Christchurch Terror Attack, Motives & Global Prospects

Author: Yassine

Posts

Total: 155
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,330
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@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.
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@disgusted
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.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,330
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted

Whoops. Foot in mouth.  

disgusted wrote: Respect. Something wingnuts know nothing about, especially Slump and Stephen. Such sad little people
The backhand was beautiful:
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.

The clown disgusted obviously didn't understand the post. Didn't notice the hypocrisy of Ardern, couldn't recognise the double standards displayed by Ardern, or realise that, as  ResurgetExFavilla  states, that Jacinda Ardern is a self serving opportunist politician whose career is in the slide.

Hats off to the clown  disgusted. Put his big hooter into something he understands nothing about. 


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,330
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla


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.

I really love this post. BRILLIANT!
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
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?
Exactly.

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
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.
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.

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.
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.

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...
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.

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?
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.

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.
Yes, America should have just said 'oh well' and ignored the fact that it happened.

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.
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.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
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.
- How do you change that?


Firstly, racism is a bogus term and you need to stop using it (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174).
- 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.


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.
- 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.


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.
- 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.


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.
- Would you be OK if those groups were almost all Black? Would that be called anti-Black?


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.
- 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?


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. 
- 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.


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.
- 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).


Yes, America should have just said 'oh well' and ignored the fact that it happened.
- 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.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre

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.
- 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.


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.
- 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. 


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.
- Wut??? This is patently false. The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express.... In the US, the scene is lushly fertile. 


No one is allowed to criticise Jews, wherever Jews have control of the media. This is a non-unique issue. 
- 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.


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 566
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Yassine
What happened is terrible, we get it. It's not like this maniac even had any reason to hit the ones that he hit. He literally picked on random, tame civilians not some massively sadistic or dangerous types. So from all angles this was a terrible event.

This is not at all approved or cheered on by Islamphobes. This is literally killing the most civil type of Muslim there is; the kind who only ceremoniously live out their religion, holding peace and communal serenity above the spread of Islam. So why the fuck did he target them? I'll tell you why, because he is a sociopath and they were easy prey to justify his sadism on.

We all know that he is a maniac who did a terrible thing, what is the point of this thread? Tell me, has anyone actually defended him? I don't keep up with this thread to know but it seems all this is, is turning an event where all agree it's terrible and horrific into some kind of 'us vs them' thing. We are all against him, especially the left-wing progressives.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
RESPECT.Something wingnuts know nothing about.
Thanks for your help.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,100
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Lol beep boop NPC sheep.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,330
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
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.

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.



 



disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@scaredycat steve.
RESPECT.
Something wingnuts know nothing about, especially Slump and Stephen. Such sad little people
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,330
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Whoops. Foot in mouth.  

disgusted wrote: Respect. Something wingnuts know nothing about, especially Slump and Stephen. Such sad little people
The backhand was beautiful:
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. 

The clown disgusted obviously didn't understand the post. Didn't notice the hypocrisy of Ardern, couldn't recognise the double standards displayed by Ardern, or realise that, as  ResurgetExFavilla  states, that Jacinda Ardern is a self serving opportunist politician whose career is in the slide, even though it was pointed out to him . 

Hats off to the clown  disgusted. Put his big hooter into something he understands nothing about ... as usual.  

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
She is obviously going for Muslim vote - all 45,000 of them, well under 1% of the population.


Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
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.
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)).

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.
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.

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?
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.











Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
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.
I've cited my short-list of racial hatred/disenfranchisement of White people. White on White aggression is certainly a problem, but again, I've cited instances wherein it's not. The White, male heterosexual problem is another problem that White people face, not the only one. Maybe this differs for the countries in which you live, but in countries like the U.S, Australia and the U.K, my claims are valid.

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. 
Yes, Colonialism and the other things that Whites did to conquer. Some Whites have become racially impartial, due to charges of racism, wanting to be individualistic, virtue-signalling etc.

Racism is a bogus term. Oppression is debatable, although there will be instances of it (but Whites have been the kindest out of any rulers, thus far).

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.
Yeah I guess it's that. I'm going to have at least six children, too :)


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. 
Injustice isn't stating the problems of my racial group. They can be addressed and fixed without having to mention other racial groups.

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?
Can you prove that neither of those conflicts are ethnic, at least not partially?

What you describe for Australia is a pipe-dream. What actually happens is that people naturally balkanise. They're not bad people per se. They're just tribalistic. For example, an area near me called Lakemba has a high Muslim majority (over 60%, much more than Australia's low like 2% off the top of my head: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakemba,_New_South_Wales). The place is full of Arabic, Halal and has a big Mosque. Clearly, this place doesn't serve most White people. This is not an integrated community. This is natural segregation. I could do it with like Cabramatta and Chatswood (Asian areas).




Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Outplayz
Well... it's about to get stricter.
Yep. All part of the shooter's plan, too.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
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.
If it's well documented and recorded, cough up the evidence, champ.

The Holocaust is a nuanced topic that I frankly don't have the time to discuss here. What I can say is that the public narrative isn't all that accurate, and Hilter engaged in whatever he engaged in because he thought the Jews were too smart for Germans.

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?
Probably talking about? Lol dude just read the damn article and present your counter-evidence. Again, prove to me that slavery in the U.S was as bad as you say it was. Prove to me that slave owners, who probably paid a lot for African slaves, would treat them brutally and kill them off. Prove to me that the increased nutrition is compatible with brutal beatings and maltreatment.

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'.
Okay, so there is a difference. Do you think Islamic forms of slavery should be allowed to exist?

How are Whites not allowed to form groups, that's a constitutional right?!!! 
It doesn't happen in practice, as my short-list showed.

How do you change that?
Not sure it can be changed. Jews have such a stranglehold on it. The Progressive narrative has sunk its teeth in deep. Might need a major revolution. Idk.

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.
It's application is slanderously conflationary, as explained in my linked post. Stop using sloppy language.

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.
We both know most Muslims are not White.

Islam has caused, perhaps at times indirectly, a whole heap of terrorism. IS, Wahabism, 9/11 attacks etc. Not irrational to fear those things.

Muslims enjoy immunity from criticism in the U.K. The same is the case in Australia, but perhaps to a lesser extent. You can't openly criticise Muslims in these countries without pushback from the legacy media. Whites don't run the show there, the Jews do.

As for France, again peaceful Muslims can still overthrow the country by simply voting peacefully. So, even when they're peaceful, they are still a problem for the native population.


I'll respond to the rest soon...







ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@keithprosser
She is obviously going for Muslim vote - all 45,000 of them, well under 1% of the population.
What else could she be doing? It's not like the fetishization of 'exotic culture' appeals to affluent liberal white women or anything. They never flock like moths to any white performing artist who puts on a Sari and wags her hips. It's unheard of; that's why Eat, Pray, Love completely flopped with this demographic.


keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I doubt it was the result of a committee of suits kept on hand by the NZ prime minister just in case.   i think it was an almost unconscious signifier that she felt empathy with the victims and to simultaneously distance herself from the shooter.   I'm not saying it was right or wrong, but i think it was a human being making the decision, not a politician.  
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
Careful numpties you have a shadow following you.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,100
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@keithprosser
It's still ridiculous. I wouldn't put on blackface to sympathize with the descendants of former slaves. That kind of kabuki belongs in a theatre, not on prime time TV.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
i'd accept it was misguided or misinformed but i don't think it was cynical.
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Yep. All part of the shooter's plan, too.
It's getting sad how predictable humans are...

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
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.
Jews aren't White. A lot of mystery-meat people are getting into academia, due to quotas and SAT score boosting. Plus, have you read the link I sent you? It's not just White on White aggression.

Would you be OK if those groups were almost all Black? Would that be called anti-Black?
Well, gifted and talented classes won't be xD

But seriously, I wouldn't have a problem if this was in an African country. I don't even think it's a problem in my home country, especially if we had sane immigration policies (e.g. I.Q. testing, political affiliation etc.). If it's a Black majority room, they all have 130+ I.Q. and they're working on some fancy science things, I would encourage this.

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?
I think the Progressive, Jewish media had a hand in this, too. But sure, the KKK might not have been the most wholesome organisation -- I don't actually know (I find myself having to slowly undo the brainwashing I received at school).

Whites who speak out against this get shut down, shamed, black-balled, doxxed etc.

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.
Idk all those countries you listed are pretty White, with maybe the exception of Spain (due to, and I'm guessing a bit here due to time constraints, admixture).

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).
So I assume that you don't support one of those narratives? Forgive me if you already told me, but which don't you agree with?

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.
Look, I'm not going to defend the actions of pre 9/11 America. I'll I'm saying is that the Muslim world shouldn't have been surprised when there was a reaction to 9/11. I actually lean towards the side of America being in the wrong, throughout all of this (only lean because I haven't studied it thoroughly).

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 could construct an argument, but it would take me awhile. This isn't easy to prove. I guess look at what happened to Tommy Robinson. Look at how Muslim gangs are treated. Things along those lines. If you want to address hugely complex ideas such as this, I think we need to limit the scope of our discussions. It would take me 10s of hours to respond to one round of responses, if I were to do it thoroughly.








Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
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. 
That's the thing. I think some of the criticisms are legitimate, yet it gets dismissed as "hate".  White people get a lot of hate in my country. You just seem to have it backwards. I don't know where to start.

Wut??? This is patently false. The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express.... In the US, the scene is lushly fertile. 
We'd need deeper analysis than statements.

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.
You should record them and tally the types of responses you get. That would be decent evidence.




Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,330
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
i'd accept it was misguided or misinformed but i don't think it was cynical.

No? Ardern is also an appeasing ignorant woman. There are women in Iran who are in prison and being tortured for uncovering their heads and casting off this "oppressive" garment. But you won't recognise that will you. These poor imprisoned and tortured muslim women don't exist as far as you are concerned.
 Do you think Prime Minister Adern had these poor muslim women in mind when she thought it would be a good for her image to don this extremely oppressive muslim garment, keith? 
  No, and neither did you.

Iranian woman ‘jailed for 20 years’ for removing headscarf

"Speaking to Amnesty International, Shajarizadeh’s lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, claims she was subjected to torture and beatings after her arrest". 

POLICE in Tehran arrested 29 women in February for protesting against a law that makes the wearing of hijab compulsory.



Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Stephen
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.
I've found that Yassine's responses are far more meaty than Keith's. When Yassine decides to actually cite things, he makes at least decent arguments, and sometimes I have to research before I can respond. I think I'm also having trouble with his arguments because our contextual backgrounds are so varied. He still believes in "racism" and evil White slave owner narratives. I think I need to focus the conversation on one or two topics at a time, otherwise I gish-gallop myself.

Keith's arguments, for the most part, have always been terrible. He'll make a throwaway one-liner or argue a line that has been flogged to death. I respond to his pathetic arguments off the cuff without fail. Then he ignores the response and continues to repeat his terrible arguments elsewhere. He's a waste of time.

I might bring those topics up with Yassine, when I get the time. It would be interesting to see if what you're saying is true.

Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
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.
- & Whites tend to stick with Whites, & Blacks with Blacks -these don't integrate with others either. So what's particular to Muslims? I keep hearing "they don't integrate", I still don't know what that means.


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)).
- The article makes a lot of pointless assumptions. Not everything has to be a "study", especially since most are inaccurate. Arguing from case studies is just that, a case argument, which doesn't mean much of anything outside its very limited parameters. The study relies on the applied maths method of simulation & optimization, I can literally do the same thing & make it 1% or 90% by changing few parameters. Sometimes it takes 1 man with unshakable beliefs to change a whole population, sometimes a whole population with unshakable beliefs may not be able to change 1 man. Putting such an extremely complex thing as a society in its full depth in a graph is ridiculous. Regardless, what do you mean push for Sharia 'literally'?


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.
- Generally immigration is about seeking hopeful conditions or fleeing hopeless ones. Let's talk about that, at what point would you consider the host population at risk of being overthrown? 2-4% seems far from such risk.


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.
- How do you see White people problems getting fixed? Hopefully this doesn't mean remove everyone else...


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.
- Maybe against Blacks in the US, but most peoples do not identify with race. Race is probably an exclusively European thing born in the 19th century. Others identify mostly with religion or sect or ethnicity or nation or tribe... such as Muslim, Arab, Turk, Persian, Sunni, Shia, Han, Panjabi, Malay, Japanese...etc. The 'White' racial unity is quite a recent concept too. Priorly, it was more nuanced & more divided (some excluding others). For instance, Mediterranean peoples were not considered White (which technically they aren't), nor were Slavs (eastern europeans). Even the lily white bloody Irish were not deemed whites...


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.
- At your leisure, take your time. This is but a forum.


Muslims in Europe I'm not sure of. Muslims in Australia will soon (maybe within 50 years) be ruled by Asians in Australia.
- Alright. Australia has already joined China's Belt & Road, with its proximity to the great powers of the future (China, India, Indonesia) it will inevitably be absorbed away from the West. What do you think about that? What's the public opinion of China there? 


I would befriend a Muslim. Not sure about marry.
- Friendship is a strong connection of equal-merit. Shouldn't friendship entail coexistence? I understand marriage is a bigger leap, but why not marry?


I don't know my heritage. I was adopted at the age of two.
- I meant your 'White' heritage. But wow! That's interesting. How did that turn out? Do you know who your parents are? (you don't have to answer if you don't wish to)