BF2S Forums Race relations thread

There was 20 years between OKC bombing and Trump. Which group was running the score in terms of destruction and terrorism in those two decades?

Sure, I guess the government could have done more to clamp done on white nationalism during those two decades. But I feel that Trump personally made manageable friction into a fire.

the same could be said of just about any moiety in a social grouping.

but whatever. you keep your ahistorical pet theories about muslims. it's really not an interesting conversation to have for the 300th time. ultimately your reading of it is over-determined by some weak-piss trad-cath 'culture wars' trip that you're on.

The pattern is true for other places also.

i'm really not sure about that one. the british empire had the role that the united states' pax americana until recently took over. how many indian/pakistani or african separatist terror attacks were there? how many irish catholic ones were there? yeah, the IRA were by far the most active and most dangerous terror threat to the post-imperial UK for several decades.

Last edited by uziq (2021-01-15 07:45:55)

The west has killed more Muslims than Muslims have killed westerners. The US has killed more Muslims than the other way around and it isn't even close. Would you feel better about it if it was an Islamic government attacking the west? Because I'm not sure how you can sidestep western aggression in this conversation. The west has intervened and shaped middle east politics for 100 years now. The west (especially the US) has been intervening in muslim nations for over 50 years, aggressively. But it's the Muslims who are full of bloodlust.

WhY dO ThEy eXpOrT tErRorIsM!?

uziq wrote:

the same could be said of just about any moiety in a social grouping.

but whatever. you keep your ahistorical pet theories about muslims. it's really not an interesting conversation to have for the 300th time. ultimately your reading of it is over-determined by some weak-piss trad-cath 'culture wars' trip that you're on.

The pattern is true for other places also.

i'm really not sure about that one. the british empire had the role that the united states' pax americana until recently took over. how many indian or african separtist terror attacks were there? how many irish catholic ones were there? yeah, the IRA were by far the most active and most dangerous terror threat to the post-imperial UK for several decades.

In the era of post-colonial global capitalism which our entire lives has been subject to, Islamism has been the driver of terrorist attacks. Once the British left India and Africa, people from those places didn't continue to promote violence against the British and Europeans. Ugandans aren't blowing themselves up on London buses.

And I was speaking for the U.S. anyway. Again I will point out that there are Mexican children in cages in our border region yet there isn't any terrorist attacks or movements against the U.S. by Hispanic organizations. Mexican criminal gangs are an issue but their long term goals is to make money and have their families escape with it to the U.S. Meanwhile almost all transnational criminal organizations with links to the Middle East are also linked with terrorism financing. Again an unique issue.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The west has killed more Muslims than Muslims have killed westerners. The US has killed more Muslims than the other way around and it isn't even close. Would you feel better about it if it was an Islamic government attacking the west? Because I'm not sure how you can sidestep western aggression in this conversation. The west has intervened and shaped middle east politics for 100 years now. The west (especially the US) has been intervening in muslim nations for over 50 years, aggressively. But it's the Muslims who are full of bloodlust.

WhY dO ThEy eXpOrT tErRorIsM!?

The U.S. intervenes almost as much in Latin America as it has the Middle East. I again will acknowledge that transnational criminal organizations from those places are problematic but their goals are always to make money and buy fancy things and not commit mass murder of American civilians. I would credit this to the fact that they lack religious motives or grievances that Muslims carry by virtue of the fundamental tenets of their religion.

the irish mafia was literally involved in funding terrorism directed at protestants.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. … ode=uter20

it's honestly damning how wilfully ignorant you are of modern irish politics. ireland has been one of the most religiously influenced societies in modern western history; the catholic church WAS ireland for most of its history until now. the same church and religious belief system contributed towards some seriously questionable politics: up to and including domestic terrorism and the murder of civilians. but you just don't want to know.

not very good work, mr history post-doc.

Last edited by uziq (2021-01-15 08:09:15)

what is the fucking difference? america has been the 'oppressor' interfering in power politics in the middle-east, just as britain was the oppressor in power politics on the island of ireland.

uziq wrote:

what is the fucking difference? america has been the 'oppressor' interfering in power politics in the middle-east, just as britain was the oppressor in power politics on the island of ireland.

So why were Sri Lankans killed because America does bad things? Looks like it had to do with religion and not anti-imperialism in the Indian Ocean region.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The west has killed more Muslims than Muslims have killed westerners. The US has killed more Muslims than the other way around and it isn't even close. Would you feel better about it if it was an Islamic government attacking the west? Because I'm not sure how you can sidestep western aggression in this conversation. The west has intervened and shaped middle east politics for 100 years now. The west (especially the US) has been intervening in muslim nations for over 50 years, aggressively. But it's the Muslims who are full of bloodlust.

WhY dO ThEy eXpOrT tErRorIsM!?

The U.S. intervenes almost as much in Latin America as it has the Middle East. I again will acknowledge that transnational criminal organizations from those places are problematic but their goals are always to make money and buy fancy things and not commit mass murder of American civilians. I would credit this to the fact that they lack religious motives or grievances that Muslims carry by virtue of the fundamental tenets of their religion.

You think the main motivating factor of islamic terrorists committing terrorism in the west is fundamentally religious in origin? Are you fucking stupid?

Afghanistan was hardly a case of oppressor interference. Kuwait was hardly unjustified. I believe you'd also do well to place previous ventures in the context of the cold war. The longer ago it is, the less we seem able to empathise with and understand the sentiments of the time, or the interests at stake.

This is not to absolve parties from blame, rather an appeal to see things within their complete context instead of regurgitating chomskyisms.

Last edited by Larssen (2021-01-15 08:29:42)

I have to go now but I will just leave you with the premise that I believe and you can think it over.

I think that liberal defensiveness towards Islam puts on display the same cultural and racial ignorance that white supremacists operate on.

I would say it is totally wrong to judge and discriminate against people based on the color or their skin, texture of their hair, shape of their skulls, shape of their eyes etc. People can have a wide range of beliefs despite their physical features. And beliefs are important. You can systematically find the differences between beliefs system. And the most fundamental, complex, and all encompassing belief system is religion.

Some belief systems are more aggressive and dominating than other belief systems. Islam is particularly aggressive and conquest and elimination of other belief systems are part of the fundamental beliefs of Islam as well as part of the earliest Islamic history. This is a large reason why violence follows mass migrations of Muslims on top of material conditions that I acknowledge as having a large role too.

Going back to my point about liberals: I can separate someone's physical features from their belief system. That is why I am sympathetic to the complaints of BLM but not a supporter of Islamic accommodation. I think tying opposition to racial discrimination with opposition to religious discrimination helps combat neither. Plenty of people can recognize the difference between culture and race. I think vastly more people are racially tolerant than would ever be religiously tolerant. Telling that group that they need to accept racial minorities and also Islamic accommodation will make you lose them on both. Further, Islamism has hurt other American racial minorities in this way. And liberals aren't helping the situation by pretending that it is possible for diametrically opposed belief systems to exist within the same space without discord.

Larssen wrote:

Afghanistan was hardly a case of oppressor interference. Kuwait was hardly unjustified. I believe you'd also do well to place previous ventures in the context of the cold war. The longer ago it is, the less we seem able to empathise with and understand the sentiments of the time, or the interests at stake.

This is not to absolve parties from blame, rather an appeal to see things within their complete context instead of regurgitating chomskyisms.

Invading Afghanistan was a terrible policy decision, but Afghanis aren't exactly flying over to the US and bombing buildings, are they? I think there was a mastermind behind those attacks, and his motivation was well-known, but hey, that's all just conveniently forgotten in this discussion, right?

The US supported the Baathist regime in Iraq up until the invasion of Kuwait. The US even told Saddam to go ahead and attack Kuwait, and that we wouldn't intervene, because of #policy goals!

The military interventions into Central and South America were ok because of domino theory? Why do we have the term Banana Republic if it's really all about stopping communism? Viewing US intervention in the western hemisphere through the lens of the Cold War erases almost 100 years of colonialism in Latin America that predates the Cold War. Funny how we called them Banana Republics instead of successful capitalist societies then, yeah?

Yes, let's put these into context. That's precisely what I'm doing, after all.

As long as people like you want to put forward these theories that everything needs to be looked at in the context of stated policy goals without factoring in background motives and actual results, I will continue to "regurgitate chomskyisms". FYI Chomsky doesn't hold a monopoly on criticizing western foreign policy goals, but he's probably the only one familiar to you because you stopped reading critiques of western policy when you finished your education.

uziq wrote:

any islamic scholar at a western university would just label that above as orientalist balderdash. you are literally trying to explain the dynamics of complex, multicultural societies today by referring to mohammedan conquest. right. because a muslim family living in toronto or new york today are really in the same mould as those early groups who were trying to assert a new religion in the middle-east.

when's the last time you walked on your knees to the church at santiago de compostela? been on any crusades lately? it must be *checks notes* an active facet of your christian identity today. i mean it's intrinsic to your religion's belief system, no?

That's all you took away from my post? Sidestep criticism of your sides approach to the whole subject in order to checks notes debate Islamic theology.