Some mothertrucker in France just killed a bunch of folks!

BBC whitewashing has gotten so obvious that parody headlines are being created:

Don't worry, there are millions of Europeans who are very sceptical when it comes to Islam and consider this ideology a serious threat. But things are complicated. There is freedom of religion, and there is the threat of islamism. European society is very liberal when it comes to personal freedom, but these values now clash with a religious ideology which is not liberal at all or even totalitarian. We simply don't know how to deal with all these condradictions yet. Some think that some kind of "Euroislam" is possible. Personally, I don't. Time will tell.

The contradictions are inherent because liberals adopted multi-culturalism, cultural relativism, and social justice from the chief philosopher of the Nazi party, who wanted to make sure the Nazi program couldn't be judged unless people had walked in German shoes. So they claim all cultures are equally valid and good and anyone who denies it is a racist and a bigot. But it's patently false or societies couldn't "advance", because the changed society would still be equal to its more primitive form - because all societies are equal and good. So the belief would require that American society under Obama rank no better than American society in 1840 when slaves were bought at auction, and modern French society rank no better than Somali society.

The irony is that if the liberal belief in cultural relativism is true, then liberalism is also completely pointless because social progress isn't possible - as they can never be better than they were because they'd still be equal to what they were. But they bought into it anyway, and that utter nonsense opened their minds to accept lots more nonsense that became enshrined as liberal dogma.

^Some truth mixed with a lot of stupidity. A classic gturner post.

You should go back to making fun of creationists. I really enjoyed your rants!

I'm gonna have to look that one up, but I know for sure he said that bit about college.

Of course, he's ignorant of the cultural facts as to why college attendance is presumably "lower," but no surprise there.

Where did you get that?

Your entire posting history.

Well, I trust you're gonna take up arms and fight the muzzies then. Or are you a coward who talks the talk can't can't walk the walk?

Why do you lie? I like Mexicans because they work hard and don't blow stuff up. Their country is very poorly governed and I do dislike illegals because they are breaking the law but am fine with legal immigration.

When you have to start lying, Gul, then you have lost the argument.

Well, the part that's not widely talked about is that the leaders of the '68 student movement in Europe didn't let their followers know that Martin Heidegger was an ardent, unrepentant Nazi.

Muslims in Germany threaten German skinny-dippers with extermination.

Islam - the religion of peace for everyone who submits - and death for everyone else.

Nazi or not, Heidegger was a clever guy. Nobody's perfect.

@Goldstein the Space Jew :

Hitler and Goebbels were clever too, but we don't use them as the basis for a philosophical belief system. Heidegger just slipped right past because he was telling liberals what they wanted to hear, that Western society is rotten. They just weren't told that he thought Nazi society was righteous.

Death is peace. Eternal peace.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...?WTmcid=tmgoff_soc_spf_fb&WT.mc_id=sf31796773

I doubt that modern liberals even know Heidegger....

So you admit to the rest of it, then?

Yeah, the old "This has nothing to do with Islam!!!"-stuff... Yawn.

Quite the contrary. As I keep having to explain to you absolute dummies, Islam is nothing more than a man made idea (As is all religion). It is not a monolithic entity. It's how you interpret it and what you use it to justify that is the issue....and since it is a man made idea, what you use it for is a human choice. To assume all Muslims are representative of these people is to be intellectually weak.

What this article is pointing out is that it is a human choice to commit these acts. These are human beings taking an idea and putting their own spin on it to justify crime.

To claim "Islam is the problem" is for the mentally weak, as in order to claim that you have to recognise and give validity to religion and accept that it is a divine instruction. You also have to argue that there is only one single interpretation of Islam.

So what you guys claim "it's all to do with Islam", I don't think you actually know what you even mean by "Islam". The man made idea? The divine instruction? The interpretation that you choose to apply? What? You lot can't have this conversation, because the truth is, none of you know. You're just suckers for fear.

Quite the contrary. As I keep having to explain to you absolute dummies, Nazism is nothing more than a man made idea (As is all politics). It is not a monolithic entity. It's how you interpret it and what you use it to justify that is the issue....and since it is a man made idea, what you use it for is a human choice. To assume all Nazis are representative of these people is to be intellectually weak.

Yes, the argument works in all cases. Despicable behavior is a matter of choice, not label.

So how did 60 million people get killed in WW-II by other people who woke up one morning and made the wrong choices, and how many millions in Europe will die in the future when lots of Muslims make the wrong choice?

This strawman, of course, presumes that Gul is saying all Nazis and/Germans acted out of choice. Often that was not the case, not least because they lived within a dictatorship.

In comparison, an Islamist terrorist commiting an act of savgery outside of an environment such as the territory of ISIS, clearly is acting on choice.

Lemme ask you a question: would we as Americans been right to ban German citizens during WWII? I'm not talking about the Jewish refugees that we sentenced to death by turning boats full of such people around at the NYC harbor; we would never let them in thanks to the anti semantic views.

I'm talking about the Christian Germans who could easily blend into America in a generation or two. There were plenty such people that were rightfully afraid of the Nazi views even if they weren't directly targeted. One survivor of the Holocaust that would speak at my middle school wasn't Jewish, but a blonde haired Catholic whose father refused to perform sadistic experiments on those in the camps. Should we have kept those people out because they might be Nazi spies?

I have a feeling known German families faced far less harassment from the FBI than the Japanese-Americans. I can't figure out why, though

We have been here before! I see your point. However, it is problematic when a non-believer tries to make sense of Islam. I listen to the true believers, to the people who call themselves muslim. They disagree with you. Their approach is far more simplicistic. When a terrorist claims that he blows himself up for the glory of Allah, I tend to believe him. It doesn't matter how he interprets his faith. His actions are important, not the understanding of his faith.

We arrested and detained about 11,000 Germans, including some who were US citizens.



You see, many of them believed in Nazism, so they were detained as a threat to the United States. This of course did not include millions of German Americans who didn't believe in Nazism.

Similarly, not all Middle Easterners need be regarded as a potential threat, just those that profess a belief in Islam, or at the very least in Islamic supremacy - which comes straight from the Koran and hadith.

I'm not trying to make sense of Islam. All religion is nuts and makes little sense and all religions have been used to commit crimes. I have, and will continue to voice my disdain for all religions (not least because they are used as an excuse for criminality).

When a terrorist blows himself up in the name of Allah, he does so based on his version of Islam. He doesn't blow himself up in the name of all Muslims or on the basis of a believe that every Muslim condones or agrees with.

The fact remains that the vast majority of Muslims, particularly those in the West, do not commit criminal acts. Once you start peddling the binary language that it's us vs Islam, you are creating a barrier between us and anyone who identifies as a Muslim, not a barrier between us and extremists who wish us harm based on their interpretation of Islam. Surely you must see the difference. The cost of pushing away those that are harmless and law abiding is to feed into the extremist narrative that Muslims as a whole are in a conflict with the West. Furthermore it pushes people towards radicalisation by sending out the message that "you are evil and not welcome here".

Surely you must understand this?

Be at war with religious radicals, Muslim or otherwise. Do not be at war with people who mean you no harm. This is, and always will be, the extent of my so called "defence of Islam" (in reality my defence of peaceful people, irrespective of their religion).

Erecting a barrier between us and Muslims would make everyone a hell of a lot safer. Israel did and the number of Israelis being killed in suicide attacks plummeted.

Hey, I can think of Islam as a fascist ideology without being at war with peaceful muslims. I may disagree with them, I may think they are stupid, but I would never try to change their way of life. As long as they leave me alone, more power to them. It is absolutely ok when they think I will go to hell. Live and let live. However, they have to accept that I think that they are stupid, and I will never obey their rules or show respect for their superstition. They are allowed to insult me, too, no problem. When they can live with this, welcome to my world. Sadly, many religious people want to change society. Look at Turkey at the moment, look at the muslim world. No freedom for unbelievers.

None of what you say is untrue, but if you want to protect those that mean you no harm, then you would agree with everything I say and not succumb to emotional prejudice whenever there is an attack.

Ask yourself this, when there is another attack, do you really think I don't worry about what is going on? That I don't abhor what religion is driving people to do? That I don't think there is a serious problem with Islamic extremism? That Germany's open door policy to such a large number of total strangers doesn't carry significant risk?

I just won't use any of it as an excuse to be a bigot or racist, because I won't alienate and throw innocent people under the bus based on ignorance and a tenuous "guilty by association" approach.