It's May 14, 2024, 06:53:55 PM
Do you think that Muslim hatred toward the west is a strictly religious phenomenon?
If so, how do years of western infiltration and exploitation of Arab and Muslim countries figure in their antagonism toward the west?.
You also don't mention that violent forms of resistance practiced by Muslims are far surpassed by Western violence. Would you also attribute Western violence to the inherent evil of various western religions or cultures?
(2.) Islam - It is the position of NCF/AmRen that the religion of Islam is a very wicked and intolerant faith which aims to become dominant over the entire world. The modern-day jihadist movement represents the most violent and ambitious incarnation of Islam yet, but NCF/AmRen believes that Islam is fundamentally a very dangerous belief system that is antithetical to human progress. Right now, many countries in Europe are, in a slow death wish, inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities, many of whom hate the West and want to replace it with some sort of caliphate. NCF/AmRen rejects the traditional anti-Semitic white nationalists who believe Jews are the enemy and are willing to cooperate with Muslims (as David Duke did in 2006 when he met with Iranian President Ahmoud Ahmadinejad). We believe that right now, the greatest threat to Western white European/American civilization comes from Islamic immigrants. We support a policy of deporting Muslims who espouse jihadist views, and limiting Islamic immigration generally as much as possible.
(5.) White supremacy - It is the position of NCF/AmRen that there is no scale on which racial differences can all be ranked so as to draw across-the-board conclusions about racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’. t is certainly true that in some important traits—intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease—whites can be considered ‘superior’ to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be ‘superior’ to whites.
(6.) Religion - Although most of NCF/AmRen's members are white Protestants, our religion does not figure in any way in our arguments. Our views are not based upon a perceived "Christian identity"; they are based upon scientific research and statistics. Our white nationalism is a secular, scientific nationalism. It is not like 1940s European fascism (linked closely with Christianity in many countries) in this sense. Theological explanations do not figure in our views of blacks, Muslims, Latinos, or other minorities.
So Muslim hatred toward the west has nothing to do with what the west has been doing in the middle east for the last couple of decades?A US sponsored coup in Iran to install a brutal dictator? The support for dictatorships like Saudi Arabia that make sure the money from oil goes to the west-not to the people of the region-has nothing to do with it? British occupation? U.S support for Israeli occupation and aggression ? US support for monsters like Sadam?. None of this matters? you wanna tell me Muslims don't mind the robbery and destruction and all they care about is religion? It takes a leap of faith. Even if we grant that there is intolerance in the Muslim religion (as there is in virtually any religion), the west did nothing to contribute to Muslim intolerance with its destructive actions?. I guess Bush was right then, they DO hate you for your freedom.Come on man.
Secondly,western violence is far superior in its "achievements" if only for the tremendous imbalance of power the west enjoys. I don't think anyone would dispute it. As for tallying up total kills throughout history, do you also include inter-European warfare for hundreds of years and the genocide of millions of native Americans?
But you haven't answered my question. Why don't you attribute western violence to western cultures and religions like you do with Islam?
Islam is rotten to the core, but so is Christianity. Yes, Islam (and most specifically Islamism) is a prime example of how self-righteous, pugnacious and plain dangerous religion can be, but religion in general is inimical to progress in contemporary society. The world's least religious societies are its most progressive ones, and the problem in Islamic societies might partly be the specific religion itself, but to a great extent it's the degree of religiousness in that society. If you compare Turkey to the Lebanon, you should get the picture. And I'll have to go with I TO DA GEEZY in asking how you can attribute all the wrong done in the Muslim world to Islam and don't do the same for western culture. That's a double standard and a loophole for people like you to support religious conservatism. If you were consequent, you'd be a strict atheist.
Secondly, apparently you don't know the first thing about immigration politics (and policies) in Europe. What you're right about is that, sadly, a lot of European Muslims have trouble coping with Western beliefs and that's a very serious problem which undoubtedly is related to Islam itself. However, the statement that European countries are "inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities" is way more off than the statement that you are a Nazi.
Intelligence? What are you basing that one on, ACT scores? If there is any evidence that there is any biological aspect to the Asian > White > Black issue in the IQ department, I'd like to see it. The resistance-to-disease-thing seems kinda new to me as well. And since, from what I know, about 90% or something of genetic diversity among our species are exclusive to Africa, this seems to make little sense from a biological perspective, unless it was the 10% best genes that made it out of Africa. If so, show me.
I see that, but they should, negatively. If you don't condemn the Bible as much as you condemn the Qu'Ran, you got a credibility problem. The fact that the Qu'Ran is even slightly more belligerent and that at this very point in history, "Christian" countries are culturally ahead of Islamic ones doesn't take away from the fact that general intolerance and a pretty repetitive ongoing clash with science is as fundamental a problem for white Protestants as it is for your run-of-the-mill Al-Qaida basket case.
Quote from: Rugged Monk-Shaolin illuminati Click on January 27, 2009, 09:34:23 PMIf my hand had free reign and the ability to i'd impose a secular UN dictatorship upon Israel and Palestine and forcefully spoon feed their children a liberal secular enlightenment inter-religious education...I'd encourage inter-faith, bi-racial and bi-cultural relationships and families ......Plus I'd rebuild Solomon's Temple...Right, but here's the thing: The Israelis would go along with it, while the Palestinians wouldn't. Chances are, you'd be forced to slap the Palestinians around the same way that the Izzies have had to do.
If my hand had free reign and the ability to i'd impose a secular UN dictatorship upon Israel and Palestine and forcefully spoon feed their children a liberal secular enlightenment inter-religious education...I'd encourage inter-faith, bi-racial and bi-cultural relationships and families ......Plus I'd rebuild Solomon's Temple...
No, we would be forced to slap EVERYBODY around. Israel was founded on terrorism. Palestine adopted terrorism.
Quote from: Rugged Monk-Shaolin illuminati Click on February 04, 2009, 07:48:04 PMNo, we would be forced to slap EVERYBODY around. Israel was founded on terrorism. Palestine adopted terrorism. No, just the Palestinians. Israel was founded with a need to defend itself against illiterate Islamic savages. The Palestinians, being Muslims, would rather fight than accept a 2-state solution.
Shaolin Illuminati Click is for the babies.
You see there's a difference between actual history and parallel universes. You argue they WOULD hate us "regardless of what we did or did not do". This is like saying Muslim hatred for the west is pathological and cannot be explained by real world events and interests, it's a very convenient ideological concoction.But there's a problem, if Muslim hatred for the west is independent of real world concerns(like having national resources and personal freedom stolen) then why do Muslims-some of the most religiously fanatical ones incidentally-cooperate with US strategic interests?(Like the Saudis and once even Osama, as you probably know).Remember you argue real world concerns don't enter their calculus, otherwise what I've listed(or "what WE do") would be very relevant. Secondly,there certainly existed an amount of antagonism between religions and nations throughout history, Muslims and Arabs were no exception, but does this prove their hatred was, or is now, independent of real world interests?As for fault. It's interesting how you measure faults. So the 1000 something Palestinians killed by my government lately, using U.S weapons, brought it on themselves?...Yeah I know my government uses arguments like this, but serious people know exactly to whom those bombs and planes belong. Normal people usually attribute fault to those who pull the trigger and kill 300 children, in what has become an Israeli controlled prison.As for Muslim violence. If you limit history to those cases which support the thesis that Muslims are more violent then naturally you won't have a problem. Since, under these constraints, you don't need to face hundreds of years of Western violence.And my question still remains unanswered. The fact Western countries are democracies has little to do with the argument.Also,the fact most western countries share strategic interests-and hence don't fight wars with each other-doesn't prove anything. Your argument was this: Muslims commit acts of violence, thus the Muslim religion is evil. Why don't Western acts of violence prove the evil of Western culture and the religions of which it consists?
Quote from: Kill on February 02, 2009, 02:50:14 PMIslam is rotten to the core, but so is Christianity. Yes, Islam (and most specifically Islamism) is a prime example of how self-righteous, pugnacious and plain dangerous religion can be, but religion in general is inimical to progress in contemporary society. The world's least religious societies are its most progressive ones, and the problem in Islamic societies might partly be the specific religion itself, but to a great extent it's the degree of religiousness in that society. If you compare Turkey to the Lebanon, you should get the picture. And I'll have to go with I TO DA GEEZY in asking how you can attribute all the wrong done in the Muslim world to Islam and don't do the same for western culture. That's a double standard and a loophole for people like you to support religious conservatism. If you were consequent, you'd be a strict atheist.I'm actually not terribly religious, though I respect the power of the good Protestant values that built this country. Also, does it ever interest you that so many atheist socialists and Marxists seem more sympathetic to the religious fascist Islamists than they are to the (mostly) secular West?Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion about Christianity. But the fact, which you don't seem to acknowledge, is that Islamic societies are overwhelmingly far more tolerant than Christian societies. Islam does not tolerate criticism, as the Muhammad cartoon controversy and the Salman Rushdie affair shows. It takes FAR more bravery to criticize Islam for the simple fact that there is always a threat of Islamic violence in the background. Criticism of the Bible is available everywhere in America, if you choose not to believe in it. Whereas Islamic governments ban any sort of criticism at all. This is well-documented.Christianity went through a Reformation. Islam needs to do the same, or it needs to be wiped out. And frankly, I'd prefer the latter.
Quote from: Kill on February 02, 2009, 02:50:14 PMSecondly, apparently you don't know the first thing about immigration politics (and policies) in Europe. What you're right about is that, sadly, a lot of European Muslims have trouble coping with Western beliefs and that's a very serious problem which undoubtedly is related to Islam itself. However, the statement that European countries are "inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities" is way more off than the statement that you are a Nazi.You mean they aren't inviting lots of Muslims? That's odd. If you ever want to check the BNP web site, you'll find the truth about that. I am aware that some European governments are in the habits of disowning the policies which let these savages in their countries, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
Quote from: Kill on February 02, 2009, 02:50:14 PMIntelligence? What are you basing that one on, ACT scores? If there is any evidence that there is any biological aspect to the Asian > White > Black issue in the IQ department, I'd like to see it. The resistance-to-disease-thing seems kinda new to me as well. And since, from what I know, about 90% or something of genetic diversity among our species are exclusive to Africa, this seems to make little sense from a biological perspective, unless it was the 10% best genes that made it out of Africa. If so, show me. Please read my web site and you can see some of the stuff I've posted. And no, ACT scores are not the basis.
Quote from: Kill on February 02, 2009, 02:50:14 PMI see that, but they should, negatively. If you don't condemn the Bible as much as you condemn the Qu'Ran, you got a credibility problem. The fact that the Qu'Ran is even slightly more belligerent and that at this very point in history, "Christian" countries are culturally ahead of Islamic ones doesn't take away from the fact that general intolerance and a pretty repetitive ongoing clash with science is as fundamental a problem for white Protestants as it is for your run-of-the-mill Al-Qaida basket case.Yes, but again, very few (read: almost none) Christians kill people who disagree with them. Whereas the Islamic world issues death threats to critics on a regular basis. Muhammad himself was known to criticize those who disagreed with him. I'm not aware of Jesus doing that.
This is like saying Muslim hatred for the west is pathological and cannot be explained by real world events and interests, it's a very convenient ideological concoction.
then why do Muslims-some of the most religiously fanatical ones incidentally-cooperate with US strategic interests?(Like the Saudis and once even Osama, as you probably know).Remember you argue real world concerns don't enter their calculus, otherwise what I've listed(or "what WE do") would be very relevant.
Secondly,there certainly existed an amount of antagonism between religions and nations throughout history, Muslims and Arabs were no exception, but does this prove their hatred was, or is now, independent of real world interests?
So the 1000 something Palestinians killed by my government lately, using U.S weapons, brought it on themselves?...Yeah I know my government uses arguments like this, but serious people know exactly to whom those bombs and planes belong. Normal people usually attribute fault to those who pull the trigger and kill 300 children, in what has become an Israeli controlled prison.
As for Muslim violence. If you limit history to those cases which support the thesis that Muslims are more violent then naturally you won't have a problem. Since, under these constraints, you don't need to face hundreds of years of Western violence.
And my question still remains unanswered. The fact Western countries are democracies has little to do with the argument.Also,the fact most western countries share strategic interests-and hence don't fight wars with each other-doesn't prove anything. Your argument was this: Muslims commit acts of violence, thus the Muslim religion is evil. Why don't Western acts of violence prove the evil of Western culture and the religions of which it consists?