Jump to content

Spite

Members
  • Posts

    949
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Spite

  1. I feel like my IQ begins to slump every time I see one of his posts. I don't want to risk my Mensaâ„¢ membership so I just ignore them now.
  2. It's called "everyone realised Mensa are cool dudesâ„¢"
  3. "VE try to break the Mensa iron fist with their face" war
  4. You don't see a lot of Christian rebellion for three reasons: 1. Christianity is the dominant religion in the world. It was the religion of Europe, which owned most of the world. North America is predominantly Christian (in culture at least), same with South America, Europe, Oceania and sub-saharan Africa. Those parts of Africa with multiple religions, such as Nigeria, Central African Republic, etc have seen armed christian rebellion movements and even forced conversions and muslim massacres. They were anti-muslim massacres in Europe (in Bosnia and Kosovo) within the last twenty years. There have been anti-muslim attacks in India and significant state persecution in Western China. 2. Christians don't face a lot of persecution as a group. They face persecution individually or nationally (Armenians, South Sudanese etc) but not usually on the grounds where they are Christian. Where that is a defining factor (such as in Lebanon) they do form militias or fight back. 3. Terrorism is an act of desperation. If a country or group or whatever can win a war conventionally, they will do that. If they can't (see Vietnam, Malay insurgency, Taliban insurgency, etc) they will take guerrilla action. Rahl is a better person to tell you about the mechanics of that than me. Frankly in most cases where terrorism is practised it is because they either don't have the manpower, popular support or technology to win a conventional war. Hopefully this has answered Lightning's more sensible posts too.
  5. In the West Christians are the majority and a privileged majority, with a history of dominance and power behind them. In countries where Christians have historically been a discriminated minority they do have a history of armed rebellion against the majority. If you don't recognise that I suggest you go look it up. With regard to the putting Jesus in a comic, that's comparing apples with oranges. In Islam making images of the prophet is very bad. In Christianity there is no such prohibition against creating images of Jesus. It is all in context too - a cartoon in itself isn't going to piss anyone off (including 99% of muslims). But against a background of widespread discrimination, it can come across as kicking a man when he's down. I think nobody would think that the kind of pictures produced about japanese people in ww2 or blacks before that are acceptable anymore, so there is a history of cartoons being banned. Examples:
  6. As Big Brother said, this is largely irrelevant. The Caliphate weren't islamists, they were a Muslim Empire. Islamism as a political doctrine has it's ideological roots in wahabbism and didn't emerge as a major political force until the time of the Taliban & Islamic revolution in Iran. I think if you make any group mad enough they will try to fight back, and a minority of that fighting will be violent. Of course the more you shit on any particular group, the more likely they are to fight back, leading right up to violent rebellion. All those civil wars in history usually started with a disaffected group in society or some sort of massive societal conflict which couldn't be resolved diplomatically. Solution is to be diplomatic.
  7. You can call them rock paper and scissors for all I care, it makes no difference to the important thing which is the mechanics.
  8. No, you misanalyse their reason for radicalisation. Islam as a religious movement is quite old, but the modern concept of Islamism is a recent trend. Therefore it is not logical to equate the two or see all muslims as potential Islamists. What I said in my post is that any group can become radicalised. I used the example of northern Irish catholics who became radicalised in an environment where they were treated as second class citizens for many years. A small minority became radicalised and began attacking the UK. When the peace process emerged they stopped. I ask you again, would your solution be to close the borders to the Irish? Most of the radical Muslims, including 3/4 of the suicide bombers in London, were not particularly religious. They didn't know the Koran, one had a gf who he slept with, one drank. Radical islam is for the most part (in the West at least) a political movement which emerged from Muslims as a group, rather than islam as a religion. This matter is confused because they often use islam as their justification. The solution is twofold. Firstly to monitor and track potential terrorist cells as we do already. Secondly to address the root cause that leads people towards extremism. That is especially important due to large Muslim populations in the West. Immigrant communities have issues of isolation, lack of integration, poverty, poor educational attainment, poor job prospects, linguistic barriers, cultural barriers. In addition there are currently issues due to the bombing campaigns in the middle east and the unsettlement there which is largely blamed on the USA and more widely the west. Both sets of issues can be handled in different ways. I can't imagine a situation where closing the borders would achieve anything except to further demonise and isolate communities.
  9. Ok I'll address your point directly. I do not think that closing the borders to Muslims will reduce the chances of terrorism in the UK. It will decrease the chances of a terrorist entering the UK. However, as stated the risk of antagonising almost 3 million citizens by treating them as potential terrorists far outweighs any benefit from blocking new immigration. With regard to your point that they must be radical anyway if they would become Islamists following a border closure, this is not true. A case in point would be Irish terrorism. In the UK we Had IRA terror attacks for decades and many more people were killed than in all the Muslim attacks together. After the good Friday agreement this mostly stopped. I'm sure you wouldn't suggest we should close the borders to the Irish in case they suddenly radicalise and start blowing stuff up again. The fact is that when you isolate and attack a group, whichever group that is, you create a situation where violent rebellion is more likely. That is true whether the group are Muslim shop workers at Tesco, Irish dock workers, or whatever group you care to name.
  10. So a few points I'll respond to: 1. Spite, you are generalising I agree that I am generalising. Any topic about "the alt right" is going to be a topic where I discuss the general characteristics of that group whilst acknowledging these do not apply to all individuals in that group. The same would be true of discussing any group of people. 2.The non mainstream left are just as bad No disagreement that they are just as prone to echo chambers 3. Moderates are less politically active I'd disagree: most politicians are moderates, most political activists and campaigners are moderates. I've spent ten years in political campaigning and can confirm that when it comes to knocking on doors, the radical is more likely to be the member of the public than the campaigner. In most countries the biggest parties tend to be moderate ones. 4. The MSM is biased (to the left) The mainstream media has a recognisable bias in their reporting and always has. Once you are prepared to recognise that bias you can see past it. It is a common feature of people that they always feel that there are more negative than positive stories about them. For example, I would say that since Rupert Murdoch owns a sizeable chunk of the UK (and Australian) media and is certainly conservative then you'd expect the bias of his papers to be to the right. Obviously the more radical you are the more people will disagree with you. If you are to the extreme left or extreme right you will find most media outlets critical of your position. 5. Small outlets have the same quality journalism and receive as much critical oversight as the MSM I honestly don't know how anyone can make this claim, I tend to find small outlets (like the Canary in the UK) tend to be extremely biased, regurgitate information from the MSM and just put their own spin on it.
  11. Considering my country (the UK) has 2.7 million Muslims (five percent of the population) I don't think "closing the borders" is going to do much good. In addition, our worst Muslim terrorist attack (2005 London bombings) were carried out by three people from Yorkshire and one guy born in Jamaica - which is hardly an Islamic hotspot. Closing the borders doesn't do anything to stop terrorism. I would argue that the much more antagonistic attitude taken by France for example has served to isolate Muslim communities and encourage radicalisation. Whilst I agree radical islam should be challenged at every opportunity, extending this to ordinary Muslims creates more terrorists than it stops.
  12. I agree that armchair social commentators on both the right and left tend to enjoy the cosy warmth of approval from others who share their views. I could explain that as someone who gets out their armchair and into the community, I am exposed daily to a variety of views across the political spectrum. Most of those views are moderate, whether they are left or right. I find that people who belong to small factions (communists are the ones I know best but the right too) are particularly subject to echo chamber ignorance, where they believe that everyone must agree with them because they are only ever exposed to people with the same beliefs. The few times they are exposed to alternative beliefs or ideas (for example from the notorious MainStreamMedia) they put this down to the Liberal elites/jews/right wing corporate globalists owning these news outlets and point instead to blogs and online platforms with little legitimacy and/or investigative reporting skills to support their position.
  13. Can anyone hear an echo (echo echo echo...) I think there is a marked difference between accepting religious freedom and supporting Islamism. I obviously don't support radical Islamism in any form and I am quite critical of Islam as both a religion and a philosophy, but I don't believe the solution to radical islam is to group all muslims together as "the problem" and look for "a solution" as some people on this board advocate. *Omg it's a regressive lefty he doesn't want to exterminate the Muslims!*
  14. Wallowing in echo chamber ignorance and denouncing anything that disagrees with their narrow perspective as being the biased mouthpiece of the Liberal elites seems to be the modus operandi for the alt-right.
  15. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/23/munich-shooting-german-iranian-gunman-targeted-children-outside/ Are you serious? The McDonalds attacker was not only far-right and inspired by Breivik (it was the fifth anniversary ffs) he deliberately targeted muslim teenagers. How you crazies can re-interpret that as him being a fundamentalist Iranian I don't know. Literally the only reason you'd think that is because he is brown skinned. Populism is populism, it has strains of all ideologies, poorly processed and understood. Btw the quote in your annoying sig uses "it's" when it should be "its".
  16. OP is an insane mindfart full of incorrect assumptions.
  17. So we've established that Pre has made TEst a paper alliance in reality, but since "paperless" is like, a philosophy man, a way of thinking, not just about you know, not having any paper, they're going to stay paperless in spirit and ain't nobody going to tell him different because he's been playing this game for much longer than anyone else (actually not that much longer and nobody cares anyway).
  18. What is the difference between this treaty and any of the "paper" treaties then? I mean it's not like there's any formal mechanism to enforce the "paper" agreements either, it's basically a statement from party A that they'll defend party B, sometimes but not always accompanied by another statement that party B will defend party A. That's what this is too, regardless of how you have worded it. If you disagree then do tell what the difference is.
  19. Despite all the blather, most treaties are basically "we will declare to protect you and might declare with you" extrapolated into a few paragraphs of jargon. So long as you're going to honour this agreement to defend Roz Wei, you are basically making one of those treaties with them. So basically there is paper there whether you actually wrote some rubbish with articles etc or not.
  20. All hail our lord and saviour, the God Emperor Dio Brando!
  21. I stopped posting here because mods suck. People get warns and bans for posting OOC or having a signature with a few too many characters, yet apparently posting stuff straight out of stormfront goes without a raised eyebrow from the mod team.
  22. Dio saves those who would embrace his willâ„¢. The ranks of the faithful expand!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.