-->
@keithprosser
That is what people in those days would have believed, yes.
Maybe Yass will concede that Sobieski had a more powerful god than the muslims had "in those days". In so doing admit that there is more than one god.
That is what people in those days would have believed, yes.
disgusted wrote: Respect. Something wingnuts know nothing about, especially Slump and Stephen. Such sad little people
ResurgetExFavilla responded: How is that respectful? If a convent was shot up, would it be respectful for a politician to dress up in a habit to make a speech? After the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami, should Obama have gotten into his Noh theatre makeup and dressed Michele up in a kimono?Should our leaders don the cheongsam to discuss tragedy in China? A saree when Bangladesh floods?I mean, Jacinda Ardern is a pretty outspoken feminist and an agnostic who left the Mormon church, who lives with a man whom she isn't wed to, has a child by him, and sees this as a superior arrangement, the 'way of the future'. Her stated beliefs run 100% antithetical to what the hijab stands for, which is humility and submission to God, things which she clearly sees as old fashioned and not for her.
How is that respectful? If a convent was shot up, would it be respectful for a politician to dress up in a habit to make a speech? After the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami, should Obama have gotten into his Noh theatre makeup and dressed Michele up in a kimono? Should our leaders don the cheongsam to discuss tragedy in China? A saree when Bangladesh floods?It seems just weird to me. Maybe not necessarily insulting, but bizarre. I mean, Jacinda Ardern is a pretty outspoken feminist and an agnostic who left the Mormon church, who lives with a man whom she isn't wed to, has a child by him, and sees this as a superior arrangement, the 'way of the future'. Her stated beliefs run 100% antithetical to what the hijab stands for, which is humility and submission to God, things which she clearly sees as old fashioned and not for her. Is it 'respectful' for a stripper to wear a nun's habit? That seems like a more extreme situation, but in the same vein. If she isn't wearing the hijab because she respects what it stands for, then she's really just using it as a prop to elevate herself. After all, she wasn't doing too well politically until this shooting hit, she's a politician. When politicians see an opportunity for good press, they'll do anything.The 'solidarity' movement was also founded by a bunch of affluent white women. This is a pretty notorious group when it comes to cheap tokenism and self-aggrandizing slacktivism.
Exactly.How is that respectful? If a convent was shot up, would it be respectful for a politician to dress up in a habit to make a speech? After the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami, should Obama have gotten into his Noh theatre makeup and dressed Michele up in a kimono? Should our leaders don the cheongsam to discuss tragedy in China? A saree when Bangladesh floods?
Holy shiz! This is a known fact, but DAYUMN! Even Fox News still manages to be the most pro-Israel among the bunch. WT*!!! Who knows, the people running the show here might also be Jewish, like in DDO.
Exactly! "Whiteophobia" in a White country by who?! Other White people? SJWs who are also mostly White supposedly "attacking" other Whites? There is no "Whiteophobia" or "Blackphobia", because that's called Racism. I'm talking about deaths & bombs & invasions, & you're talking about SJWs?! What you characterize as demonization of White people is none other than White people not agreeing with your position, which is ironically demonizing other peoples... This is why I say it's not worth discussing. This is like me complaining about Islamophobia in Turkey when other Muslims don't agree with me.
I don't really get it. Why don't you explain it to me then. [...] If Whites truly care about their heritage, they should revive it, & celebrate it in its full glory. Shouting "White pride" isn't it. The Chivalry, the Mores, the poetry, the faith, the Honor, the faithfulness. God...
I never said either things. First, the narrative West vs. Muslims in the context in which it is brought up (invasion & oppression) is evidently not "racially hateful" - this feeling shared not only by Muslims in all their nations, but by virtually all peoples of the World, from China to South Africa. For a reason. Second, West =/= White people. When I say West I evidently mean the geopolitical entity, not the people themselves, who come from all walks of life, from saints to villains. Third, when invasions & bombs & the deaths of millions are involved, it is decidedly not "racially hateful". The West has indeed inflicted a lot of suffering to a lot of peoples -& also spread a lot of good, you may not like it, but it is what it is. All feelings are fleeting, but the feeling of bearing injustice. If you can not bear injustice done to your people, how do you expect others to bear injustice done to them by your people (an even greater injustice). So, what are you gunna do?
Exactly! Which caused the death of many Muslims too, & America retaliated by bombing whole countries full of innocent people who had nothing to do with it. Not that this is any relevant to the point you were making.
LOL! I don't know about the story, but man, you're starting to sound like Stephen. Damn! That is clearly a false claim, & it's decidedly not the case in any European country. A good chunk of content on this very Forum is criticizing Islam, & in copious abundance in countless news outlets & all social media & mainstream media, some can't even shut up about it. That's a fact. On the other hand, many Muslims have been arrested in Europe for inciting violence or criticizing Jews... I don't know why a government official who's supposed to represent the people should get away with it over & over & over.
Right. So when we say "Western media", a sizeable proportion of that is the expression of Jewish interest. White people don't have control over the majority of their media.
Firstly, racism is a bogus term and you need to stop using it (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174).
Secondly, my point is that criticism of Islam gets tagged with the 'Islamophobic' label, at least in a lot of Western countries (arguably the worst in the U.K.). We don't have such a tag for White people. Whites don't enjoy the same level of political immunity that Muslims do, in a lot of Western countries.
Lastly, demonisation of White people isn't just done by SJWs. It's done by the media, universities, schools and the general public. I think I posted this to you before (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/915). Your conception is horribly wrong.
The thread I wrote specifically deals with evidence of people disallowing or protesting things because they are "too White" -- this is literally what is said by anti-Whites. It can't get any clearer than that. Try using that 139+ I.Q. to read something super explicit.
Also, neo-Nazis and the KKK don't represent White in-group bias. They are fringe groups that the vast majority of White people are not a part of. To implicitly argue that White people shouldn't be allowed to form groups, due to the existence of neo-Nazis and the KKK, whilst allowing Black and Hispanic groups to form theirs (despite them having extremists, too), is racial hatred against Whites.
The fact that you can even consider Western countries to no longer be accurately defined as White nations, shows how bad it is for White people in these countries -- they no longer own their nations, in your eyes.
Furthermore, I don't understand how you can make the distinction of the West being a "geopolitical entity, not the people themselves", and then later blame the "injustice done to [other people] by your people." It's like the West is a geopolitical entity when it suits you, and a group of people when it doesn't suit you.
Yes, America should have just said 'oh well' and ignored the fact that it happened.
Tone policing isn't an argument worth anyone's time.You can't criticise Muslims in the U.K -- this is a fact. I provided a link to help you understand.
This forum isn't irl or even a noticeable platform. The media only care when you start to make waves. That's why the U.K. police falsely arrested Tommy Robinson several times.
The major news outlets don't let you criticise Islam. Maybe you're talking about fringe ones, or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about.
No one is allowed to criticise Jews, wherever Jews have control of the media. This is a non-unique issue.
The major news outlets don't let you criticise Islam. Maybe you're[Yassine] talking about fringe ones, or maybe you [Yassine] just don't know what you're talking about.
disgusted wrote: Respect. Something wingnuts know nothing about, especially Slump and Stephen. Such sad little people
ResurgetExFavilla responded: How is that respectful? If a convent was shot up, would it be respectful for a politician to dress up in a habit to make a speech? After the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami, should Obama have gotten into his Noh theatre makeup and dressed Michele up in a kimono?Should our leaders don the cheongsam to discuss tragedy in China? A saree when Bangladesh floods?I mean, Jacinda Ardern is a pretty outspoken feminist and an agnostic who left the Mormon church, who lives with a man whom she isn't wed to, has a child by him, and sees this as a superior arrangement, the 'way of the future'. Her stated beliefs run 100% antithetical to what the hijab stands for, which is humility and submission to God, things which she clearly sees as old fashioned and not for her.
What do you mean exactly they don't integrate? & what do you mean by 'push for Sharia'? Muslims comprised at one point or another 1/4th European population for over a millennia, before they were all literally purged out of it by death or expulsion. I don't know if history is gunna repeat itself, but "belong" is a matter of perspective. There aren't that many Muslims in the EU (2-4%), even if they breed like rabbits it'll take decades & decades to even get to 10%, which is an average number in terms of immigrant population in the world. That said, Muslims in Europe are, for the most part, citizens who grew up in Europe, so for all intents & purposes they do belong in Europe, the same way you belong in Australia, because you were born there. Had you been born in Turkey, you'd be a Turkish citizen as well.
Slanderous terms? Alright, but invasion involves force & armies & weapons & occupation...etc. It should be something like if Indonesia decided to expand down-under & came & bombed the sh*t out of beautiful Sydney, & threw the country in complete chaos. This is quite different from non-Whites born & living there. I would understand if new settles start to take over the natives, to dominate or displace them, to the point where they actually feel invaded, like what happened with the Palestinians & the Jews. But this is faaaar from being the case.
On the contrary, my plight is simple: injustice is not a monopoly. White people have problems, so do other peoples, a fact which our terrorist gunmen failed to appreciate, but I'm hoping you will. Had he realized that, he would not have committed what he did. What would you characterize as the biggest problems facing White people? What do you think about Colonialism? How do you envision the future of Muslims in Europe & Australia? Would you befriend or marry a Muslim? What is it you're most proud of from your heritage?
Yes, I don't think White people are demonized as a whole. It's -mostly- White people on other White people, namely the progressive leaning side against the far-right & similar ideology. Of course I don't agree with this, it is indeed an unfair injustice. What isn't worth discussing, as I stated, is the comparison Muslim/White which seems absurd to me, as it is. One thing I can say is that in academia & entertainment especially -a heavily progressive world- the White male heterosexual religious figure has become a somewhat of a trendy nemesis. This really hasn't got anything to do with Whites people demonized, it's simply what the Western culture at large has attained at the moment in its goal to destroy the old paradigm symbolized by this nemesis.
Are you referring to Colonialism? I don't think 'Whites' have ever been racially impartial. The notion is indeed so alien to me, maybe this is a Western thing, the Romans did it too. A race driven civilization, as opposed to tribe or religion or ethnicity or even dynasty. But indeed, Europeans procured the torch of civilization, created a miracle & established empires -which crumbled shortly before them (in historical terms), for they were rooted in racism & oppression. What did last long though is the ideals & spirit they spread, of virtue & justice & knowledge & the common good.
Hahaha! That's nostalgia, I get it. But the thing is, the world has changed so much, & not in the favor of Whites. It was a glorious run, but civilizations & empires rise & fall. Probably the biggest catalyst of European decline is population, & our terrorist nutter knew it. Back then, 4 in 10 people were White. That's half the world population once you omit isolated populations. Now it's 1 in 9, & declining further in coming decades to 1 in 15 or less. Imagine when 1 in 2 people was White, the strong one can easily dominate the weak other. But with 1 in 15 people, where the others are getting stronger & stronger, it's impossible for the one to dominate the others, if any of them. Whites are becoming a rare breed, it's actually sad. I'd honestly rather have more White Europeans in the world than Blacks. Maybe now you know what you do. Didn't you wanna have a big family with lots of children? There is your answer.
My point was, if you have grievances & feel treated unfairly, that should help you understand others more, not dismiss & denigrate them. Injustice feels just as bad for everyone. Don't do unto others what you accuse others of doing unto you.
Israel is an occupying force. Pakistan (& India) comprise numerous different peoples, Pashtu, Sindh, Penjab...etc. The conflict is a political one born out of post-colonialism (like many other conflicts around the world), not an ethnic one. Plenty other places with peace too. But seriously, imagine in Australia having 'Native' communities in their own territories with their own rulers & rules & laws & systems, 'White' communities, 'Indian' communities, 'Chinese' communities, 'Muslim' communities,,, & so forth, accordingly ; all under one flag, one nation, with an overarching government (Australia is a federation already) with representatives from all communities, everybody is happy. What do you think?
Well... it's about to get stricter.
I made no arguments, true. There is nothing to argue against, you've stated inaccuracies. I simply suggested that you look more into this, you'll find plenty. Slavery brutality is a well documented & recorded history. You have to understand the *extreme* prejudice & callousness Whites had at the time against other races, & most of all the Black race, that's what led to things like the Holocaust. It doesn't leave a lot of room for kindness to your own property.
Yes, I've read the article. I see everything you quote comes from this website. Facts!... It's probably talking about the condition of slaves in the North. Some of things mentioned in the article were accurate, such as working conditions between chattel slavery for Blacks & labor slavery for Whites, in that the former got it bad, but the latter got it worse. But claims of kindness & wellbeing as a norm is an exaggeration. Indeed there were kind slavers, Jefferson is one. But the norm as documented in the South was not such -with the exception of Utah. Slaves were prohibited from learning otherwise punished, along with those who attempt to teach them. They were often brutalized & subjugated... Runaway slaves executed or branded & tortured..etc! Maybe there is an alternative narrative to this alternative hypothesis?
Well, you see, we have fundamentally different understanding of what 'slave' is. Western style slavery was never a thing in Islam, to even end it. A slave in Islam is someone in a contractual or non-contractual (Qin, Mudabbar, Um Walad, Mawla) patronage with his master, in which the latter is legally responsible for the maintenance & protection of the former, while the former is responsible for his service to the latter in that which benefits him but does not harm himself ; anything beyond that is no business of the master. A contractual patronage can be in the form of Mukharaja (the slave contracts his master or another employer for a wage against a service) ; or Mukatada (the slave contracts the master over working to buy back his freedom). Non-contractual patronage comes in many forms too...etc. To illustrate the difference, slaves made up two of the 4 ruling factions of the Ottoman empire, the military (Janissaries) & the harem (eunuchs & concubines). Slaves in the Ottoman empire were generals & commanders & officers. Even further, many Muslim dynasties who founded states were slaves, such as the Mamluk dynasty of India or the Mamalik Sultanate in the Middle East. So, we don't really share the same concept of 'slave'.
How are Whites not allowed to form groups, that's a constitutional right?!!!
How do you change that?
Racism: 'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior'. It may have been used loosely & abusively in a lot of circles, but it does have a meaning. Sometimes somethings are definitely racist.
A lot of White people are Muslim... That said, there is indeed such a thing as 'Islamophobia', when Muslims are demonized or harmed... It's not quite criticism of Islam, it's more like hate. What do you mean political immunity? Immunity from whom & for what? Do Muslims enjoy such political immunity? Can Muslims call for violence against White people? Can Muslims publicly incite hate against White people? Whites run 95% of the show, Muslims (or any other minority -except Jews) are at their mercy, if not for Whites themselves. Every mosque in France is constantly monitored, every imam is chosen by the municipality, 90% of sermons they give are about how to be good to the French & a good citizen. If the imam attempts to incite Muslims against the French or says a whiff about Jews, he will definitely see himself inside a cell the next morning.
She is obviously going for Muslim vote - all 45,000 of them, well under 1% of the population.
It's getting sad how predictable humans are...Yep. All part of the shooter's plan, too.
How?! The overwhelming majority in the media & academia are White. Something is missing in communication between us here. Sure, the SJWs -who are mostly White- attack some Whites for things they said or done (& would attack Muslims even more so if they said or done those things). But as I understand it -clear as day- it's not anti-White, it's more progressive White anti conservative White, who usually -& ironically- attack them for not accepting others -regardless of justification. This is like me complaining about the demonization of Muslims in Turkey by other Muslims for not accepting other peoples. imagine Muslims in Turkey inciting against Christians in Turkey, & other Muslims are attacking them for it, would you call that Islamophobia? This doesn't make sense to me. One thing I do see though, it's the stigmatism -in the liberal media & academia- associated with the White heterosexual religious male as a symbol of patriarchy. But this view is invented & maintained by Whites themselves, since postmodernism started in the 70s.
Would you be OK if those groups were almost all Black? Would that be called anti-Black?
I don't disagree, but the KKK succeeded in highjacking the 'White pride' label & tainted it, the same way ISIS succeeded in highjacking 'Islamic state' & 'Sharia' & 'Jihad' labels. If a Muslim attempts to publicly celebrate Sharia (which is non other than Islamic worship & ethics) they'll be associated with ISIS. Who knows, maybe this will change. Hoping it will. Why don't you do something about it? Why don't you promote White pride in its ideals & core traditions?
White nations is not a good descriptor, maybe European nations to depict geography, or French, German, Spanish, British, Italian... nations. & yes, the Western nations is how those nations are referred to, the same way nations of the Middle East, or Far East... are referred to.
In the first case I was referring to the White-Muslim narrative (colonialism & invasions & such), in the second I was referring to the White-Black narrative (slavery & racism & such).
No, it should've bombed whole countries full of innocent people who had nothing to do with it -solely because they were weaker. Really?! From such a mindset, it's very difficult to morally defend your position.
I know it's not a fact, for such criticism -or rather hate- is overwhelmingly abundant. The amount of hate against Islam & Muslims out there is unimaginable. Thankfully, most don't care.
I've read about that, wasn't really about criticizing Islam. & frankly, this never really about criticism, it's about hate, the kind no other group in the Western world remotely receives. If you express a speck of that about Jews or Blacks or gays... the least of it you're gunna lose your job. Tommy Robinson is not a good person, not because he is White you should stand by him. Not because I'm Muslim I would stand with any Muslim, for I should stand with the justice & virtue I believe in regardless of any Muslim.
Wut??? This is patently false. The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express.... In the US, the scene is lushly fertile.
This I don't disagree with. I've witnessed it first hand. In France, the French can't talk about two things, religion & Jews. If you ask then about religion, they say 'it's a private matter', unless it's about Islam, then 'that's a backward religion'. If you ask them about Jews, they panic & start lauding & move on.
That will be the latter. He's [Yassine] good at conflating,exaggeration and lying. He's even pretty good at contextualising today's Christianity and the 'actions' of Christians with today's Islamic jihad. He will, somewhere, bring up the "crusades" as he and the keith prossers of the world always do.But they always leave out the part where the crusades were in direct response to 400 YEARS!!!! of muslim invasion of the Holy Land, europe, and the Indian subcontinent butchering and converting by the sword as they went.. Yassine will no doubt bring into the mix the British Empire and overseas "invasions" by the USA whilst leaving out that there had been three rather large Muslim Empires stretching across the globe and hundreds of years before there was ever a Great Britain,British Empire or a USA. The last Muslim Empire only came to an end in the early 1940'. and there had been no "invasions" anywhere by the USA until the muslim attack of 9/11.Another favourite of the Yassin's and the keithprossers of the world is to blame the "West's foreign policy", while conveniently forgetting the intervention in Kosovo where the west saved the lives of countless Muslims from Serbian ethnic cleansing. I can still see those lines of hundreds of thousands of muslims heading for the west where most have settled. I can still see the aid being air dropped down to these hundreds of thousands of these poor muslim refugees, from countries around the world including ISRAEL, but the yassines and prossers won't go there because to acknowledge such complexity - and the amount of charity given by the west - would be far too problematic.There is no mention of the first Gulf War where, at the distressing pleas for assistance and thanks to US-led intervention, Kuwaiti MUSLIMS were spared the horrors of a protracted Iraqi occupation thanks to the sacrifice British and American lives.In other words according to muslims such Yassine and apologist like keithprosser, it will always be someone else's fault.
They don't integrate in that they have their own groups. Muslims tend to stick with Muslims. Asians tend to stick with Asians. Jews tend to stick with Jews. Even if they integrate culturally (and they have no need to when multiculturalism is in place), then you still have to deal with racial integration.
Push for Sharia is literal. It only takes 10% of population to have unshakable beliefs (i.e. Islam) into order to see massive population changes in belief (https://news.rpi.edu/luwakkey/2902). Not all Euro countries have 10%, but some do (e.g. France at 12.5% in 2017: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France)).
Invasion can be covert. I mean, I don't care if you call it invasion or subversion or whatever. Immigrants merely coming in and living there is enough to see cultural and political changes. Some come in wanting to integrate. Some want the freebies. The result is that the host population dwindles and is eventually overthrown.
No one is attempting to fix White people's problems in a meaningful way. That's why White people bend over backwards to support Yang, when he merely mentioned White's problems in a Twitter comment (and he mentioned many other racial group's problems, too -- this wasn't unique). Muslims have plenty of solidarity, too, when compared with Whites.
The biggest problem for White people is that they've given up racial identity when others haven't. This makes them individuals and philosophers against tightly-knitted groups.
Colonialism is a mixed topic. On one hand, Whites got a lot of land and their own spaces. On the other hand, it's lead to this. Idk. Mixed topic. Sorry if these answers are a bit rushed; I literally don't have much time with full-time work and such.
Muslims in Europe I'm not sure of. Muslims in Australia will soon (maybe within 50 years) be ruled by Asians in Australia.
I would befriend a Muslim. Not sure about marry.
I don't know my heritage. I was adopted at the age of two.