Creeping Sharia: The Islamisation of the West

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, the infamous Bosnian War. A series of conflicts that culminated in the worst case of genocide since the Holocaust. There's a clear wrong side here, and I seriously hope you aren't seriously defending the actions of Nikola Jorgić and his militia.
Bosnia will be a multi-religious society. The Orthodox Christian Serbs aren't in charge anymore; they lost that right when they committed genocide.


I think it's funny how you say this while having an avatar of a British flag and Israeli flag. Really, I hope the irony of your comment didn't go over anyone else's head.


By who? Alex Jones? Typical conservative scaremongering...


I'm not about to defend the Saudi government, God knows I have my own issues with them, but their involvement is irrelevant at this point. You can either focus on the problem, or you can focus on the solution. Pointing fingers is not a solution. Otherwise I'd be flying into a long rant about Israeli-funded mercenary groups right now. By the way, how many refugees is Israel taking in 2016, again?


I think you're attributing an undue amount of power and influence to Germany's Muslim population. Muslims are still but a tiny minority in Europe; also as an American, your view of the European situation is being filtered through a racist conservative media that refuses to talk about violence and crime unless an immigrant commits it.

Also I think it's weird how Americans can't stop talking about the dangers of Salafi sects (aka "Wahhabi"), but in any conflict between Salafists and other Muslims, the US government always backs the Salafists. What do you people really want?


An excellent point. Spain has historically had a significant Muslim population and Muslim monarchs. Islam is European; how many generations of our ancestors have to live in a country before the "natives" stop treating us like outsiders?

Not at all. Islam is triumphalist. In its 1400 year history it has never undergone Reformation. Protestantism is what saved the West from Catholicism (complete with burnings at the stake, horrible torture, and rampant bigotry).

Islam is no better than was Catholicism prior to the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation.

Islam, unfortunately, has very dangerous memes embedded within it. Judaism too had these dangerous ideas, but the Jews for fortunate enough to have the s**t kicked out of them by the Assyrians, the Persians and the Romans. All of which saved Judaism and made it safe to have around (except in places like Germany and Russia).

I don't see why there's an irony in it. I'm British, and I support Israel's right to live as an indigenous people on our own land. I myself may not be indigenous, but I've been in the land for a very long time.

Britain wasn't in the Mandate as a colony - it was given it by League of Nations.

My country does have a colonial past (as do many countries - not only in the West but also the Ottomans and the Arabs), but the major point is that most of us have renounced colonialism these days. Islam has not. Islam and the Arabs still glory in colonialism. Many Islamic countries still practice slavery, although perhaps not legally these days. (The way guest workers are treated in the Gulf is shocking.)

And Israel isn't a colonial entity. It's the manifestation of an indigenous people's self-determination. It is the Arabs who are the colonisers with regard to Israel. Muhammad's armies conquered the area several thousand years after the Jews had lived in their homeland. That's not to say that Arabs don't have rights there - of course they do - they have the right of longstanding presence. But that doesn't give them the right to murder Jews, any more than Jews have any right to murder Arabs.

The Arabs in Israel are as indigenous to the area as white, non-aboriginal Americans and Australians are in America and Australia.

Last edited by Tequila on 23 Apr 2016, 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Shariah will not succeed in the U.S. The U.S., for better or for worse, is a child of the Protestant Reformation.

American Muslims have integrated (for the most part into American society). The feel a bit marginalized, (as American Jews have felt in the past) and for that reason will not back any attempt to Islamize the United States. It simply cannot happen here.

In Europe, Muslims have not been well integrated into the societies in which that find themselves. And their position is precarious. If they try any real trouble in Germany, for instance, the Germans will remember their former skills in filling freight trains with unwanted people.

Lol, this paragraph is just incoherent.

I thought Jews were the people, not 'Israel'. And what land is it that you've been in for a very long time? You're only twenty-something.

Yes, the Jews are the people. I'm saying that they are indigenous to the Land of Israel. The Land of Israel is indigenous to the Jewish people. Do keep up, child.



England. As I said, myself and my descendants may not be indigenous, but we've been here a long time.

lol, Britain never renounced colonialism. They just ran out of new places to colonize. At least, they ran out of easy targets.

Calling middle-eastern immigrants "colonial" is asinine. You wouldn't be making that comparison if you actually understood the consequences of colonialism and what it entails for its subjects. Just look at what European colonialism did to Africa in the 19th and 20th century. You talk about colonialism like it's ancient history, but it's not.

As for Israel, you say they aren't colonialists because their ancestors were indigenous to the region? Well, I say if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...


I don't think anyone has the right to kill anyone. But maybe Israelis will stop being treated like colonial invaders when they stop acting like it?


"Child?"
There's no reason to act hostile to other users like that.

I'm not "ignoring" anything.

The idea that civilization will come to a crashing end if women, gays, and minorities are granted equal status to heterosexual white men is "historically" a very old one, and is usually rooted in insecurity and entitlement rather than anything approaching thoughtful historical analysis.

Anyone can re-interpret history to fit their biases, and, no, I don't need to yield my independence to heterosexual white Christian males to prevent having to yield it to Muslim men.

No, you're wrong - Islam believes that it has the divine right to the entire world, and it believes that areas that were once Muslim must always remain so. That's why you see Islamists demanding al-Andalus and Rome back - because it was Muslim once.

Or are you trying to imply that Islamic (and Ottoman) colonialism is A-OK, and Western colonialism is not?

You won't get me defending what European countries did in Africa. Some of what we did in India was shocking - the Amritsar massacre in particular, and so on. Although, having said that, the British weren't the worst colonisers, not by a long chalk. Now, would you like to talk about, say, the Armenian genocide or not?

The fact is that colonialism is bad, no matter who does it - whether that be religious or nationalist.

I would like to see us integrate our remaining overseas territories into the mother country, much like France did with many of theirs, or offer them independence.

As for the Arabs - it is absolutely not asinine. They colonised the Arab world (and North Africa, and the Indian subcontinent, and as far as Indonesia) through force. They massacred ancient tribes that didn't submit to Islam. All this is on historical record. The armies of Islam did not go from a tiny area around Mecca and Madinah to taking the whole peninsula through self-defence now, did they? Be reasonable.



They aren't colonialists because they are the indigenous people.

Nothing about what Israel does is colonial. What you have in Israel is the indigenous Jews defending themselves against people who want to recolonise the region in the name of Islam. If you listen to what Hamas say, they admit as much, that they want an Islamic caliphate to reign over 'Palestine'.

Personally, I think the problem with the Israelis is that they DO act like colonisers. They act like white people. They are ashamed of their own connection to the land, and they are in two minds about their own identity. Even Netanyanhu is. They seem all too keen to give up their most holy places - the Temple Mount, and Hebron, and elsewhere in Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Judaism.

Many Jews lack little confidence in their identity, and that's why the Arabs do so well on the Western propaganda circut, because they are not advocating their case very well at all. They are not refuting the Arab claim that they are colonisers.



As I said - they aren't. Not all of them know that, though.

Personally, I would be much more comfortable supporting the Arabs if I thought that they had a case and were arguing in good faith. A two-state solution sounds good to me. Until you realise that the League of Nations tried for many years to broker one of those and were always flatly rejected. The real problem is that Islam will not accept a Jewish sovereign country over any part of the Land of Israel. They want them out of there or dead.

The 'Palestinian' desire is to recolonise the Land of Israel and install an Islamic caliphate in its place. Are you on board with that?

You are downplaying Arab colonialism. Arabs were involved in African slave trade before the Europeans. The reason you hear less of it is becuase they had a policy of castrating their slaves, as they did not want their bloodline to be tainted, nor have slaves sleep with thier women.This is historically verifiable. They are also involved in a form of slavery to this day, called indentured labour. They treat their imported labour force appallingly, and they have had their passports withheld, having to live is terrible conditions with restricted movements. They suffer from threats and actual violence such as beatings. This culture is widely accepted.

The idea that the Arabs were welcomed with open arms in the countries the occupied is not accurate. They destroyed cultures many like the Berber.

The Turks also were involved in the slave trade and sexual slavery. Capturing slaves from afar a field as Russia.

Btw Britain did renounce many aspect of colonialism post WWI, it was one for the first to abolish slavery. I live about 10 minutes walk from the heart of the abolitionists movement and William Wilberforce's church. Britain attacked slave ships.

We have granted independence to any country wanting it since the 60s. Membership of the Commonwealth is voluntary, yet it has 53 countries. There are various types of membership to suit the constitutional requirement of the country.

Britain has apologised many times for slavery and colonialism. However this doesn't mean much as the current generation wasn't involved.

When has any Arab nation apologised? It is unlikely as they like to make themselves out to be victims.

Then there is the nonsense of wanting apologies for the Crusades. Given that was centuries ago and there is no moral high ground.

Mohamed himself was a slave owner.

I'm in the weird position of defending Christianity as an athiest, however the "morality of the time" argument I have heard used to defend early Islam makes no sense given it 6 centuries after Jesus's teachings which would not condone this form of morality.

Actually, to be more specific, they colonised themselves. --the British government runs itself as a colonial administration for English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish people, how's that for f***ed up?

You could say that US colonised istelf too by that logic, it is called federalism. It is not like the frontier drive and capturing of other European colonies was morally superior. Your slave breeding rivaled the transatlantic trade in revenue. Some of the Indian reservations remind me of grand Apartheid in structure (I was born in south Africa), admittedly some of them have been successes, but overall it has been a failure. Many of them are nowhere near where they came from there is nothing there for them and they have no traditional skills left, and arguably they would be better off integrated.

Northern Island was settled mostly by Presbyterian Scots (not English), this was two way traffic for centuries. Gaels were colonist from Ireland to Scotland. Scots of Western scotland who were there in Scotland originally are closely related to English regions like Northumberia, in fact the language was indistinguishable. Even the current dialect of North Eastern England and Scotland are closely related and use many of the same words, which are from Old Northumberian English. You want examples?

The Romans saw little differnce between Britannic people and Irish. In fact they were the same tribes often.

Even the Iceni tribe of Boudica fame from East Anglia had link to Wales on the other side, and those tribe had links to Ireland.

Cromwell was universally unpopular in England and Ireland. He chased a king who had catholic sympathies to Ireland and invaded. Ulster Scots who had been there for a long time were vulnerable, even though they were Presbyterian and not Cromwell's form of Puritanism.

There is no other conflict the killed more English than the civil war. 1 in 10 people died. I suspect this is the same for Irish and Scots.

I had a funny conversation with an American whose ancestors were to deported to to the US. I'm not a monarchist, but he was railing against the monarchy and its power and how his ancestors suffered. I did some research and it turned out his ancestors were deported by Cromwell for fighting for the King. Big lulz

Scotland wasn't forced to join the union. Some have said they were coerced, but by what standard are were judging this? All colonist or potential colonist were at competition with each other. It tried to be a colonist an failed and bankrupted itself. So it made economic sense, we also paid off their debt. Adjusting for inflation I worked out it would be around £80 million in todays money. It may be more but was limited by inflation records, which hadn't started till a little later.

It is well documented that the condition of the act of union was that Scotland would have access to the colonies wealth. It is not a coincidence that at the height of the East India Company half the writers were Scots, which is disproportionate to the population of scotland then and now.

So those who present it as evil English and whiter than white Scots don't know what they are talking about.

As somebody who is part Welsh in ancestry I support the union. Although we do need some reforms.

Regarding the premise of this thread.

I suspect secularism with prevail in the end. However we should not be complacent of those wanting Sharia to be put in place or any other inhumane system.

ISIS has called Islam the religion of the sword, it is a conquering religion and that is the original spirit of the religion from the times of Muhammed. That's why you can't compare Islam and Christianity, Muhammad was a marauding bandit warlord whereas Jesus was a man all about forgiveness and redemption wondering around Galilee doing miracles.

Saudi Arabia deserves a lot of attention since they are the source of this venomous Wahhabi strain of Islam and are more responsible for this refugee crisis than anyone. We all seen the opulence their royal families live in, they've spent billions arming terrorists in these countries and are maybe responsible in part for orchestrating 9/11.

These things are happening to Germany, do you think the news lies? It seems like there has been active movement to cover these crimes up rather than to sensationalize and straight fictionalize stories.

I don't support the US government's foreign policy, I think we should get the hell out of that part of the world and wash our hands of the problem. We should not be beholden to Israel's foreign policy interests, we should not be the muscle behind that state. They have nuclear weapons, huge military, they have it under control, and the best thing us to do is again to try to stay neutral as we can be.

I'm not. I'm saying what's happening in Europe circa 2016 isn't colonialism.

There's an obvious difference between the Ottoman invaders with their swords and scalemail, and some impoverished families from Syria seeking a better life. What's asinine is you trying to compare the two just because both groups happen to share the same religion.

There's also a huge difference between the Arab colonialism you describe, and Jewish colonialism which is happening in Palestine. The difference is that one of those things is actually happening right now as we speak.


I believe Palestinians have the right to self-defense. I always hear it said "Israel has a right to defend itself", do Palestinians not have a right to defend themselves?

And I don't know if you realize this, but the Israel problem is a lot bigger than just Palestine. They have waged constant war with Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Iran; they created the refugee crisis by importing tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries, but they aren't taking any refugees. The existence of Israel, in their current administration, is a net negative for the middle east (and really, the world); they are a country that takes far more than they give. There was no global terror problem prior to the creation of Israel. Israel needs to change.


Hm?

The prophet Jesus, whose teachings are described extensively in the Bible and the Quran, definitely condoned certain types of slavery. What gave you the idea that he didn't?

There is no contradiction between the morality of Jesus and the morality of Muhammad.



So? I don't support ISIS, I don't care what they call it. Are you calling me an ISIS supporter?

And are you denying the US involvement in funding ISIS and other Salafi militant groups? Even though it's practically common knowledge at this point, and has been confirmed by generals in the US military?