would have been destroyed given the history of the Jewish people. Kabbalah is interesting, thought it is just one of many schools of Jewish philosophy/thought. One thing is for sure though, Judaism is a very scholarly religion (there are so many different books, schools of thought, etc). I suspect that is a key reason why it was never very popular, too much work involved. :DL

Reminds of some more esoteric christian traditions, and the Christian mystics.Another nice thing is that Jews don't feel any need to convert others around them. It is even difficult to convert (particularly as you have to learn Hebrew), though its not that you are not welcome to try to if you wish. They also don't view other religions as being wrong per say, that unbelievers will suffer damnation. They are the chosen people, not because they are superior, but the opposite. G*d chose that they would have things harder in life, that they would have all the laws/mitzvot to obey, etc, while the gentiles do not.

If that is all there is, one would wish that only more religious people would be like that.Ya me too, though of course there are plenty who only pay lip service to their faith, and are greedy, selfish, etc. But that is just the nature of humanity.

A lot of modern morality and law is based on Jewish law, such as the 10 commandments and some of the 613 Mitzvot. Duty to your parents, don't engage in incest/adultery, don't murder, don't steal, don't lie in court, don't judge others or insult, don't oppress the weak, and on and on. There are some weird ones of course too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot

I never dealt explicitly with it in books on Abraham, but only indirectly in books about Islam, and Christian history (as matching the timeframe of Islam). But I am aware of these deficits of mine, at least. that'S why you will not read me writing about Judaism and Abraham as explicitly as I do about the relgion-atheism-confrontation, the church, Jesus or Islam.

Maybe I should add one or two books on Judaism and its theology and history, in the future. But currently too many other books are waiting.Ya that is certainly wise. I did not mean to come off as harshly as I think I did on your lack of knowledge in this area. It was just some of what you had written bugged me a bit as I felt it to be highly inaccurate :DL

I would certainly recommend reading more about it; their history is fascinating. In many ways it is amazing that they managed to survive as a people and a religion after the start of the diaspora, facing the hate and oppression they did from Christianity, Islam, and even atheism, surviving all the massacres and pogroms, and with such a hard religion to follow. Perhaps though it was all the trials they faced which kept their religion going, forcing them to bind together tightly.

Anyhow I do understand what you mean about too many books waiting :03:


Really that is a modern affection that has spread from the more fundamentalist elements of judaism in the west.
Traditionally there are 7 names, and God or G*d ain't one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

You have to remember that we are translating from Hebrew to English. In English, God is the name ascribed to the all powerful deity. So it is common to put the asterisk in as that is directly naming it. Yes this is a new practice as most Jews pray, debate about, and read scriptures in Hebrew. Only Reform Judaism offers English/Hebrew services, and will censor G*d when written (which isn't commonly written), and generally not speak that word but use words such as lord, master, etc. But in the Hebrew texts, god is very rarely named by its proper name, only alluded to.

[CaptainHaplo]

OLC - most major religions has a foundation.

For protestant Xtians, its the Bible. For Muslims, its the Quran (though many other "books/documents" exist.

To understand a religion, you cannot ask a person who follows the religion, because their view is based merely on their own understandings and teachings of what the foundation states. Often, these teachings are from a pastor, or imam, who interpretes the foundation themselves, then teaches as they see fit, or "are led" to.

Thus, a person who tries to explain religion is not able to give you an objective view of that religion.

So, to understand what a religion is, you must look at its foundation. That means you need to read the documentation that the religion is based upon. Doing so will give you the clearest possible view of the religion. Once you have the foundation, THEN you can discuss the various interpretations with others.

By reading the Quran, you will find a document that espouses consistent violence and subjegation of others, using religion and matters of faith as the rationale. The early history of the Bible is very similiar. The Islamic idea of law - aka - sharia - has its parallells in the Old Testament. However, the OT became balanced roughly 2 Millenia ago with the birth, teachings and death of Jesus. It went from being a violence and control based religion (aka a political power roadmap) to being a proponent of a life of peace and forgiveness. Islam has no corellary. Its foundation still does nothing more than promote power over others by violence and force.

It is that fact, and I challenge you to read both foundations with an open mind to verify it - that makes Islam by definition an "extremist religion" by today's standards.

[Onkel Neal]

Swiss Vote to Ban New Minarets (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/29/world/main5823008.shtml?tag=topnews)
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/11/29/image5822936g.jpg

[Schroeder]

Swiss Vote to Ban New Minarets (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/29/world/main5823008.shtml?tag=topnews)
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/11/29/image5822936g.jpg
At least the Swiss get asked...
I wish we would get asked...:damn:
BTW congratulations for that brave decision Switzerland.

[onelifecrisis]

OLC - most major religions has a foundation.

For protestant Xtians, its the Bible. For Muslims, its the Quran (though many other "books/documents" exist.

To understand a religion, you cannot ask a person who follows the religion, because their view is based merely on their own understandings and teachings of what the foundation states. Often, these teachings are from a pastor, or imam, who interpretes the foundation themselves, then teaches as they see fit, or "are led" to.

Thus, a person who tries to explain religion is not able to give you an objective view of that religion.

So, to understand what a religion is, you must look at its foundation. That means you need to read the documentation that the religion is based upon. Doing so will give you the clearest possible view of the religion. Once you have the foundation, THEN you can discuss the various interpretations with others.

By reading the Quran, you will find a document that espouses consistent violence and subjegation of others, using religion and matters of faith as the rationale. The early history of the Bible is very similiar. The Islamic idea of law - aka - sharia - has its parallells in the Old Testament. However, the OT became balanced roughly 2 Millenia ago with the birth, teachings and death of Jesus. It went from being a violence and control based religion (aka a political power roadmap) to being a proponent of a life of peace and forgiveness. Islam has no corellary. Its foundation still does nothing more than promote power over others by violence and force.

It is that fact, and I challenge you to read both foundations with an open mind to verify it - that makes Islam by definition an "extremist religion" by today's standards.

You could have saved yourself the effort of typing by going to one of Skybird's posts and hitting copy/paste. Shall I copy/paste my answers?

[Torplexed]

Heheh. Clever psychological graphic work in how the minarets in that poster resemble missiles or stakes. :D

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/11/29/image5822936g.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

Very true! And the hooded person, I bet 90% of westerners find that creepy as hell.

[Tribesman]

Wow they banned new minarets that they could have blocked in the normal planning process anyway.
What a waste of time.

[Torplexed]

Very true! And the hooded person, I bet 90% of westerners find that creepy as hell.

Indeed...I always found the burqa a bit ninjaesque in apperance. :D

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/08/article-1205208-026D22F9000004B0-334_468x345.jpg

[Dan D]

Buckingham Palace has no minaret attached, right?

This means that under the new Swiss rule it would be possible to rededicate Buckingham Palace into a mosque.

The Swiss House of Parliament in Bern has no minaret attached, as well.

May be, future constructions of mosques in Switzerland will have onion domes instead, or steeples.

That makes a difference, it adds some Swiss charm.

Personally, I like onions domes with beaten gold best.

[CaptainHaplo]

Quoting the article - I just found this rather ironic....

"Muslims indeed will not feel safe anymore." - Taner Hatipoglu, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Zurich

And it never occured to these people that the rest of society "does not feel safe anymore" when muslims fail to weed out the rampant "extremists" within their own religion, and instead only say "well that just wasn't representative of Islam" when something happens.

There is a reason there is a backlash building. Its because they won't take the initiative to demonstrate that they truly will not accept "extremism". They had the chance, and still do. If they want to stop a backlash, the muslim communities themselves have to be the ones to step up.

Oh - and OLC - I reviewed the thread in passing - didn't see the argument as I stated it, nor a response. If you want to point me to a post # I will review it and respond, or else you can take the challenge as posted. Or ignore it...

[Skybird]

I have Swiss friends, and my parents as well. The outcome is not a surprise for me, becasue I know that the Swiss are a people that is not as shy as the EU to stick to it's identy and it's own national (and economic) interest.

much more revealing is the reaction in german media: putting the Swiss decison unisono into a context of irrational and unfounded fear of Islam, accusing them to fal back behind the enlightenment and being stoneaged in general. I have so far read no comment on the irraitonal fear maybe having a good, solid, well-founded reason. and none of the German commentators has thought about that the Swiss without doubt have observed the events in Germany regarding the enormous pressure being built wherever Muslim communities demand to build mosques, and what the resulting conflicts have done to the social integrity of German society, and the widenign gap between the people on the one side and politicians, economy lobbyists and the church on the other side.

Congrats to the Swiss. In international diplomacy, they will pay for it, but I still congratualte them. I only wish Germans would get asked on this and other important issues, too. but over here political parties, the government and the federal minister presidents still rule and govern by a mindset of "Führer befiehl, wir folgen".

My pocket knife and my dental insurrance both are Swiss. And both are top quality. :up: :haha:

[JU_88]

Well Switzerland belongs to the swiss people, so it their call on to what extent they want to accommidate imagrants & other cultures. That i can appereciate.

Sill to much intertolerence out there... (on both sides)
Seems to me that if the 9/11 hijackers wanted to insite hatred between the West and Islam - they sure as hell succeeded :down:

[Jimbuna]

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3075/imamrockettx8.gif

[JU_88]

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3075/imamrockettx8.gif

:har::har:

[Jimbuna]

Could be a potential reality sooner than we think :hmmm:

[JU_88]

Could be a potential reality sooner than we think :hmmm:

I doubt it very much :haha:
Hysteria on the other hand.....

[Stealth Hunter]

Wow they banned new minarets that they could have blocked in the normal planning process anyway.
What a waste of time.

What's even more amusing is that there are only FOUR in the entire country!:haha: I was watching Nightline a little bit ago, and they showed how two of them have already been defaced with anti-Islamic graffiti.

I doubt it very much
Hysteria on the other hand....

From what I've been reading, it appears most of these shenanigans are coming from that nationalist, right-wing Swiss People's Party. On the Nightline interview I was talking about, this one guy called minarets "symbols of militant Islam", when they're no more symbols of militantism than those realistic crosses people such as the Westboro Baptists carry around in public. As far as religious structures are concerned, they're not any different from the bell tower a church. This is nothing but extremism, only it's not the Islamics causing it.

[Tribesman]

much more revealing is the reaction in german media: putting the Swiss decison unisono into a context of irrational and unfounded fear of Islam, accusing them to fal back behind the enlightenment and being stoneaged in general
It is irrational, banning minarets is a pointless exercise.

the enormous pressure being built wherever Muslim communities demand to build mosques
Don't talk bollox, that rubbish is straight off Stormfront.
They apply for planning permission just like anyone else does.

Skybird, you wrote that it is difficult to get a movement together without gathering all the racist scumbags to the cause, you also wrote that you were identified as a racist scumbag when you did you little protests yourself in the shopping center.
Do you think it says anything about your views?

[Reece]

Muslim groups in Switzerland and abroad condemned the vote as biased and anti-Islamic.Tough break!!:up:

[Skybird]

Cartoons like that indeed are not helpful in preventing to give criticism of Islam and opposition to Islam's increasing influence in the West a bad name. For preventing that, we should not make it Islam-sympathisers so easy, but should stay away fron rightwing extremists and white supremacists, Nazis and form sof criticism that just display simplistic world views that do not match complexity and truth of reality. Musolim missles exploding in wetsenr cities are not our main concern, but the creeping Islamsiation and creeping deletion of Western identity by the hands of Western institutions and politicians themselves. It is unlikely that Iran would fire a nuclear missile to europe in the first. that it would help to get a suitcase with some critical cintent blowing up in a dirty nuclear explosion - is something different.

For these reasons, Jimbuna, this cartoon is not helpful, but counterproductive. It makes it more difficult for people of your and my opinion.

[Skybird]

Towers historically are symbols of a claim to power. They mean to say "I am here, i do not intend to go away, I want to rule this place". From a church to the castle towers, from demonstrative benchmark-height towers to minaretts - this is the symbolism behind towers.

[Stealth Hunter]

Towers historically are symbols of a claim to power. They mean to say "I am here, i do not intend to go away, I want to rule this place". From a church to the castle towers, from demonstrative benchmark-height towers to minaretts - this is the symbolism behind towers.

Exactly...

[August]

Artillery OP. :yep:

[Skybird]

Skybird, you wrote that it is difficult to get a movement together without gathering all the racist scumbags to the cause, you also wrote that you were identified as a racist scumbag when you did you little protests yourself in the shopping center.
Do you think it says anything about your views?
No. It just illustrates the meaninglessness of comments like yours, since words and terms in it do not have a meaning anymore, and ideas get attributed to labels at random just for giving opposition a bad name.

I have heared people claiming the sentencing of a proven criminal to be "intolerance", I have experienced to have been turned from a victim of a knife attack into an attacker and the guy trying to stab me suddenly claiming the role of a victim, I see submission being mistaken with "peace" in PC debates all the time, and now people like you are calling informed and well-founded critcism of Islam "Islamophobia", "racism" and "Nazi-extremism". The West has become an asylum for confused people that turn things around by 180°, declare "left" to be "right" and "up" to be "down", and will to be prey that is claimed by others like a farmer collects the chicken and eggs from his hens.

If people like oyu win with your views in the end, you will have won what you deserve. But you will find that what you won is not what you have expected.

You guys have seriously lost your scales and standards, because you never needed to live without the things you today take for granted: peace, freedom, reasonability, the tradition of humanism. Headlessly and because you are bored and without orientation you therefor trade them away, if only that allows you to avoid taking a stand in their defence. History will mock you, for having traded your most precious possession - freedom - for illusions and self-deceptions that made you a prey for others.

But you are the best entertained mankind there ever was - now isn't that something! :up:

[Tribesman]

No. It just illustrates the meaninglessness of comments like yours
No it illustrates the problems when people make silly generalisations like you do about all religions and Islam in particular.
The tripe you are spouting about the demographic timebomb, the upcoming subservience to the global consipacy, the demands that we accept their laws and submit to their notions is straight from the 1930s.
It is bollox now just as it was bollox back then.

You guys have seriously lost your scales and standards
No it is you who has slid off the scale into a despicable standard .

History will mock you
Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vrQS10cb0A

[OneToughHerring]

Skybird,

you also mentioned something about a "Nazi past". Do you have one?

[Onkel Neal]

No, he doesn't. :-? Is that really a question?

[OneToughHerring]

No, he doesn't. :-? Is that really a question?

Well ok then. Unfortunately there are quite a few neo-nazis and other far-right people in Europe. The concept is not an abstraction as it seems to be to Americans. So I take these types of "I'm not a racist, but..."-type things with a grain of salt.

[JU_88]

Well ok then. Unfortunately there are quite a few neo-nazis and other far-right people in Europe. The concept is not an abstraction as it seems to be to Americans. So I take these types of "I'm not a racist, but..."-type things with a grain of salt.

Yeah gotta love that opening line "im not racist but...." that cracks me up everytime.:rotfl2:
Way too much hysteria over Islam at the moment, As if they can actually taking over the world :haha:

1) Muslims are not even united amongst them selves and there numbers in Western countries are still in the minority by a long way.

2) Most modern Muslims have no desire to take over world or infulence political change any more than Christians or Jews do. Most of the ones ive met are more far more intrested in having a good job and a nice car.


3) How many Christians or Athiests do you know that have recenlty converted to Islam? Ive known Muslims all my life, would I convert to Islam? HELL NO!

4) So muslim extremists occassionally succeed in commiting terrorist attacks once every 5-10 years or so. But so do a zillion other non muslim terror groups accross the globe.
Anyway when was the last time you saw a Nation and its peoples will broken by terrorism?
Never, because it only suceeds in generating hate.
The realistic objective of any terrorist is to create some temporary fear and instability, but above all - stir up trouble in the hope that something bigger will kick off between governments or groups.

IMHO Even the spread of Seasonal flu is scarier.

[onelifecrisis]

3) How many Christians or Athiests do you know that have recenlty converted to Islam? Ive known Muslims all my life, would I convert to Islam? HELL NO!

Actually I know two people who "converted" so they could marry Muslim girls. Ever noticed how when two people from different religions get married its always the bloke who has to convert? :roll: Of course there is a difference between true conversion and just going through the motions so you can get Kama Sutra for life. ;)

[Skybird]

I translated this from the german original by Henryk Broder, published in Die Welt today.


Independent of how one judges the outcome, not the Muslims are the losers, who nobody in Switzerland hinders to practice their religion - the losers are the "Gutmenschen" (starry-eyed idealists), who think another culture always is more worth to be defended than their own; the PC fellow travellers who since always have been prone for totalitarian temptations; and the appeasers like the Swiss foreign minister, who fears the possible reactions in the Muslim-Arab world, and for helping the export of Swiss products is all too willing to defuse Swiss democracy just that little bit.

Has the foreplay to the election already been extremely "luschtig" (funny), the aftermatch will be that even more - since today you already can read in newspapers like the Süddeutsche Zeitung (left) and the TAZ (extreme left) why the Swiss have decided "catastrophically wrong", and served democracy, freedom of belief and the good relations to the Arab-Muslim world a very bad turn.

The same "Pappnasen" (nutcases) that time and again tell us Iran were not a dictatorship of pedophile old bastards, that do not get tired to claim Hamas came to power by "democratic means", will label the majority vote of the Swiss as "undemocratic", because the stupid, stupid ward did not decide like the guardian wanted it to do. That makes the guardian angry!

The Swiss are the first European nation, that decided in free democratic election against the Islamisation of their country. they did not decide against freedom of religion, they did not decide against restaurants where they serve halal food, they did not decide against the religion of Islam. They only decided against an asymmetry, that in other countries is taken as if being ruled by natural law.

Muslims are allowed to build temples in europe, Christians are prohibited to do that in Muslim-Arab countries (not even mentioning the Jews). In Afghanistan and Pakistan, apopstates and people converting to other religions are threatened by death, but tourist to Saudi Arabia are not even allowed to carry their own bible in their luggage. That is a status that no longer must be tolerated.

From now on, all deals are tit-for-tat only. Like governments negotiate slots for airline carriers, from now on we must negotiate "landing rights" for religious buildings and institutions, if not in a relation of one-to-one, then at least in principle.

If in Germany'S Bonn there exists a King Fahd-Academy (Skybird: rated by the Verfassungsschutz to be notoriously breeding extremism, and being warned of by the Verfassungsschutz as by its activities being a major threat to the constitution), that must not report to the German state's school supervision, then in Jedda or Riad there must be allowed a Protestant, a Catholic or an academy for the theory and practice of Atheism. If Iranian women can stroll the streets in Munich in full veils (and even burquahs), then European women must be allowed to walk the streets of Teheran in the cloathing of their choice without the lecherous ruffians of the "religious police" molesting them.

It is very simple. Somebody just has to make the start.

This silence about this asymmetry, this notorious ignorrance for the massive lack of balance between what Muslims are already allowed in the West, but stupid dhimmis and doomed infidels are prohibited in Muslim countries, is the most prominent argument why the nutcases and self-haters, the totalitarian idealists and reality-deniers give an impression of being such hilarious carricatures of reasonability and rationality. I just laugh into their self-righteous but stupid faces. As a matter of fact members from different Islamic sects are more free in the West to practice according to their faith than they are in most muslim countries, while christians and Jews in Muslim countries get constantly harassed, discriminated and reduced in numbers by making them flee. especially the last years have seen a massive spike in the exodus of christians from all Muslim countries - not just Iraq. But some funny guys take it upon them to criticise Europe for daring to defend a little bit of its cultural identity - in it's very own home, in its very own place, in its very own culture! How ridiculous and absurd that criticism is! Mockery, shame and laughter for that!

[JU_88]

Actually I know two people who "converted" so they could marry Muslim girls. Ever noticed how when two people from different religions get married its always the bloke who has to convert? :roll: Of course there is a difference between true conversion and just going through the motions so you can get Kama Sutra for life. ;)

Heheh, Yeah but thats not because they decided Islam was the life for them.... just an obstical that needed to be crossed, their heart was in it for the girl only...i suspect.

[JU_88]

From now on, all deals are tit-for-tat only. Like governments negotiate slots for airline carriers, from now on we must negotiate "landing rights" for religious buildings and institutions, if not in a relation of one-to-one, then at least in principle.

If in Germany'S Bonn there exists a King Fahd-Academy (Skybird: rated by the Verfassungsschutz to be notoriously breeding extremism, and being warned of by the Verfassungsschutz as by its activities being a major threat to the constitution), that must not report to the German state's school supervision, then in Jedda or Riad there must be allowed a Protestant, a Catholic or an academy for the theory and practice of Atheism. If Iranian women can stroll the streets in Munich in full veils (and even burquahs), then European women must be allowed to walk the streets of Teheran in the cloathing of their choice without the lecherous ruffians of the "religious police" molesting them.

It is very simple. Somebody just has to make the start.

I agree that it make perfect sense. (fair is fair)

The fundermental difference/problem here, is that Western societies have already offered those freedoms for decades. Islamic ruled countries do not and never have - nothing new there at all.
It is their problem not ours.
We are clamping down on those freedoms in the aftermath of some terrorist attacks.
But in doing so, we are taking a leaf out of their book and following their example of intollerence.
Not that it bothers you, Im sure.... :D

[Schroeder]

Yeah gotta love that opening line "im not racist but...." that cracks me up everytime.:rotfl2:

Excuse me, but what is wrong with it? That's what I can't stand, the moment one is criticising another culture one is labelled a racist. If I was a racist why do I hate Nazis? If I was a racist, why do I hang around with foreigners (Chinese, Polish, Russians, Philippines)? Why is it that I have no trouble with those guys but don't like Islam? Could it be because Islam has presented itself to me differently than the others? Could it be Islam's fault that I don't like it while not having problems with other races/cultures? HELL NO!!! Islam is nice!!! If I don't like Islam it's all my fault and I'm a f*cking Nazi/Racist/supporter of death camps etc...:roll:


Way too much hysteria over Islam at the moment, As if they can actually taking over the world :haha:
Ever heard the words "long term plan"? They are already on the move here. One small step after another.


3) How many Christians or Athiests do you know that have recenlty converted to Islam? Ive known Muslims all my life, would I convert to Islam? HELL NO!
Cat Stevens now known as Yusuf Islam, Casius Clay now known as Muhamed Ali (ok, the two did not convert recently but are well known), some members of the "Sauerland Gruppe" (A terror group in Germany that was taken out before they could carry out their attacks), Some teacher over here who wanted to wear a headscarf while teaching...


4) So muslim extremists occassionally succeed in commiting terrorist attacks once every 5-10 years or so. But so do a zillion other non muslim terror groups accross the globe.
Anyway when was the last time you saw a Nation and its peoples will broken by terrorism?
Never, because it only suceeds in generating hate.
I think you misunderstood the point. I don't fear so much terror attacks. It is the slow process of being pushed back and being taken over that makes me feel very uncomfortable. That is not necessarily combined with physical violence (as long as you don't stand in the way that is).

[OneToughHerring]

Excuse me, but what is wrong with it? That's what I can't stand, the moment one is criticising another culture one is labelled a racist. If I was a racist why do I hate Nazis? If I was a racist, why do I hang around with foreigners (Chinese, Polish, Russians, Philippines)? Why is it that I have no trouble with those guys but don't like Islam? Could it be because Islam has presented itself to me differently than the others? Could it be Islam's fault that I don't like it while not having problems with other races/cultures? HELL NO!!! Islam is nice!!! If I don't like Islam it's all my fault and I'm a f*cking Nazi/Racist/supporter of death camps etc...:roll:

Not necessarily but it does raise questions. To me it's almost like the whole 'discussion' about muslims etc. is a ruse to take attention from the horrible debacles that are the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which have resulted in countless deaths already.

But since muslims are evil then I guess it doesn't matter if a bunch of them dies as a result of some shady wars. :roll:

[Schroeder]

Hmm. I don't think so. Here in Germany it is quite difficult to discuss the matter altogether without being called the things I already wrote. The politicians avoid the whole thing as much as they can and always just try to appease. So there is no official discussion and therefore it can't distract from the "war like situations" in Afghanistan (there is not really a war there, is it???:roll:).

[OneToughHerring]

Hmm. I don't think so. Here in Germany it is quite difficult to discuss the matter altogether without being called the things I already wrote. The politicians avoid the whole thing as much as they can and always just try to appease. So there is no official discussion and therefore it can't distract from the "war like situations" in Afghanistan (there is not really a war there, is it???:roll:).

Can't say I'm surprised that you would immediately begin to belittle the war in Afghanistan.

[JU_88]

I think you misunderstood the point. I don't fear so much terror attacks. It is the slow process of being pushed back and being taken over that makes me feel very uncomfortable. That is not necessarily combined with physical violence (as long as you don't stand in the way that is).

Ok well put simply, Why now? why is the western world & its main stream media suddenly quaking in it boots over the spread of Islam? when 10 years ago - it barley gave a toss!

I really dont see what there is to be so worried about.
Islam may spread, but it can only spread so far - Everyone is different, for every one guy that converts to Islam there are 10,000 or so who reject it.
This is western paranoia over nothing.

Our culture, co-operations and govenments' happens to control the global economy and 90% of worlds weath if not more..
Some jerks fly planes in to some of our buildings, not satisfied by simply punishing those responsible, we go and invade two countries to remove their governments from power. Did we check to see if the Iraqi and Afghan people where cool with it first? No of course not.
Now I'm not going to start criminalising the West, but you tell me who is more effective at enforcing their values (when called upon.)
FFS yes, Islam is here to stay - and so is capitialism, christianity & all the rest.

If islam wants to dominate, they are not going to be able to achieve it with Mosques and Hibjabs

And I REALLY want to know, are we really and statisticly being 'slowly pushed back'?
-or is it just media scare mongering which gives us the 'impression' that we are being 'slowly pushed back'? :hmmm:

Im not Anti-west I live and work here for crying out loud.
Im just trying to be objective, is it really not so hard to step into some one elses shoes for a split second is it?

[JU_88]

Excuse me, but what is wrong with it? That's what I can't stand, the moment one is criticising another culture one is labelled a racist.

Because people who are truley not racist - dont even feel the need to say it, they dont even think about it :haha:

No seriously, it cracks me up because me and my friends often use the line 'Im not racist but.." in many private jokes. Thats all.

Im not racist but... I sure like to joke about it :D

[Tribesman]

Well done Skybird , you do the work for me.
I apologise if you didn't realise. But the fact is that nearly every time you write something you contradict your own arguement, just about every time you attempt to justify your own arguement you ridicule your other arguements.
Charlie Chaplin was late with publication and distribution, but it was still as funny as ****
Forget the ska rythym
A message to you skybird
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4

[Tribesman]

Because people who are truley not racist - dont even feel the need to say it,I once bought a record by Toots, I did enjoy the ethnic beat
Oh big up to dem immigrant posse....seen:yeah:

[Schroeder]

Can't say I'm surprised that you would immediately begin to belittle the war in Afghanistan.
Sorry, but I think you misunderstood me (or I misunderstand you, either way). Our government refuses to talk about a war in Afghanistan although there are fights on a regular basis which also include German forces. Still our politicians insist that there is no war. It was a huge step forward that our new Minister of Defence finally spoke of "Kriegsähnliche Zustände" (warlike conditions). That's why I used that term, though I have to admit that I translated "Zustände" wrong calling them situations instead of conditions... To me there is a war going on and our politicians should finally call it what it is. Everything else is just plain unfair to our troops over there.

[JU_88]

I once bought a record by Toots, I did enjoy the ethnic beat
Oh big up to dem immigrant posse....seen:yeah:

Yeah in fact it was so crap, we should send them all back to their bleeding country innit :D

:haha:

[Skybird]

The ignoration of unwanted realities is being done systematically today, Schroeder. True with the afghanistan war, true with the aggressiveness of Islamic ideology, and claims of religion for power. Censorship of and punishment for mentioning such unwanted realities even becomes valid laws these days. The West more and more becomes a mental asylum run by a totalitarian gang claiming to be freedom managers.

His latest, two days old. At first, one could think it has little to do with the issues in this thread, but then you realise that it has all and everything to do with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk

[JU_88]

The ignoration of unwanted realities is being done systematically today,


Yep, that much is true :D

[Schroeder]

Ok well put simply, Why now? why is the western world & its main stream media suddenly quaking in it boots over the spread of Islam? when 10 years ago - it barley gave a toss!
It still doesn't give a toss about it here. That would make them racists you know?;)
Well I'm 28 now and I've never before seen a so heavy presence of Islam in this country. They are everywhere, mosques are being erected like mad here. That together with the "friendly" attitude that a lot of them have towards our society (there is a reason why our constitution protection is observing a lot of "culture clubs" like Mili Görüs) which is backed by high ranking officials in Muslim countries (I want to point at the "lovely" Erdogan speech as an example once more) and by high Ayatollahs who made no secrets of their plans to take over, doesn't really make me like them.
Another point is that Islam de facto supports slavery. Or how would you call what their women are? Stripped of some elemental rights and almost a posession of their husbands. Lovely....not! I can't condone that here. If they think they have to handle it that way where they came from, fine more power to them, but over here we have other rules!


I really dont see what there is to be so worried about.
Islam may spread, but it can only spread so far - Everyone is different, for every one guy that converts to Islam there are 10,000 or so who reject it.
Are you sure? I'm afraid I made a different observation.
Do you have any statistics about that?


Our culture, co-operations and govenments' happens to control the global economy and 90% of worlds weath if not more..
Again, I would not be so sure of that. One word: Oil


Some jerks fly planes in to some of our buildings, not satisfied by simply punishing those responsible, we go and invade two countries to remove their governments from power. Did we check to see if the Iraqi and Afghan people where cool with it first? No of course not.
Where were the loud protests against it in the Islamic world? Where are the protests when another jerk blew himself up? Nothing? Silence? Oh well, I guess silence is then the Muslim's way of showing anger....oh wait their silence was pretty different when this Danish newspaper published this Mohammed caricatures.....:hmm2:


Now I'm not going to start criminalising the West, but you tell me who is more effective at enforcing their values (when called upon.)
It is not about military strikes. It is about a "Revolution" from within. They don't need military force. I don't think we have much to defend ourselves against this process nor do I see the willingness to protect our values.
If you want to see how values are protected, ask the religion police in Iran.;)


If islam wants to dominate, they are not going to be able to achieve it with Mosques and Hibjabs
No, but it is just another step.


And I REALLY want to know, are we really and statisticly being 'slowly pushed back'?
The reproduction rate of people with Islamic background is much higher than that of native Germans. So it might take long, but in the end they will simply out breed us (is this the right English term?).


Im not Anti-west I live and work here for crying out loud.
Im just trying to be objective, is it really not so hard to step into some one elses shoes for a split second is it?Never accused you of being so.:DL
But I'm afraid that my experience in that shoes for that split second is different from yours.

Now I have to ask one question.
Can you name me one Islamic country that is tolerant of others? I mean tolerance of religion. Equal rights of men and women and all the stuff we take for granted here.
To me it seems that Islam is only tolerant when it is a minority. The moment they have power they suppress every other way of living/thinking and that'S what I don't want to happen here.

[Tribesman]

Yep, that much is true
Don't be cruel , mockery doesn't befit you.

Bloody hell Skybird !!!!!
Pat???He used to be really funny on the circuit before his act went down the pan and he opted for populist conspiracy crap on the web.
The fact that you even link to his rants really speaks volumes for your point of view.

The reproduction rate of people with Islamic background is much higher than that of native Germans.
yeah yeah , if you take a creationist approach and assume that rates are constant so they fit your view.
BTW whatever happened to they mennonites with their low german?
did they ever adapt as immigrants and abandon their practices?

[NeonSamurai]

I have to say I find it rather sad. Rather then trying to sensibly discuss some real and valid concerns, certain people here pull out the racism and Islamaphobia (which isn't a genuine statement as its not a phobic reaction) cards, and resort to ridicule and insult.

For one thing it isn't racism, at all, period. Muslims come in all shapes, sizes and skin colors. There are white Muslims, black Muslims, yellow Muslims, if there was green there would be green Muslims. You are in fact engaging in a form of racism by trying to label others as being racist. Its a religion, not a race (scientifically race doesn't even exist as the supposed traits are found in multiple 'races' and vary wildly).

Secondly I have the right to criticize any view, be it religious, political, or whatever. This doesn't mean I am afraid of them, or subscribe to various conspiracy theories. I have major issues with groups that subjugate/enslave half their population (the female sex), force severe mutilation (FGM or female genital mutilation) with out choice, kill in the name of family honor, and so on. I also have major issues with groups that try to force their religion down my throat, have little to no tolerance to other beliefs, yet expect me to respect their beliefs.

No Islam is not a unified force, but like Christian groups they will bind together against other groups. Its human nature to bind to that which is like you. I also find it very disturbing, when people come to another country, a country they often escaped oppression from, then try to turn their new country into their old country. Islam is not a special group, they don't deserve special consideration, or their own separate laws. I don't expect them to give up all their beliefs and values, but I do expect them to conform to our way of life, our laws, and our social expectations. I even encourage them to add to our culture. But I will not tolerate them (don't care what group) trying to subvert, and supplant my culture, values, etc with their own.

So yes I get concerned when I see signs of that. Like when I see sudden shifts in population. For example there has been a massive increase in the number of Islamic people I see in the city where I live in the last 5 years, at least a 2000% increase in total (and I am only referring to the obvious (female) cases). I get concerned when I read large percentages of Muslims in living in European counties want to bring sharia law, to that country and turn it Muslim. I get concerned when I see what has been going on in certain countries, that have literally been taken over by Islam, often by force (pay attention to whats going on in certain parts of Africa and south east Asia). I get concerned when these groups start trying to claim special privilege for themselves only.

I also get equally concerned when I see Christian groups trying to do the same thing, or any other group for that matter.

This doesn't mean that Muslims are evil people, or that there is a giant world wide conspiracy. They are just doing like every other human group through out history has tried to do when encountering another culture. They believe their values are best, their beliefs are just and right, their ways are the correct way, and that everyone else is wrong, so they should be made to see the "truth". Islam tries to aggressively convert non-believers as much as Christianity has.

In the end I don't care what you believe, you could believe in a giant pink frog, that rules the universe from the eternal Lilly pad, and what ever else you want. I really could care less. I do care however when you try to pressure and force me or others to believe in it, try to change laws to favor or abide by your beliefs, or use your beliefs as an excuse to violate the rights and freedoms of others. Islam in general is doing that globally, so I have got a problem with it.

[Schroeder]

@Skybird
Although I agree with most what the guy says I think he would be far more convincing if he were not glowing with hatred throughout the vid.


yeah yeah , if you take a creationist approach and assume that rates are constant so they fit your view.
At least it didn't shift much for the last three generations.


BTW whatever happened to they mennonites with their low german?
did they ever adapt as immigrants and abandon their practices?I don't understand that comparison. They were not immigrants but natives to the country (in most cases). Besides from what I know they did not try to force their opinion on others, so what's the point? Did they try to suppress all others? No, not that I'm aware of (to be honest I don't know much about them). Does Islam suppress every other way of thinking? In every country where it is strong enough to do so, isn't it?

@Neo
Maybe the best post here so far.:yeah:

[Skybird]

@Skybird
Although I agree with most what the guy says I think he would be far more convincing if he were not glowing with hatred throughout the vid.

You call it hate. I call it a mixture of highly justified anger, and determination that is unwilling to accept foul compromises on certain vital key issues. Hate is something different.

@Neo
Maybe the best post here so far.:yeah:

Yes, a quality post indeed.

[JU_88]

Now I have to ask one question.
Can you name me one Islamic country that is tolerant of others? I mean tolerance of religion. Equal rights of men and women and all the stuff we take for granted here.
To me it seems that Islam is only tolerant when it is a minority. The moment they have power they suppress every other way of living/thinking and that'S what I don't want to happen here.

No I cannot, but that was not my point.
Yes in once sense it is Tit for tat (as Skybirds Quote suggested). Im just saying that in another, its a sad step backwards for western freedom overall.
If you start capping the freedoms for Muslims to practice there religion, where does it end once you open that can of worms? Will be jews and christians next or what? who knows.
Enforcing such restrictions on a relgious group is a pretty big step for facism and could do all sorts of unimaginable Damage.
Mosques and Hibjabs dont harm anybody.

That said, I do not belive that westen society should OVER accomidate for Islam either, e.g by introducing islamic laws to our own legal system (yes this has been discussed).
Everyone regardless of belief, should live by the same laws in our society, if you are Muslim or whatever and you dont like it or dont what to recognise it, Well too bad... you can always move.
Muslims desserve the same treatment as every body else. No more, no less.


Where were the loud protests against it in the Islamic world? Where are the protests when another jerk blew himself up? Nothing? Silence?.


For what its worth....
http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the%20world/muslim_reactions_to_sept_11.htm

[onelifecrisis]

Very interesting videos by Pat Condell. Now I'm behind on work after watching a whole bunch of them and reading his website. He certainly has conviction and talent. He may even have a point. :hmmm:

[JU_88]

Very interesting videos by Pat Condell. Now I'm behind on work after watching a whole bunch of them and reading his website. He certainly has conviction and talent. He may even have a point. :hmmm:

Yes, this is intersting and he does have some good points, but he make ALOT of (very opinionated)assumptions... and Clearly HATES Islam with a passion

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/a/u/1/KjSjpNe1-Vc

[Schroeder]

@JU88

The official organisations condemned it of course, but what else did they do? Where were the mass demonstrations in the streets that we could see when the Muhammed caricatures were published? I didn't see anything like it (maybe that is my selective perception). Where is the cooperation to find fundamentalist?

[Skybird]

Schroeder, and everybody understanding German language,

I know Hans-Peter Raddatz from several books. He is currently maybe the most expert, best educated expert on the background of the Islamic ideology, history and legal system in german language, and also one of the most hated critics of islam, being threatened with assassination and left behind by tolerant Eu philantropists who often did not hide they wish him death instead of having to deal with his areguments, which finally made him fleeing europe since the police told him it could not and giovernments told him they would not protect him if he stays. However, those hating him so much for telling out the truth and giving it fundaments and fundaments of referances to islamic sources as a basis, rather always do not have the knowledge to counter his criticsm on equal terms: argument, knowledge and insight. Like some people here, opposition to him is for the most basing on noise levels, and trying to kill the messenger instead of the message. I consider his books to be must-reads.

Here is a 43 pages analysis by him, an analysis he was asked for by the initiators of that Swiss initiative, and it deals directly with the Islamic legal background of building minaretts.

http://www.pi-news.net/wp/uploads/2009/11/ra-expertise-ch.pdf

I just finished over-reading it in turbo mode, and as usual he is brilliant, and shows enormous knowledge on background details.

I took the easy road and copied just some quotes given by other readers on the comments board. There is so much worth to be quoted, these quotes are as good as any others that one could have picked.


Alle muslimischen Rechtsrichtungen verlangen das Verlassen des nichtislamischen Landes nach spätestens 4 Jahren, weil die politische Wirkung des Fremdsystems der Heilsbestimmung des Muslim zuwiderläuft.
Dies gilt allerdings nicht, wenn berechtigte Aussichten bestehen, die Geltung der Scharia, des islamischen Gesetzes, auf nichtislamischem Boden durchzusetzen.
(...)
In der Kairoer Menschenrechtserklärung von 1991 erkennen sie die in der UNO-Charta formulierten Grundrechte nur in dem Maße an, in dem sie sich mit den Vorschriften der Scharia in Einklang bringen lassen – eine Haltung, die seither maßgebliche Autoritäten in diesem Sinne wiederholt bestätigt haben wie z.B. die Kairoer Azhar-Moschee, der Imam von Medina, der Fatwa-Experte Yusuf al-Qaradhawi (arab.: fatwa = Rechtsgutachten) und andere mehr.
(...)
Ihr innerer Kontrollzwang führt die muslimischen Gemeinden und ihre Führungen ihrerseits in eine ständige Konkurrenz um die Ausnutzung der westlichen Toleranz, im Rahmen derer die Verantwortlichen vor Ort immer weiter gehende Zugeständnisse machen bis hin zu der Einlassung, mit der auch die Bundesrätin [Frau Calmy-Rey] keine Ausnahme bildet, nämlich daß die Bevölkerung zum „Sicherheitsrisiko“ wird, wenn sie ihre verfassungsmäßig verbrieften Rechte einfordert.
(...)
Der Schweizerische Staat ist zwar bekenntnisfrei und weltanschaulich neutral, kann aber diese Neutralität und damit den inneren Frieden nicht aufrechterhalten, wenn er Weltanschauungen bzw. Religionen duldet, deren langfristige Intention darauf abzielt, eben diese Neutralität zur Durchsetzung eigener Dominanz zu nutzen.
(...)
Die Regierung wäre daher gut beraten, die Volksinitiative als eine Möglichkeit zu nutzen, das Schlagwortarsenal des „Dialogs“ als das zu erkennen, was er nach den bisherigen Ergebnissen und auch nach den nominellen Maßstäben der UNO ist: eine staatsbürgerliche Farce, die eine seriöse Sachdiskussion verhindert, ausgewiesenen Islamisten ein Forum bietet, das sie der Mehrheitsbevölkerung zugleich verweigert, damit die soziale Ausgewogenheit blockiert und insgesamt die Sicherheit des Landes gefährdet.
(...)
Aus der absoluten Dominanz der Scharia und des individuellen Rechts auf ihre Durchsetzung ergibt sich nicht nur die Pflicht, sondern die göttlich verordnete Glaubenspflicht des Muslim, sich dem Gewaltmonopol des westlichen Staates zu entziehen, anderenfalls er sich selbst des Glaubensabfalls schuldig macht und des islamischen Heils verlustig geht. In diesem Sinne untergräbt die Religionsfreiheit nicht nur das moderne Prinzip der gegenseitigen Anerkennung, sondern konserviert und verstärkt auch innerislamisch die für alle zum Extremismus neigenden Systeme typische Kontrollmentalität. Gerade unter dem glaubenswidrigen Druck der westlichen Diaspora kommt es hier – weit mehr als in der islamischen Region – zu strikten Strukturen der Überwachung und Denunziation, zumal fast alle Muslimgemeinden in Europa, damit auch in der Schweiz, unter islamistischer, also besonders orthodoxer Führung stehen.
Umso mehr sind sie als Sachwalter Allahs in der Gemeinschaft berechtigt und verpflichtet, möglichen Schaden von ihr abzuwenden, indem sie verfassungstreue Politiker, rechtstreue Richter, glaubenstreue Kleriker bzw. kritische Wissenschaftler und Journalisten bedrohen und bei hinreichend niedrigem Eigenrisiko auch beseitigen.
Insofern müssen sich die Eliten, soweit sie die Volksinitiative als „Sicherheitsrisiko“ sehen, eine dreiteilige Frage gefallen lassen: ob sie gedankenlose Opfer einer inkompetenten Toleranzideologie sind, ob sie korrumpiert oder erpresst werden oder ob sie den Islam als Herrschaftsinstrument nutzen wollen, um sich von lästigen Mitspracherechten in der Demokratie zu befreien.


Everybody thinking he needs to become noisy now and needs to "argue" by only discrediting Raddatz authority on the issue of Islam and riducling him by parroting PC paroles and catchphrases, should make sure he can play in the same league like Raddatz. As I said, I know several of his books, and they are some of the best founded research and best-afounded arguments I know in both English and German literature. He has learned from several undisputed authorities of european islam-sciences - and has stepped beyond them where his former teacher meanwhile have somewhat given in. His books usually are demanding and take a lot of pre-education as granted, and with his latest book on the financial collapse I had to capitulate, it was too difficult for me though I got the impression it was not only complex, but brilliant and extremely insightful (Raddatz is a highly profiled Islam expert, but also an expert of finance economy, and is advisor to business corporations.) As far as I know he now lives in the hidden in the US. At least that is the last thing I have heared about his current status, one year ago or so.

Other recommended readings by him (I know these books in full):

"Von Gott zu Allah. Christentum und islam in der liberalen Fortschrittsgesellschaft"
http://www.amazon.de/Von-Gott-Allah-Hans-Peter-Raddatz/dp/3776622121/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259616374&sr=8-5

"Von Allah zum Terror. Der Djihad und die Deformierung des Westens."
http://www.amazon.de/Allah-Terror-Djihad-Deformierung-Westens/dp/377662289X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c

"Der Schleier Allahs. Die Frau im Kampf der Kulturen."
http://www.amazon.de/Allahs-Schleier-Frau-Kampf-Kulturen/dp/3776623667/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259616374&sr=8-8

these three titles form an inofficial triology, their content is supplementing to each other. If you want to form an educated opinion on Islam that is well-foiunded in islam's own referances, and want to invest into founding a basis in academic literature on the matter, these three are a very good, though not too easy and not too thin start. for German language I consider them to be must-reads and even standard works.

I also liked "Iran: Persische Hochkultur and irrationale Macht", which confirmed many of my impressions from my own longer stays in Iran. http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/3776624884/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=A3JWKAKR8XB7XF&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1SNQ6R3BM4XF5SCH5D0G&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=463375173&pf_rd_i=301128

there are quite some more books available.

[Tribesman]

For one thing it isn't racism, at all, period.
Really?
The definition of racism is prejudice on the basis of race colour nationality descent or ethnicity.
Its a religion, not a race
Ethnicity is defined as a social group with common traits like errrrr.....religion.
Religious prejudice is racism acoording to the terms of the UN convention on racial discrimination, period:up:

Very interesting videos by Pat Condell.
Would you like an interesting one by Bernard Manning about west indians taking over England?

At least it didn't shift much for the last three generations.

Actually it did, if you take Pat condells country as an example.
According to the census in the early 1970s there were absolutely no followers of the force living in britain, not a single one threatening to upheave the fabric of the nation.
Fast forward 30 years and they are a significant minority on the census forms and very rapidly growing, if this continues every briton will by bending to the will of the force in a very short time as they gain majority status.
Beware the Jedi, its a demographic timebomb.

[onelifecrisis]

Would you like an interesting one by Bernard Manning about west indians taking over England?

No thanks. ;)
Pat Condell's point of view seems a bit self-contradictory at times, but the law on criticism of religion was news to me and it does sound like a direct violation of our "right" to free speech... which is a bit concerning.

[NeonSamurai]

Really?
The definition of racism is prejudice on the basis of race colour nationality descent or ethnicity.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Also its the religion that is taking fire, not specific ethnic groups as many many different ethnic groups follow that religion, so again no its not racism.

Ethnicity is defined as a social group with common traits like errrrr.....religion.
Religious prejudice is racism acoording to the terms of the UN convention on racial discrimination, period:up:
Though I could care less what the UN defines, your statement is not correct. The UN never defined the term racism, but rather racial discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Raci al_Discrimination#Promotion_of_tolerance) which is more then just racism. Racism is prejudice against people due to physical differences (typically skin color), not cultural values, or religious beliefs. So again its not racism.

Now as for Islam and "racial discrimination" according to the UN Convention, name one Islamic country that does not practice high amounts of "racial discrimination". I can't think of one that has broken almost all the core provisions.

[CaptainHaplo]

JU_88 - you asked the following earlier in this discussion.

Anyway when was the last time you saw a Nation and its peoples will broken by terrorism?

To answer that question, let me point you to the bombings in Madrid of 2004, and the threat to bomb French railways at the same time. This occured immediately preceding a national election, and drastically increased the anti-war vote, causing a shift in national power as well as demonstrating an immediate "breaking" of the spirit of the people of spain to carry on against terror abroad. It also had a strong impact upon the French, who shortly thereafter followed suit in turning their back. It should be noted that immediately prior to that act of terror, the anti-war parties were not expected to have much success in the election.

So to answer your question - Spain of 2004.

[Carotio]

I have not read this entire thread and not going to.
I will just say one thing:

Karl Marx said that religion is like opium for the people.

I concur. It's a power tool to keep power over the people.
Just forbid all religions around the world. Then it's not discrimination against a particular religion, but against all.

Where's the proof anyway that there is a divine creature in the heaven? Fine that people have their personal beliefs, but don't let those beliefs be part of society, by allowing these religious thoughts in public space a protected right. In word or in stone...

[JU_88]

JU_88 - you asked the following earlier in this discussion.

Anyway when was the last time you saw a Nation and its peoples will broken by terrorism?

To answer that question, let me point you to the bombings in Madrid of 2004, and the threat to bomb French railways at the same time. This occured immediately preceding a national election, and drastically increased the anti-war vote, causing a shift in national power as well as demonstrating an immediate "breaking" of the spirit of the people of spain to carry on against terror abroad. It also had a strong impact upon the French, who shortly thereafter followed suit in turning their back. It should be noted that immediately prior to that act of terror, the anti-war parties were not expected to have much success in the election.

So to answer your question - Spain of 2004.

Ok you got me there I guess, that was a very interesting one actually, (tragic too of course) as I remember that many belived the election result was demermined by wheather Al Queda or ETA claimed responsibility for the Railway attacks.

If it was Al Queda, the majority would blame the Conservertives for involving Spain in the war in Iraq.

If it was the ETA, the majority would back the Conservatives as they had a tougher stance towards ETA.

The former happened.
The Spanish leader at the time practically licked the shoes of George W Bush - I mean, he LOVED the guy :D

[Tribesman]

Samurai, of course I am correct, if not then anti-semitism doesn't count as racism.
Are you going to attempt to argue that the Shoah wasn't racist?

So to answer your question - Spain of 2004.
:har::har::har::har::har:
Thats not right, the government lost votes by lying to the voters about events and then continuing to lie after the truth was well known.
BTW how could it really increase the anti-war vote when Spain already had 90% opposed to the deployment and how would any increase on that particular issue change anything.

Ok you got me there I guess
Think again JU88.
After the bombings the population was out on the streets even in ETA strongholds, they were united as a nation against the terrorist attacks. Then it emerged the government was lying about the attacks and using them for political gain so they turned on them in the election.

[JU_88]

Samurai, of course I am correct, if not then anti-semitism doesn't count as racism.
Are you going to attempt to argue that the Shoah wasn't racist?


:har::har::har::har::har:
Thats not right, the government lost votes by lying to the voters about events and then continuing to lie after the truth was well known.
BTW how could it really increase the anti-war vote when Spain already had 90% opposed to the deployment and how would any increase on that particular issue change anything.


Think again JU88.
After the bombings the population was out on the streets even in ETA strongholds, they were united as a nation against the terrorist attacks. Then it emerged the government was lying about the attacks and using them for political gain so they turned on them in the election.


Oh my bad, I though they tried to pin it on ETA intitally, wasnt aware they actually lied about it.
Jesus, and we are supposed to be able to trust our governments.... :(

[onelifecrisis]

Just been browsing. I was looking up "infidel" and ended up finding this...

*{Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness (birr) and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of [your] religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up [others] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.}* (Al-Mumtahanah 60:8-9)

That doesn't really seem in keeping with the whole converting/slaying/dominating mentality claimed by some here. Good old selective quoting, eh?

[onelifecrisis]

And more:

The greatest guarantee of personal freedom for a Muslim lies in the Quranic decree that no one other than God can limit human freedom.

{Or have they partners (of Allah) who have made lawful for them in religion that which Allah allowed not?] (Ash-Shura 42:21)

This guarantee also lies in the following statement:

{Judgment rests with Allah alone.] (Yusuf 12:40)

...

A number of Quranic verses clearly state that the responsibility of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was to convey the message of God, not to compel anyone to believe in it. The right to exercise free choice in matters of belief is unambiguously endorsed in the Quran.

{And say, "(It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all)," so let those who please believe, and let those who please disbelieve.] (Al-Kahf 18:29)

Taken from www.readingislam.com.

I suppose this explains why my Muslim friends have not tried to convert or slay me.

[Tribesman]

Oh my bad, I though they tried to pin it on ETA intitally, wasnt aware they actually lied about it.
Jesus, and we are supposed to be able to trust our governments....
It wasn't only the voters they lied to, the German interior minister got annoyed that Anzars government was lying to them when they were supposed to be working as allies against terrorism.
Apparently the lies they told the german BKA were initially that it was an explosive ETA always used, when it was shown to be a different explosive they then falsely claimed that ETA had a history of using that too.

[Schroeder]

@OLC

I didn't read the Quran so I can't say anything to what you've quoted. But if Skybird is right you might want to read a few more passages before and after of what was (maybe) cherry picked for the public to read.

Another thing is that a lot of Islamic countries are denying those very rights you quoted, don't they?
The right to exercise free choice in matters of belief is unambiguously endorsed in the Quran.So what's wrong with Iran, Saudi Arabia and some other countries then? Hamas anyone...?
As I said, maybe the Quran doesn't support behaviour like that altogether but to me the writing is irrelevant. What counts for me is how people act. And there I see a lot of problems caused by people who claim to be Muslims.

[Skybird]

The Quran at one passage says "let there be no compulsion in religion" (the 2nd or 4th Sura, if I'm not mistaken), and usually this passage is isolated and quoted alone, but indeed what is said is that the rightfulness of Allah'S truth speaks out for itself and is so obvious that indeed no compulsion is needed to believe in it. there is no compulsion needed if you believe the right thing: Islam. Nevertheless, not believing it thus makes you an evil-doer, and a potential threat and offense to Islam, therefore although you have been told there shall be no compulsion in relgion you will find yourself being attacked or discriminated. The freedom Islam allows goes only as far as it is covered and legitimated and in confimrity by Sharia. there cannot be a legal system or a value system beside it, since the sharia is the tool meant to assist the believer not to fall off from his belief (by threatening him sanctions if he does that: apostasy in the end must be punished with death). Only when the cause of this offese to islam is made to go away, there can be peace again - a peace in which no compulsion is needed in religion, since the only relgion left to believe in is islam.

Theologically, the quran leaves little doubt that only the Jews and Christains, as people of the book, shall receive the soecial tresatement of just being discirminbated. Infidels of other beliefs - are to be killed. Simply that. Compared to genocide, just enforced submission and discrimination may compare to a description of relative tolerance indeed - or not.

One cannot see this if only literally taking isolated single quotes from the Quran, and leave it to that. Also, there are many quotes possible that say the opposite even if just taking things literally and superficially.

Compare it all to another detail: for Islam, the final outcome of all man becoming Muslim is wanted by nature, and it'S uöltimate, devine goal. Helping this developement even by force and aggression, is not a violent act or aggression, since it just assists nature in acchieveing the inevitable outcome that will be there anyway. Being Muslim, seen that way, is declared the goal of evolution. In the same way islam thinks that enforcing it's faith onto others cannot be rated and understood to be compulsive.

When Muslim communities refuse to cooperate with law enforcement agencies, this also is becasue doing so is not being seen as a violation of laws of that country, but is obedient to the Sharia that is simply more important than any government's law as long as that law does not found on the Sharia. So, rejecting the police cooperation is not seen as a violation of laws, becasue it is in cofomrity with the law of the sharia. In much the same fashion wants to redefine freedom of speech and freedom of opinion - accepting that freedom only as long as it accepts limits set up by the Sharia, and as long as these freedoms stop short of being used to criticise Islam. This ind of censoring - from an Islamic point of view indeed nevertheless is freedom. - This all not to excuse it, but only to explain it. People must understand that even if islam uses the same terms and labels, islamic tradition often has a very, a completely different understanding of them.

On "no compulsion", the quran somewhere explicitly lists exceptions: Women, children, apostates and POW can be converted by force.

The Quran is extremely difficult to understood in full if you are novice to it and only read it page by page, wothiut any backup by secondary literature. Some say it is impossible for amateurs to correctly study it. I can only second that. It is this amateurish attitude that most often produces naive images of this or that single quote meaning islam is this peaceful and that tolerant. that's why I am very hesitent to put up just quotes that should illustrate my pojnt, becasue doing so is pointless if not explaining the wider context and voila - there I am writing a nother evening-long essay. Without wanting to brag: there is a reason why I read three quarters of the Quran - and roughly three dozen more books on Islam and the Quran and muhammad and the Hadith as well, it's history and legal traditions. that does not make me an expert having all that always ready on my mind, but it has given me the greater picture and an understanding of the general things it is about, and if needed I know where to find the details in the books.

Often Grenada is given as an example of tolerant coexistence. But in fact the era of the Almohades was one of the most brutal and violent oppression of dhimmis in the history of Islam, a time of systematic discrimination of Jews and Christians who were made objects of progroms regularly. Jews were not allowed to work in more than just the lowest professions like leather tanners, they were not allowed to wear shoes and had to walk on bear foot as a sign of their status of submission, and they had to attach - hear hear - small yellow rags to the cloathing at their chest. They had no access to the legal protections and benefits Muslims enjoyed, and could be murdered for fun by Muslims without the muslim needing to fear legal consequnces. Only when the ruling caste could directly benefit from the high education of Jews, doctors for example, they were allowed to raise in social position and work for them directly, then. For the same reason, the rulers in Grenada allowed the Jews and Christians to conserve the remains of rich christian, Gereek and latin scriptures on scinece and culture, that often are claimed by islam to have been saved by islam and thus having saved the cultural cradle of Europe. This is an infamous impertinence to claim, becasue the Muslim elite ruling Grenada did no starts this effort, nor did it support it, but only allowed the Jews and christians to do that by their own effort and sharing the results with the Muslim rulership so that it could benefit from it as well.

Grenada is said to have been an example of tolerant coexistence and multiculturalism, but it is that only in the same understanding as the ghetto in Warsaw indeed was a paradise ghetto as claimed by the Nazis.

A claim of the Quran endorsing the right to exercise free choice in matters of belief, is a total crap-statement and makes mockery of all the many people who had and have to suffer by Islam's tolerance that discriminates them for not wanting to believe like Muhammad wanted it to be done.

Lesson of it all: if you believe the right things, there must no be compulsion in belief indeeded, and if you agree to only say the right things, there can be freedom of speech, too. Its not much different to the EU: ask the people, but only as long as they vote as you want them to vote. If they don't - do not ask them. As long as apostasy is ruled by islam to be worth deserving the death penalty, the claim that Islam knows no compulsion in religion, should be taken carefully. I also want to temind of the osmanic elite warrior of the Janitscharen - kidnapped children from Christian families that then were raised in Muslim tradition and used to wage war and attack Christian. No compulsion in relgion, anyone?

Edit
P.S. I forgot to mention the often made most obvious argument: the quoted passage must be seen in a context of being valid only for Muslims. And yes, for Muslims it is no compulsion to believe what defines them as Muslim in Quranic understanding. I also must no violate myself to be what I am!

[Skybird]

In German:

http://www.moschee-schluechtern.de/texte/raddatz/blauaeugig.htm


Der Dialog mit dem Islam wird umso mehr zur Hilfseinrichtung für den Islam, je unbeirrter der Dialog darin fortfährt, den Kampfcharakter dieser Religion durch die Fiktion von Toleranz und Friedfertigkeit zu verschleiern.

[OneToughHerring]

@OLC

I didn't read the Quran so I can't say anything to what you've quoted. But if Skybird is right you might want to read a few more passages before and after of what was (maybe) cherry picked for the public to read.

Another thing is that a lot of Islamic countries are denying those very rights you quoted, don't they?
So what's wrong with Iran, Saudi Arabia and some other countries then? Hamas anyone...?
As I said, maybe the Quran doesn't support behaviour like that altogether but to me the writing is irrelevant. What counts for me is how people act. And there I see a lot of problems caused by people who claim to be Muslims.

Saudi Arabia isn't the problem, they are in very good relations with the US. So you better just amble along there pardner since the US don't take kindly to strangers talking badly about their friends. :shucks:

Iran? Well the recent history of Iran hasn't given them much reason to trust the west or the US in particular. Shah and the Iran vs. Iraq war with US giving significant backing to Iraq spring to mind.

The foundation of Hamas was at least partially helped along by Israel and Mossad that saw it as a way to counter PLO and to drive a wedge between the Palestinians. At some point the plan backfired and Hamas became more radicalised then PLO. The history of the Palestinian situation is a lot more about the responses of the Palestinians to acts committed by Israel then the western media would like to admit.

Oh and Buckingham palace, I wish they would give it to the British people. After all, they paid for it, and for the royal family who lives there. Too bad they can't sell the royal family, who would want to buy, say, Charles?

[onelifecrisis]

The Quran at one passage says "let there be no compulsion in religion" (the 2nd or 4th Sura, if I'm not mistaken), and usually this passage is isolated and quoted alone, but indeed what is said is that the rightfulness of Allah'S truth speaks out for itself and is so obvious that indeed no compulsion is needed to believe in it. there is no compulsion needed if you believe the right thing: Islam.

Sounds fair enough.

Nevertheless, not believing it thus makes you an evil-doer, and a potential threat and offense to Islam...

Er... hold on there a minute... that's not what the Muslims here are saying when they speak about the exact same section of the Quran that you mentioned:

http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=607

The Quran is extremely difficult to understood in full if you are novice to it and only read it page by page
:haha::har::har::rotfl2::har::rotfl2::har:

Thank God (Allah?) that we have an expert here to explain it to us!

I can't even be bothered to read the rest of your post, you Ignoring Me Person. Preach on! And on. And on... :zzz:

[UnderseaLcpl]

No worries here, like you I do not mind reading, providing I have the time to do so :)

I hope you have the time to do so now, then.:DL

Also forgive me if I dice up your post a bit and don't respond to everything. I either agree, or have no real comment on it.
NP. I hope you'll extend me the same courtesy.

No real argument from me, Japan attacked as it was provoked into it by the US. The US was trying to starve Japan of industrial resources, particularly oil. This is why I went with the assumption of what if Japan had not attacked, if the US had really stayed neutral.
Honestly, I doubt the US would have stayed neutral for long. I see FDR's pro-anglican agenda as a modifed repeat of Wilson's ultimate decision to get involved in WW1. I consider neither to be acceptable.




I am not assuming they would have won, but the odds of them winning went up significantly.

Before we get to operation Barbarossa, there are a couple of things that may have played out differently from the start of the war. For one thing if the US had remained truly neutral and not so heavily supplied Britain, Britain would have had far less war materials available during the battle of Britain. The English barely won the battle of Britain as it was, but with increased material shortages, it could have easily lost. This would have followed with operation Sealion, which would probably have been successful (the UK was in no position at that point in time to fend of an invasion). Now this would have shattered English resistance in Africa and elsewhere, which would have freed up the Africa Korps, Rommel, a large chunk of the Luftwaffle, and other frontline combat units to participate in Barbarossa.


As usual, you make some good points, NS. Had the British capitulated utterly, there would have been no need for an Afrika Korps, and the British barely won the battle of Britain (mostly due to Hitler's sanction of the bombing of British cities, rather than airfields)

However, Sealion was not only not likely to be successful - it was a myth.

Hitler knew quite well that he lacked the means to invade England. He actually considered the English to be Germanic peoples (which they kind of are- the English language and culture bear a remarkable degree of similarity to the German, though Hitler apparently failed to notice the similarities between English and "non-aryan" cultures)

He made many attempts to negotiate peace with both England and France, but they were firmly rejected. Germany did not want a war with England and/or France, but France and England wanted a war with Germany.

Sealion was Hitler's last gambit to force English surrender or peace terms, but it was a bluff. There was absolutely no way to protect an armada of conscripted river barges and coastal vessels through air superiority and Kriegsmarine surface forces. Many, if not most, people make the mistake of assuming that the Royal Air Force prevented the invasion of England. How quickly they forget about the Royal Navy.....

Hitler had some crazy ideas, but he was not really an idiot or a madman(in the clinical sense). Idiots and madmen don't readily coup nations of educated and industrious people and lead them to unprecedented military advances, and we would be remiss to dismiss that fact- tyrants rarely take pains to present themselves as such. Hitler knew damn well that he could not invade England, and Churchill knew it, too.

HOI(I love that game:DL) logistics aside, it is quite impossible for ad-hoc shore-dependant landing craft to effectively deliver an army across the channel in the face of naval superiority. Think about it for a moment. The English Channel is a fairly rough seaway, by virtue of the fact that it is a fairly narrow waterway that lies within the area of waters affected by the Gulf Stream.
Currents and winds there would have severely impeded the progress of the low-powered barges the Germans were using as landing craft, and a destroyer or PT boat amongst them would have wreaked absolute havoc - indeed, the wash of a destroyer steaming along at 20-25 knots alone would have been enough to swamp most of the converted river barges.

No one with even a rudimentary grasp of logistics would have even attempted an invasion of Britain while she controlled the seas - Hitler included. Britain had a very weak military at the time that Operation Sealion was being effected, but even a weak military or a purely partisan force can easily defeat a regular military when the latter is stranded and devoid of supplies.

Even the D-Day force could not launch a truly effective amphibious invasion with the benefit of complete naval and air superiority, and the vast majority of the Wehrmacht elsewhere. Ground forces were held up for months, and all the while they were dependent upon supplies. Supplies they only received because of overwhelming allied naval and air support, and still they faltered in the face of bad terrain and determined resistance. The Germans would not have had the luxury of consistent supply routes. Their craft would have faced constant harrassment from the Royal Navy in the form of nighttime destroyer and patrol craft raids, at least. Hitler knew this, and Sealion was just a bluff.

Part of the reason to my understanding why he split his forces was to secure the oil resources to the south, which were very needed at the time. I think though if he had won against England that he would have had the forces available to achieve victory.

If Hitler had won against England, I doubt the additional forces made available to him would have made much of a difference. As both of us have mentioned, he chose to divert the main thrust of the German attack. A few extra divisions which undoubtedly would have been devoted to that purpose would not have made any difference.

Bearing in mind that Hitler would have ended up diverting divisions to Yugoslavia and Greece no matter what (because the Italians were being driven back and held in the Balkans), I don't see much difference in the outcome of the war. Leningrad and Stalingrad were nothing more than manpower sumps. Common military wisdom dictates that fortified positions must be either surrounded or bypassed with the intent of cutting them off from supply and reinforcement, or at least attacked from the least fortified approach. Bolstered by the previous success of the Wehrmacht, which, ironically, employed this principle, Hitler assumed that his forces would simply crush the Russians. He said himself that he desired to crush the Russian Army in the field.

In any case, Hitler's division of the Wehrmacht would not have achieved success. Even if Leningrad and Stalingrad somehow had been captured, it would have made little difference. His decision to waste manpower and momentum on the capture of these cities sealed his fate. At the time of the first major Soviet offensive in 42', the Russians outnumbered the Germans by a considerable margin, and no amount of tactical ingenuity, nor the capture of the cities could have changed that. :rotfl2:As if Leningrad and Stalingrad were significant contributors to Soviet wartime production. It was already too late for them.

Admittedly, the Germans could possibly have reversed their fortunes if they had contracted the front and launched a counterattack using Schwerpunkt tactics the following year, but Hitler chose to order them to hang on and defend every inch of territory.

Well..... whatever. The point is that Hitler simply lacked the resources for a prolonged war with a nation that had such vastly superior resources and territory.

With the UK out of the picture Italy probably could have handled the Balakans on its own. I seriously doubt that. Italy was almost a third-rate military power. Its' tactics, troops, and equipment(with a few possible exceptions like the excellent Semovente) were inferior. C'mon, man, the Italian military made regular use of .22 caliber pistols as sidearms. Do I really need to go more into depth about their inadequacy? Look at the lengths they went to to conqueor Ethiopia, of all nations. Failing that, look at the performance of the Italian military in WW1 and the "differences" between WW1 Italian tactics and WW2 Italian tactics.

I don't think Italy could have handled anything on its' own.

Don't forget though that the UK and then the US played an important role particularly early on in supplying Russia with war material from 41-42 onwards.
Important, or very trivial? I can hardly imagine that supplying a nation with a comparitively small supply of inferior war material would somehow assist a nation relying upon inferior war material and tactics when that nation's forces are being decimated by superior troops and tactics.
The Soviet Union won by virtue of numbers alone. Numbers that far surpassed the effect allied imports of equipment. It isn't as if the Soviets stood a chance against German tactics and equipment in 41', so why would they somehow do better against the Germans using similarly inferior equipment delivered in comparitively small quantities?

Needless to say I don't quite agree, it depends on circumstance.


It does, indeed. It depends upon the circumstance of Hitler changing his entire wartime strategy, a prospect I find highly dubious.

That is not exactly true to my knowledge. Not that the bombing campaigns of the US and UK did not make it possible for the USSR to win, but they made it a heck of a lot easier. Sure Germany tried to decentralize production and move underground as much as they could, but most of their production capacity was above ground and vulnerable. Particularly their sythetic fuel refineries. Towards the mid/end of the war Germany was facing massive fuel shortages, and a lot of this was due to the US bombing the crap out of Germany's oil reserves and oil production facilities from 42 on. This created an unrecoverable spiral as they could not get enough fuel to put enough fighters in the air to stop the bombing, while fighting on 2 fronts at the same time. That plus their war industries being constantly hit limited their ability to produce tanks and arms in sufficent numbers. That and of course all the wasted resources on the V weapons (which also wouldn't have happened if the UK was out of the picture).

Hrmmm.........

I have a number of contentions with this argument, but I'm going to boil them down to the contention that German war industry simply could not confront the odds it was presented with, no matter what resources it had.

There are only so many persons eligible for military service within a nation. By 43' Germany was throwing almost every eligble person at the Soviets. By 45' it was throwing many ineligeble people at the Soviets. Troops are only as good as their training. Military equipment is only as good as the troops who man it. Tactics are only as good as the quality of troops and equipment who execute them.

The fact of the matter is that even if Germany had not been impeded by allied bombing, it would have lost the war after 41' because it simply did not have the manpower, all other things being equal. This is evidenced by the continued and drastic cuts in training regimens for all regular Wehrmacht, and later Volksturm and Luftwaffe, ground divisions, not to mention Luftwaffe schwaders and fliegerkorps.

Of course, the German armed forces continued to field battle-hardened and superior troops almost until the end of the war, but the problem was that an increasing number of them were getting OTJ experience rather than proper training. There is something to be said for combat experience as a tutor, it surpasses any kind of peacetime training. The only problem with it is that when your instructor is an enemy rifle division, you have just a few moments to learn your lesson, and those who do not learn the lesson generally end up being prisoners or casualties. Thus, the problem of Germany's inferior manpower base was compounded by high "dropout" rates in its' military education system.:DL

I'm sure we could debate this forever, and we can if you wish, but in my mind there are too many things that do not add up when it comes to the "success" of the Allied bombing campaign.

Postwar evaluations showed that only one in five Allied daylight bombers bombed within five miles of its target, and most of those targets were, through both intention and misjudgement, not war material production facilities. I tend to believe those findings because even with the recent advent of "smart" bombs and satellite recon, bombing campaigns have never been as successful as they have been made out to be.

Given the political and military atmosphere in WW2, and the nature of politics and the military in general, I am inclined to believe revisionist historians who slight the allied bombing campaign. There was a lot more to be gained by portraying the campaign as a success than there was to actually stop and consider it.

Stalin, who was regarded as a crucial element of the allied war effort, had been pushing hard for Western Allied invasion and intervention. He was understandably displeased with allied reluctance to commit to the creation of a Western front, but the bombing campaign was seen as a way to appease him while a feasible invasion was put together.

Furthermore, Air Force generals and strategists were hardly going to admit that they were throwing away vast amounts of men and material for the results they achieved. They do this to this very day. Generals of all kinds do this to this very day, to some extent, but it was a lot more apparent in WW2. Strategic bombing in its then-current manifestation was an antiquated concept at the start of the war. German planners realized this and focused on the development of medium bombers and other aircraft intended to provide direct support to ground forces (Too bad for the Kriegsmarine, eh?:DL) Allied planners did not realize this, and spent considerable energy developing weapons that, until the advent of the Norden bombsight, could only drop bombs within a very, very wide radius of targets that looked like they might be war factories from tens of thousands of feet away. Even when the Norden sight came into widespread use, the bombers were still operating on reconnaisance information from planes that were tens of thousands of feet away from the targets. Utter stupidity, if you ask me.

Finally, consider the allied use of "terror-bombing". It isn't as if allied war planners were so stupid or evil that they just suddenly decided to drop bombs on population centers. At the time, even they knew that the bombing campaign wasn't really working, so they logically switched from targets they could not identify or hit to targets they could identify and hit, namely sprawling urban areas. The failure of that tactic is not due to the ineptitude of the men who concieved it so much as it is due to the resolute determination of the German people and their (sometimes forced) conscripts.

Despite all these failures, school history textbooks often identify the allied bombing campaign as a success, while they hardly mention the inefficacies of a strategy that was outdated in 1939. I think it has more to do with propaganda and the public perpetuation of propaganda than with truth.

It did work though, Germany was a heap of rubble at the end of the war, and a lot of the damage was caused by bombing, including its industries.
Well I should hope that Germany would be a heap of rubble after the amount of planes, men, and bombs we dropped on it. The losses that the 8th Air Force sustained were atrocious. Rubble-nation or no, that does not make the bombing campaign a good or effective strategy.

Bear in mind that the whole purpose of strategic bombing was to destroy the enemy's means of production. In that regard, the campaign was a complete failure, but it is regarded as a success by many to this day. Ask yourself why.

For a European country, its production was quite high. Also the bombing did screw up German production. That is evidenced by the various shortages they were constantly facing, particularly ball bearings, and oil (as I mentioned above) which was a direct result of the strategic bombing effort. Lastly if Germany wasnt getting bombed its production would have been far higher than it was, as it would have still had its preexisting factories, and wouldn't had to have wasted so much manpower and resources constructing so many underground production facilities. Also by all accounts I have read, German industry was totally shattered by the end of the war. It took massive amounts of money and effort to rebuild them, along with the obliterated cities and towns.

I've already made my arguments on this point, but I will point out one- no, two, additional things.

Firstly, I will restate that German wartime production prior to the war was crap. That's why most of the German military went into France and Poland on foot or on horses, rather than with mechanized means, and that continued for years. I have no doubt that German industry in general was quite impressive compared to other European nations - Indeed, I believe that it was a prime cause for the war, but by the time it was converted for military production it was already too late.

Secondly, I have no doubt that German industry was shattered by the end of the war, but that does not necessarily indicate the efficacy of the allied bombing campaign. As I said before, German war industries and supply lines were halted by troops, not by aircraft.

Oh, and one more thing. This is going a bit OT, but I can hardly resist the temptation to push my lassiez-faire economic stance when the opportunity presents itself:DL. I know that a lot of money and effort went into rebuilding German industry, and that most accounts will reflect that, but do some reading on what actually caused the German resurgence known as the Wirtschaftswunder. It wasn't foreign aid or the designs of the allied economic planners that took control of German industry after the war. It was a man named Ludwig Erhardt, who abolished price controls and centralist planning on a Sunday while the allied embassies were closed.

I think you need to do more reading on the Holocaust. First of all the Jews were the largest number killed by several million, followed by the gypsies and Russian POWs. This was organized slaughter and slave labor, particularly with the Jews and Gypsies. Second, millions of Jews (and other peoples) died in exactly the way you described in the slave labor concentration camps. Only in the handful of dedicated death camps was the expirence somewhat brief (if you forget all that happened to them long before you reached the death camps), and even then not for all as someone had to process all the bodies. Those that could work were not usualy killed off right away, but rather worked mostly to death and then killed off (or just worked to death). Last I would never call Hitler's actions decent in any sense of the word.

Last point first. I was being sarcastic when I called Hitler's actions decent. There is no way to consider Hitler or Stalin's actions decent. They were both evil.

And it may surprise you to know that I have actually done a great deal of reading on the Holocaust. I am fully aware of the atrocities committed and the perversions that were Mengele's experiments. However, I am also a great deal more aware than most people of similar transgressions committed by Stalin's regime, and those that followed. Don't think for a moment that painful medical procedures and dehumanization were not a part of the Soviet holocaust. Read some of Solzhenitsyn's works.

I do not claim that the Jews suffered less than those under Stalin's rule. I only claim that they suffered about the same as those under Stalin's rule and that more people were broken and destroyed by Stalin.

This is an aside, but I can't bear to keep silent, What really pisses me off is the concept of rememberance. One would think that a people who had experienced a terrible holocaust would be out for blood when other people experienced the same tragedy, even if it is on a lesser scale.

Given the prevalence of Jews in the US media, one would think that there might be some groundbreaking movies or television shows about the slaughter of the Armenians or the Kurds or the Eastern European Muslims or the many peoples that have been regularly subject to extermination in Africa. Where is the Jewish outrage over those atrocities? Where are the movies and documentaries that would bring them into the public consciousness in the spirit of "never again"?



The motivations between him and Stalin were different. Stalin was in his (insane) mind getting rid of threats to his power, Hitler was exterminating/enslaving all the peoples he considered inferior. If Hitler had won and taken over the USSR, the resulting death toll would have made the number of people Stalin killed off look like a sunday picnic. He planed to murder off all the jews, gypsies, and other "sub human" races, and enslave and work to death the not quite so sub humans (russia, and the non western european countries).


That is a very brave assumption. Hitler's tendency to exterminate or enslave "inferior" peoples is not in question, but Stalin's tendency to exterminate or enslave everybody is. I seriously doubt that any Communist agenda would make Hitler's regime seem like a picnic.

The way people died in the death camps was not at all merciful, it was only when the chambers were opened that death was neither swift, nor painless.designed to be efficient and easy for the guards to do. First of all the most common form of death was not poisoning (this comes from Nazi reports btw) from cyanide (zyklon b) or carbon monoxide (the most common method used), but caused by overheating/dehydration, and slow suffocation. That is because they use to pack the people into the 'showers' so tightly together that they could barely breath, and their own body heat, with lack of air would slowly kill them off. Even after the motor was started, or zyklon-b added, it could take over 20 minutes before the noise (screaming) inside the chamber would stop. There was also plenty of evidence Peoples faces were frozen in agony, many had broken limbs, people were trampled and crushed underneath, human excrement, and blood was everywhere. This is the way it was when things were going 'smoothly'. There were many times when things would go 'wrong', such as the engine not starting, or a bad batch of zyklon-b, and death would be even slower and more agonizing still.

Of this I have no doubt. Nonetheless, I would rather be crushed, suffocated, or gassed to death than to have to live for five, ten, or twenty-five years in ghoulish slave-labor conditions.

I should know. I've been gassed with riot agents in unventilated chambers on a number of occasions as part of my Marine Corps training. It sucks more than you can imagine. Your lungs and throat burn. You inhale, but you don't feel like you are getting any air. You begin to choke on your own breath. Given enough time, you will suffocate yourself or choke yourself with your own mucus, even though there is enough air to survive.
Even so, I'd prefer death by that method to a tenner or a quarter in the Gulag. Life can be bad enough that death seems like a release.


I don't have a lot to say about this stuff. Sure it would have been really bad, yes the Stalinist regime was horrible, no question. It would however been a lot worse if the US had not been involved, and Germany had lost.

I doubt that. German rule under Hitler would have been bad, but nowhere near as bad as Stalinist domination.

Why we didn't just stay on our side of the pond and let the evils destroy each other is utterly beyond me. I mean, for ******** sake, what did we, as a nation, stand to gain from interventionist policy?

I don't believe the words of a psychopath (or sociopath if you prefer). There is evidence that Hitler had planned for an eventual war with France/UK before he invaded Poland, just as he had always planned to invade Russia. He also invaded plenty of other countries which had nothing to do with the situation and had not intervened. Anyhow rule number one when dealing with psychopaths, don't believe anything they tell you, they are almost always pathological liars.

I really don't find Hitler to be a psychopath, and we would remiss to treat him as such. He was a very clever and intuitive person. He was a master of politics and popular appeal(and rhetoric:DL). He had some skewed ideas, but that doesn't make him or people like him any more identifiable or any less of a threat in the present day. I know that Hitler entertained the idea of a war with England and France, but in Mein Kampf he mentions those plans as contingencies.

I also seriously doubt that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf with the intention of decieving the world as to his intentions. It doesn't add up. He was a smart guy, but he wasn't so smart as to draft a false personal statement with the intention of deceiving the populace that he sought to control.

Occham's razor serves us well in evaluating Hitler's pre-war intentions.

If I recall both countries had legitimate claims on Danzig, it depends on how far back in history you go. Poland also was well within its rights to deny Germany. France and the UK had decided to take a stand against Germany and hoped that the threat would stop Hitler. It didn't and war ensued.
Negatory. Poland's claims to Danzig were garbage, and the soon-to-be allied nations knew it. Regardless of Danzig's prior history, the majority of its population was agitating for German rule. That in itself should have been justification for annexation, but Britain and France had motives more pressing than the self-determination of a military dictatorship like Poland. They feared a unified and complete Germany. They feared a large and complete central European power, and rightly so. German industry would have dominated and surpassed French and English industry, just as it does today, and the political effects would have been felt by politicians of those nations.

As I mentioned before, the Polish war guarantee was a travesty. England and France knew very well that they could not protect Poland, but they decided to guarantee its independence anyway. That course of action does not make sense, unless one views it through the eyes of Churchill, a demagogue no less threatning than Hitler. I'll refer you to his personal memoirs and a number of works based upon them if you do not believe me.

Personally given all that happened I think Nazi rule of Europe, the middle east and Russia, would have been much worse. As for taking over the world, no. The axis powers together did plan to take over most of the world (and had partitioned off the globe). If Germany had won the war in Europe, it probably would have eventually reached the Americas. Germany would have definitely had atomic weapons by then, and the US probably not if it had remained isolationist. Start nuking US cities and the US would probably surrender pretty quick. Plus Germany with Russia and the rest of Europe would have been able to easily out produce the US and Canada. It might have left the US and Canada alone, who can say, unless Canada insisted on continuing the war. I don't think the US would stand idly by if Axis forces decided to invade Canada.


Argrfarglwrfarghl.........You have got to be kidding me, NS. I really hate to post a brief response to this but I'm quite tired of typing, and I have great deal of typing to do yet.

Your assumption is not without merit. There is good reason to believe that Germany and its empire might have out-produced the US and Canada, or even the entire Western Hemisphere, but why on earth would you assume that such an outcome was feasible? Why would European superiority of production be a bad thing? Why would Germany nuke the US, especially given Hitler's affinity for America, if the US had remained neutral?

Ironically this is the strategy I use when playing Germany in HOI2. I make nice with the US and keep them out of the war, trade with them for lots of oil and resources, take out Poland, take out France (and Netherlands/Belgium), take out the UK, Take over Russia (which is a lot harder as I have to take over most of the USSR, not just Moscow). I then usually take over Italy and the middle east, then invade Canada and Mexico, then squish the US in between. After that I can take over Africa, South America, and Asia at my leisure. Without allying with Italy or Japan.
I love HOI2, but it is not a realistic simulation.:DL I have two methods of play. One is to completely disregard other nations and focus on military development, using schwerpunkt to encircle and defeat their forces in the field. The other is to just make peace with everybody and stay out of the wars. I prefer the former because it is more fun, but IRL I would go for the latter, because I have no right to decide the fate of nations.

Anyhow, there is no reason to believe that that strategy would have worked for Germany. The point has been stated in many ways by many people, but the idea that logistics are key to the success of any military endeavour is sound. Germany (and the rest of the Axis) did not, and would never have possesed the logistic capacity to take over the Eastern Hemisphere, let alone the world. The supposed Axis intent to take over the world was allied propaganda and nothing more.

Stop and think for a moment, NS. How in the hell would Axis forces usurp the sovereignty of all or even most governments, short of physically occupying their territory? Where would they procure the logistic means to do so? Why would they have been more successful than the Soviet Union, an admittedly Communist and therefore ultimately worldwide force?

I don't either, frankly I only see the problem getting worse with time. I am also concerned that it is our grave that is being dug.

Yes, it sucks, does it not?

Going back to the original topic of this thread, this is part of the reason why I love rednecks. Many of them are Christian fundamentalists, and they will not tolerate dissent, but at least they have a healthy respect for both their own religions and individualism. They are practically immune to foreign religous and political influence, and they protect their rights with guns. How fun is that!?:DL

Sure, they annoy me with their constant attempts to convince me to join a Baptist congregation and sing and wave my arms in the air like some kind of idiot (Presbyterians have more dignity than that:DL), but at least they don't go around bombing troops or masses of civilians.

Annoying though they may be, I find a comfort in knowing that rednecks are around. They provide a sort of "conversion-proof barrier" to Islam's both insidious and violent tactics.

all else fails, might equals right, right? Otherwise the US (and Canada) should give all the land back to the Native Americans, which it seized by violence.

You can do better than that, NS. You and I both know that stone-age native Americans are hardly comprable to Palestinian Jews in the 20th century.


To save some time I am just going to reference Wikipedia. The sections I am citing are more or less correct to my knowledge, but as usual are lacking in certain details, and generaly glazing over things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
from "Early Roots" to "Independence and first years"

Damn you, wikipedia:DL

Do you have any idea, NS, how much I hate wikipedia references in forum discussions? Do you have any idea what kind of consternation they cause me?:rotfl2:

Now I have to check the source and read the whole damn google books .pdf rendition of To Rule Jerusalem. Do you know what a pain in the ass that is?:DL

Actually, I don't have a problem with researching sources. To Rule Jerusalem is an interesting book. I only wish that I had the time to read the whole thing and thereby establish proper context before making this post.

Well, in any case, the reference states that while Israel was subject to nearly 1,000 years of intermittent Jewish rule, it was subject to over 2,000 years of Arab and Islamic rule. I still think that the Palestinian claim was valid, and the Israeli occupation and the intervention of US forces was unjustified.

I'm less than a quarter of the way through the book, but the author admittedly makes a decent case for Jewish control or partial control of Palestine. I'll have to read the whole thing before I come to a decision, if I ever come to one. Quite frankly, I'm still getting the impression that the US would have been better served by staying out of this complex and volatile matter.



They didn't have any choice in the matter, the now Israelis utterly refused anything else, and had successfully fought off the surrounding Arab countries. Also at that point Israel was hardly an ally of any of the western powers. Also put bluntly I believe many of these countries were more than happy to unload their Jews onto Israel (the US, UK, France, etc were just as anti-Semitic as Germany or Russia).


Interesting points. I'll have to do some research to establish their validity. I never really considered anti-semitism in nations besides Germany, Poland, Czecheslovakia, and Russia. Off the top of my head, I think that that idea may explain a lot of things.

Well that's what people and countries do to each other, they try to use and take advantage of each other as much as they can. Israel uses the west for money, weapons, and military backing, the west uses Israel for its own purposes.

No, that's what states, countries, and persons of influence do to each other, and they force their subjects to comply.

I really don't think they distinguish between the branches, any more then we do as far as their religious branches. A Christian is still a Christian in their eyes, an unbeliever who must convert or die. Also you forget that Germany and the UK are Protestant, and were imperial powers down there for a long (along with later US meddling). So they have just as much reason to hate Protestants as Catholics, as they do to hate the US as much as Europe.

Interesting argument, and I think you may be right. It may well be impossible to defelct Islamic wrath onto Europe, no matter how logical the premise.

For now, I will concede the point.

The Koran and associated writings was still being written during the first Crusade. Initially Islam was an evolving religion and it takes many centuries for the religious writings to take shape after the supposed creator of the religion lived. The same thing happened with Christianity. Also I was referring to the concept of Holy War (not the word itself), which triggered Islams military/religious expansion into North Africa, Spain, and elsewhere.

I think that we are agreed. We agree that Islamic Holy war predated the Crusades, yes?

It's not a base to launch invasions from, but rather a secure place from which to project air power (something vitally important to the type of warfare the US currently employs). The advantage with Israel is that its interests are totally different from the Arab countries in the region, and are far closer to that of the US. It is a reliable and trustworthy ally, where as Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are not at all. As for hostile surrounding nations, that isn't a grave concern as Israel's military can (and has repeatedly in the past) dealt with them.

Negatory. Israel is a less than useless place to project airpower or anything else. Its reliability is not in question, but its strategic position is. Notwithstanding the instability of the region, it has a number of other shortcomings. The terrain is quite unsuitable for mass armor deployment, and Israel lies at the most inaccesible edges of a number of potentially hostile Islamic nations. Worse yet, its Mediterranean waterfront creates a veritable bottleneck for seaborne invasion forces. As if that weren't enough, Israel's position requires land and air forces to cross sovereign, potentially hostile, and comparitively oil-poor nations like Syria and Jordan to reach oil-rich nations. I can hardly think of a more disaster-prone area to base an offensive from.

They were already polarized imho, they are indoctrinated to be that way. As for intervention, sometimes it is necessary and just to do so. Problem is it is almost never done for that reason. Its done purely for greed and self interest, with a smoke screen of justice, and freedom thrown over top to mask the real reason.
We are agreed upon the point that intevention is almost never done for proper reasons.

Too bad that peace is not a basic instinct of man, conflict and greed is. Conflict will never go away, and no matter how innocent, or how just your society, it will come get you eventually.
Therein lies the beauty of capitalism. Trading all things is humanity's favorite pastime, next to killing or coercing each other.

Ya that is often the way it goes. Of course though the irony is even if we do agree it probably won't change anything. Even if we came up with the perfect solution to whatever.

It may change things, and it may not. It takes only one person to change the ideals of many. Conversely, it takes only one person to not affect anything of consequence. Our discussions may or may not enable us to develop opinions of consequence, but there is no reason we shouldn't try, so long as we enjoy them.

Hehe well I meant more that your arguments are usually well crafted and you have put thought into them, which is what I respect (basically you don't just drone off party/group lines/rhetoric, and are willing to at least listen to other arguments). We all use a lot of rhetoric here, as it is so much easier and less time consuming then actually backing up arguments with citations. I myself try to only argue from positions which I can back up with solid evidence/data if called on, which is why I often pick out certain parts of a thread and ignore other parts. :DL

Thanks, NS.

[onelifecrisis]

@OLC

I didn't read the Quran so I can't say anything to what you've quoted. But if Skybird is right you might want to read a few more passages before and after of what was (maybe) cherry picked for the public to read.

Skybird claimed that the whole book/ideology was from the pits of hell (my paraphrasing). I only need one counter example to disprove that bollocks.

Why don't you read for yourself what actual Muslims (thousands of them) have to say. Muslim forums are easy to find on the web. Here's a couple of posts by Muslim people in Muslim forums (mostly from the UK) that I've been browsing:

On the subject of Islamic Values:
I seriously believe that modern Muslims have
All forgotten the real meaning of Islam. We
Muslims were once upon a time a great
respected civilization and now we are going
down hill (rock bottom). It is time to use
our brains and not violence. We have lost our
ways and need to return to the real Islam.

Every time a Muslim terrorist (or freedom
fighter to some) blows himself up killing
innocent people. The west goes and kills
100,000 Muslims across the World. Who is
responsible for this? We all jump up and down
and blame the west but really who's fault is
it?

A reply on that same topic:
we do not live in an islamic state and if we
kept our noses out of islamic culture, an
area we are totally ignorant on, we would be
able to get on with our lives

iraq and affy should manage their own destiny
internally, in the same that we manage ours.
imagine some fundamentalist idiots invading
our homeland saying we are going to stop
street crime and drug trading. wed tell em
to p!ss off in no uncertain terms

My favourite, on the subject of stoning (to death):
i usually get stoned on a tues n a friday
night of darts

Here's a Muslim guy talking about that US Muslim soldier who went on a killing spree:
If its true that this guy killed all them soldiers then he deserves a medal of honor.

Nasty. Here are some of the replies from his Muslim Brothers:

The guy just murdered his fellow citizens, whats honourable about that? Clearly he had issues but that's no excuse.

Why? It wasn't on a battlefield- this guy was probably trusted and as far as I know, was employed also as a psychiatrist to help those returning back from service- IMO he has commited a greater offense in killing defenceless colleagues- if he survives from his wounds, you can bet Texas will execute him...

...then you'll be calling him a martyr???

Waqar, your " hero" just ratcheted up suspicion of muslims by about 500% in the US I reckon.

Hope killing those defenceless squaddies was worth it...

I have to say that sort of disgusting rubbish is the reason so many in the UK hate Muslims and Islam.
It's people like you that are dragging the name Islam into the dirt and slowing down the spread of Islam.
You are no better than the likes of that idiot Bush and his mates except comments like yours do more harm to Islam than that bunch could ever do.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

Weird... they sort of sound like regular people having a regular forum debate? How do they do that? I guess it must be some sort of conspiracy to fool us into thinking they're okay?

There are many, many, many more threads and posts. I don't doubt that somewhere there are extremist Muslim forums as well, but there's extremist anything if you want to find it (looks at Skybird)

[Schroeder]

No one ever claimed that all of them are extremists.;)
I sometimes do not even believe that most of them know what they are used for but let's face it, if the imam says to go on the streets because of some caricatures then a lot of them go. Where are the public mass protests against that idiot that killed his fellow comrades? A few lines on a forum is all that got up. Nothing in comparison with what we see when the west "offended" Islam again....
And of course there are good guys among Muslims like in any group of people and I never wanted to make the impression that I hate each and every Muslim. It's their ambitious leadership and the silent condoning of violent acts that I don't like.

If that all isn't enough then let me point to the way they treat women again. That alone is already enough for me to not want their culture being spread throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
One example:
Recently a young girl, only 10 years old, tried to escape from her "husband" who is already 80 (!!!) years old in Saudi Arabia. The girls was brought back to that guy by her father. The "husband's" statement was that this form of "marriage" does not violate any Islamic law...(I'm afraid I can only find this link right now...http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/10/01/10-year-old-bride-forced-to-return-to-80-year-old-husband.htm)
Excuse me, but a culture that openly condones and supports child molesting is nothing I want to see grow here.

I have a friend who lived together with a Muslim man for some time and her reports of how she was treated by that guy raised my blood pressure more than just a little (locked away, beaten....)
Again, do you want their influence and their symbols of power grow in Europe?

[VipertheSniper]

I have to say that sort of disgusting rubbish is the reason so many in the UK hate Muslims and Islam.
It's people like you that are dragging the name Islam into the dirt and slowing down the spread of Islam.
You are no better than the likes of that idiot Bush and his mates except comments like yours do more harm to Islam than that bunch could ever do.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

wow, that's a real gem.

[NeonSamurai]

Samurai, of course I am correct, if not then anti-semitism doesn't count as racism.
Are you going to attempt to argue that the Shoah wasn't racist?

Nice try, but couple of flaws with that argument. For one thing, the main focus of Nazi anti-semitism, was based in racism. They believed that the semitic races were inferior and sub human, and attacked them based on racial characteristics and stereotypes. Sure they also hated the Jewish faith as well. But the key motivation behind the final solution was true racism, that is why they also attacked people who's ancestors were Jewish though they themselves were not.

Second, anti-semitism is the hatred of semitic people, which are not all Jewish. It has though been taken over to mostly mean hatred of jewish people. This sort of makes sense as most jewish people are of Semitic origins.

This is different from the debate here as we are intellectually criticizing the religion itself, not the people behind the religion, which is why it isn't racism. Just as intellectually criticizing the Jewish religion is not anti-semitism.

As a further comment, Judism is not only a religion, but also a culture (and refered to a race as well, if you ascribe to concepts of race, which I don't). Unlike Islam and Christianity, there are specific cultural ties to the religion. Islam and Christianity are cross cultural, in that there is not a specific culture associated with it (though certain cultures are predominate with in the religions).

My criticism is not based on hatred of Islam, nor do I hate people because they believe in Islam, but rather my intellectual concerns with Islam itself. This is also why it is not Islamophobia, as its not a phobic reaction, or an irrational fear. My worries are firmly based in rationality.

[onelifecrisis]

My criticism is not based on hatred of Islam, nor do I hate people because they believe in Islam, but rather my intellectual concerns with Islam itself.

Sorry, run that by me again? You don't have a problem with Muslim people, you just have a problem with Islam? So, if someone waved a magic wand and got rid of "Islam" but left all the Muslims... what exactly is it that the wand would have removed from the world?

Schroeder, your post will take more time to reply to than the above so I'll do it later cos I have work to finish (I'm not ignoring it).