youre right, and neither are the majority of people you suggest deporting. dont make sense does it?Turquoise wrote:
I'm not making death threats over a fucking cartoon.
Let's say you guys effectively ban mockery of Islam. Muslims slowly grow in number in your society and become the majority of the population due to immigration and low "native" births. If the majority of them are people coming from nations that have Sharia Law, don't you think a lot of them are going to want to bring that with them to the Netherlands? Some might still prefer the freedoms your country has, but a lot of them will like the old ways. Most of these will be the conservative Muslims who often treat women like shit. If they are great enough in number and are able to cow the public (like they apparently already can), then what's to stop them from demands of a Sharia system?dayarath wrote:
I can tell you with absolute confidence already that our country will never be pushed to Sharia Law, actually nowhere in the western world would it become a major part of society. It will not get that far anyway, Netherlands stays to be Netherlands, always been Netherlands.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that a lot of Muslims in power say equivalent things in favor of their own religion over others. A lot of prominent clerics do it, even in Western countries. If they can do it, don't you think Wilders should be able to?dayarath wrote:
Well free speech is all good as long as it doesn't majorly damage anything. As I've said before he's way too influential to say and act the way he does. Not something a politician should do at all - he's like a massive counterweight to a cart you're trying to pull.
I wouldn't doubt it. I'm making these suggestions more as an intellectual exercise than as actual policies because I know you guys probably wouldn't do it. It just saddens me that you're willing to submit to the hypocrisies some of your Muslims are forwarding. They are essentially exploiting your sense of tolerance.dayarath wrote:
Well the amount of conflict we would spark if everyone would be incredibly stubborn would be amazing and not needed. As I said, just make sure you have your own country backing you fully before you do anything stupid, if you don't get ready to face alot of conflict on the home front aswell. Neither affordable nor recommendable.
As soon as your own people stop backing you, you've lost. and the muslim population is quite big here 1/16th actually, add to that probably alot of dutch sympathizers and you might get a huge mass against your own policy.
The KKK didn't speak for all white people, but whites certainly let them do as they please for the most part until the Civil Rights Movement.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
they they they. so one fanatic speaks for the entire population? jesus christ! they they they. reread what you wrote yourself and try to think what it sounds like to other people reading it.
so the KKK member speaks for all white people?
the gang banging cholo for all hispanics?
the drug dealing black dude speaks for all blacks?
"they they they they. 'they' are 'they' as long as 'they' arent me"
Drug dealers don't speak for all blacks, but not cooperating with police and telling them what you know certainly doesn't help your community or your community's image.
It's all relative. If the majority of a society continuously experiences problems from one specific ethnic group a lot more than others, then it should be understandable why they are viewed or dealt with differently. Police profile for a reason. The Patriot Act is used mostly on Muslim groups for a reason.
Our differences due to race and religion cause these differences in treatment, but that's just human nature. When extremists from one group threaten the freedoms of a nation, the majority has little option but to at least pressure that group to help the majority apprehend the extremists. The Netherlands seems to be in a particularly dire situation because of its demographics.
tired so not going to quote gathering everything-Turquoise wrote:
Let's say you guys effectively ban mockery of Islam. Muslims slowly grow in number in your society and become the majority of the population due to immigration and low "native" births. If the majority of them are people coming from nations that have Sharia Law, don't you think a lot of them are going to want to bring that with them to the Netherlands? Some might still prefer the freedoms your country has, but a lot of them will like the old ways. Most of these will be the conservative Muslims who often treat women like shit. If they are great enough in number and are able to cow the public (like they apparently already can), then what's to stop them from demands of a Sharia system?dayarath wrote:
I can tell you with absolute confidence already that our country will never be pushed to Sharia Law, actually nowhere in the western world would it become a major part of society. It will not get that far anyway, Netherlands stays to be Netherlands, always been Netherlands.I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that a lot of Muslims in power say equivalent things in favor of their own religion over others. A lot of prominent clerics do it, even in Western countries. If they can do it, don't you think Wilders should be able to?dayarath wrote:
Well free speech is all good as long as it doesn't majorly damage anything. As I've said before he's way too influential to say and act the way he does. Not something a politician should do at all - he's like a massive counterweight to a cart you're trying to pull.I wouldn't doubt it. I'm making these suggestions more as an intellectual exercise than as actual policies because I know you guys probably wouldn't do it. It just saddens me that you're willing to submit to the hypocrisies some of your Muslims are forwarding. They are essentially exploiting your sense of tolerance.dayarath wrote:
Well the amount of conflict we would spark if everyone would be incredibly stubborn would be amazing and not needed. As I said, just make sure you have your own country backing you fully before you do anything stupid, if you don't get ready to face alot of conflict on the home front aswell. Neither affordable nor recommendable.
As soon as your own people stop backing you, you've lost. and the muslim population is quite big here 1/16th actually, add to that probably alot of dutch sympathizers and you might get a huge mass against your own policy.
on nr.1
Not going to happen. All the muslims I know treat women with dignity and a certain amount of respect, especially the second generation that grew up here, hell they're like normal kids. The immigration amount of muslims is not that huge, just birth rate here among muslims is higher than the dutch people, but I don't think they'll ever become the vast majority of the population.
And even if, that would be a thousand years from now. Nobody likes Sharia Law, most muslims that get here do it because they fear their old countries' policies and the strict islamic law, the netherlands is like a safe haven to them.
nr.2
They're different, can't help it. Letting two stubborn people bump up in eachother only results in them hating eachother, what I do is adjusting myself to that other person in order to become his friend. Then after a while advising him on how he should behave - and there's your profit. In the last 4 years everyone I met became my friend eventually. I'm sure something like this works with foreign policy aswell.
nr.3
'our muslims' are two seperate groups. Radicals (0.1% in the netherlands, yes that few.) and normal (the rest). Normal muslim doesn't care what you say about radical as long as you're really talking about mr. radical.
Normal muslim does get angry however, when you insult his beliefs and put him in the same corner as the radical muslim (aka wilders style). What do you get? Very angry radical, and angry muslim. At this point mr angry radical can influence normal muslim into hostile behavior, meaning conflict.
Why would you be overly stubborn in this? Obviously if you're going to insult a whole group you'll get to deal with the entire group, best part being they make up quite a bit of your society.
You do that = you lose.
inane little opines
I'll concede on that one.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
youre right, and neither are the majority of people you suggest deporting. dont make sense does it?Turquoise wrote:
I'm not making death threats over a fucking cartoon.
shit man, thats the only issue I have with what you said. let it be known, I think banning this film is wrong.
So the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem isn't significant? This isn't significant either concerning Iran? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_naming_disputeGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this is stuff I know about and I could say without a doubt in my mind that statement is wholly incorrect. The majority of middle east belonged to france and britain before, during and after the war. the fanatics sided with hitler, and even then, the connection was based loosely.Turquoise wrote:
You know what the irony of that is? The majority of the Middle East sided with Hitler. Yet, I'm the Nazi, eh? I'm the nut even though I'm not making death threats over a fucking cartoon.Poseidon wrote:
QFT.
That's now the third person besides me relating the Anti-Islam nuts to Hitler and the Third Reich.
Coincidence? I think not.
This is just the tip of the iceberg if you'd like me to show more of how the actual people of these countries felt toward the Nazies rather than the European countries who were ruling them.
I wouldn't care about this movie if it didn't draw the attention it does though, it's too much in the media to be left alone that's the problem. I hate to say it aswell, I like everyone's free speech, but this guy is just abusing it in the first place, and making the situation alot harder for everyone else.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
shit man, thats the only issue I have with what you said. let it be known, I think banning this film is wrong.
I mean this film got attention from the entire netherlands, the danish, iranians, muslim organisations - it even was on all the popular media. It's too large to ignore, and it's such a stupid film at that.
I don't want anything like that deteriorate our situation, how much I like free speech - we can't let it get out of hand just because of something trivial as Wilders and his film. He's annoying and gets the attention he wants now.
Maybe it's not the popular thing to do, forbidding the film- but it certainly would calm things down.
inane little opines
I guess you didnt read my link
اﻟﺒﻌﺚ
Hypothesis: The Baath Arab Socialist Party of Syria (BASP) attributes its foundations to the foreign influences of the German National Socialist party.
Variables: The dependent variable is the formation of the Baath party in Damascus, Syria in 1947. The independent variable is the policy of foreign aid (economic and military) from Nazi Germany to the founding members of the BASP.
Expectations: In the presented claim, I would like to find irrefutable evidence showing that Nazi Germany was indirectly responsible for the formation of the Baath party which still exists today. I hope to discover some form of direct ties between National Socialism and the modern Pan-Arab movement, which the BASP claims to be the driving force behind.
Evidence that supports above claim:
Europe during the mid-1930’s was politically unstable at best. New thoughts and ideologies were tested and formulated in governments all around the region leading to the chaos that is known as World War Two. Fascism, Marxism and National Socialism, words and political systems that were non-existent one hundred years ago before this time, were now responsible for a massive wave of new thought and ideology. This environment led to the beginning of the modern Pan-Arab movement and the end to European colonialism in the Middle East.
The origins of the Baath Party could be found on the streets of Paris, France during these turbulent times. Michel Aflaq, a Greek Orthodox Christian and Salah al-Din al-Bitar, a Sunni Muslim, are the two men attributed to the founding of the Baath Party. Aflaq and al-Bitar were both members of wealthy merchant families in Damascus and were attending the Sorbonne University of Paris. Here is where these two first organized their Baathist ideology of Arab nationalism and socialism and created Syrian study groups to discuss these radical ideas. Not only was Arab unity the only topics for discussion but, both men found the Arab situation very similar to the Germans. In fact, Michel Aflaq was responsible for circulating Arabic translated copies of Mein Kampf to his study group. He believed that Arabs should use the National Socialist model as a guide to building a unified Arab state.
Aflaq and Al-Bitar continued their partnership returning to Syria after their education in France was over. At the time, Syria was a French colonial possession ceded by the Ottoman Empire after World War One. Bitar and Aflaq were both school teachers using that medium to promote their philosophy. By 1941 France was overrun and conquered by Nazi Germany and all of its territorial possessions now belonged to the Vichy French regime, whose actual sovereignty as a nation is questionable since Germany was really behind all its decisions. It was at this time that the Al-Baath movement came into full force (the actual date is in question, some sources say 1940 while others say 1943). Baathist saw themselves as allies of Nazi Germany in their quest to rid the Middle East of its European colonial status. When Iraqis staged a military uprising against the British garrison in Baghdad, the founders of the Baathist movement organized and sponsored demonstrations in Damascus in support of the rebellion.
Germany received diplomatic envoys from various Pan-Arab revolutionaries across the Middle East requesting aid in their fight against colonialism and indeed Germany obliged. The Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop was personally interested in grabbing land in Iraq and Syria. There are two distinct reasons why Germany wanted to expand their sphere of influence in the region. One was the more immediate and strategically significant factor of control of the vital oil lines, which the Allies had in their favor. The other was much darker and sinister. The German final solution required that a certain amount of land in Palestine should be set aside for the relocation and extermination of European Jews after the war were to have been won. Many Arabs supported this idea since Zionism is seen as the enemy to the more fanatical.
Baath is the Arabic word for “Resurrection” or “rebirth” and their official platform is freedom from colonial rule, Arab unity and Arab socialism. Arab socialism could be defined as the redistribution of private property and wealth formally held by the colonial powers as well as nationalizing the means of production, but, only within the constraints of traditional Arab values of private property and inheritance. On April 7th, 1947, one year after France left Syria, the Baath Arab Socialist Party was officially formed with the establishment of a constitution and a standing committee. Regional headquarters were established all through the Middle East. In 1963, the BASP took control of the Syrian government in a bloodless coup de tat and have been in control ever since.
Evidence against the claim:
Given the date the BASP was officially founded in 1947 and the collapse of the German regime in 1945, one cannot be responsible for the others creation. Any kind of power or influence Germany had in the region was utterly wiped out as consequence to its defeat in WW2. Although sympathetic to the Nazi cause, there have not been any documented cases of Aflaq or Bitar meeting with any kind of German agent for the purposes of receiving aid.
Germany was sending aid to Syria, as well as other Arab satellites, but the money was being handled by the French Vichy, not the Arabs, and that all changed in 1941 when the allies defeated the Vichy. Once the allies established military control of the area (by successfully defeating the Iraqi insurrection and the German Afika Korps in Egypt) Germany abandon its immediate hopes of conquest and worried more about the Soviet Red Army inching its way to Berlin slowly but surely. The bottom line is that Nazi money was being sent into the Middle East not to inspire another arm of the Nazi party and gain an ally, but instead to undermine the British control of the region and to gain access to vital resources.
Although Michel Aflaq’s Nazi sympathies are well documented, he was dedicated to starting the Baath movement by non-violent means. He was a proponent of democratic rule by way of Arab Socialism. The stated goal of the Baath party was not to emulate any world philosophies, but to promote an Arab political ideology free from any kind of foreign influence, whether it be Nazism, Marxism or Western capitalism.
“Freedom, Unity and Socialism”
-Baath Arab Socialist Party platform
Conclusions:
National Socialism does not have the historical monopoly on fanatical governments. That said, I have studied the evidence and I am led to believe that Nazi Germany is NOT responsible for the formation of the BASP. Although the founders of the Baath party may have been inspired by the actions of Nazi Germany, it most certainly was not the first movement for a united Arab land. Although Nazism and the BASP do share some philosophical ties (one nation, one people) the root cause in Baathism is not anti-bolshevism or anti-Semitism, as is the Nazi doctrine, but freedom from colonial rule in a secular Arab society.
I ask this question in order to justify my conclusion. Did Germany give money to the Baath party before it was officially organized? No. Not specifically but Germany did send aid to other Arab nationalist groups. Did the BASP model itself from the National Socialist experience? I believe it did, but I believe the BASP would have existed whether the Nazis took power or not. Why did the BASP gain such a broad support base following WW2? Because the BASP was the only political group in the Middle East that appealed to the masses, that had a set and established ideology and at the same time seemed to be the only answer to combat the creation of the state of Israel, an issue that was at the top of Arab concern.
Sources:
http://www.iraqinews.com/party_baath_party.shtml
http://www.baath-party.org/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re … p?ID=16533
http://baath-party.biography.ms/
http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/aFarrokhArab.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac … os/sy.html
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/baath.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Part … 27th_Party
it got me an "A"
Id hazard a guess and say Im a bit more versed about this area of the world than you are
اﻟﺒﻌﺚ
Hypothesis: The Baath Arab Socialist Party of Syria (BASP) attributes its foundations to the foreign influences of the German National Socialist party.
Variables: The dependent variable is the formation of the Baath party in Damascus, Syria in 1947. The independent variable is the policy of foreign aid (economic and military) from Nazi Germany to the founding members of the BASP.
Expectations: In the presented claim, I would like to find irrefutable evidence showing that Nazi Germany was indirectly responsible for the formation of the Baath party which still exists today. I hope to discover some form of direct ties between National Socialism and the modern Pan-Arab movement, which the BASP claims to be the driving force behind.
Evidence that supports above claim:
Europe during the mid-1930’s was politically unstable at best. New thoughts and ideologies were tested and formulated in governments all around the region leading to the chaos that is known as World War Two. Fascism, Marxism and National Socialism, words and political systems that were non-existent one hundred years ago before this time, were now responsible for a massive wave of new thought and ideology. This environment led to the beginning of the modern Pan-Arab movement and the end to European colonialism in the Middle East.
The origins of the Baath Party could be found on the streets of Paris, France during these turbulent times. Michel Aflaq, a Greek Orthodox Christian and Salah al-Din al-Bitar, a Sunni Muslim, are the two men attributed to the founding of the Baath Party. Aflaq and al-Bitar were both members of wealthy merchant families in Damascus and were attending the Sorbonne University of Paris. Here is where these two first organized their Baathist ideology of Arab nationalism and socialism and created Syrian study groups to discuss these radical ideas. Not only was Arab unity the only topics for discussion but, both men found the Arab situation very similar to the Germans. In fact, Michel Aflaq was responsible for circulating Arabic translated copies of Mein Kampf to his study group. He believed that Arabs should use the National Socialist model as a guide to building a unified Arab state.
Aflaq and Al-Bitar continued their partnership returning to Syria after their education in France was over. At the time, Syria was a French colonial possession ceded by the Ottoman Empire after World War One. Bitar and Aflaq were both school teachers using that medium to promote their philosophy. By 1941 France was overrun and conquered by Nazi Germany and all of its territorial possessions now belonged to the Vichy French regime, whose actual sovereignty as a nation is questionable since Germany was really behind all its decisions. It was at this time that the Al-Baath movement came into full force (the actual date is in question, some sources say 1940 while others say 1943). Baathist saw themselves as allies of Nazi Germany in their quest to rid the Middle East of its European colonial status. When Iraqis staged a military uprising against the British garrison in Baghdad, the founders of the Baathist movement organized and sponsored demonstrations in Damascus in support of the rebellion.
Germany received diplomatic envoys from various Pan-Arab revolutionaries across the Middle East requesting aid in their fight against colonialism and indeed Germany obliged. The Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop was personally interested in grabbing land in Iraq and Syria. There are two distinct reasons why Germany wanted to expand their sphere of influence in the region. One was the more immediate and strategically significant factor of control of the vital oil lines, which the Allies had in their favor. The other was much darker and sinister. The German final solution required that a certain amount of land in Palestine should be set aside for the relocation and extermination of European Jews after the war were to have been won. Many Arabs supported this idea since Zionism is seen as the enemy to the more fanatical.
Baath is the Arabic word for “Resurrection” or “rebirth” and their official platform is freedom from colonial rule, Arab unity and Arab socialism. Arab socialism could be defined as the redistribution of private property and wealth formally held by the colonial powers as well as nationalizing the means of production, but, only within the constraints of traditional Arab values of private property and inheritance. On April 7th, 1947, one year after France left Syria, the Baath Arab Socialist Party was officially formed with the establishment of a constitution and a standing committee. Regional headquarters were established all through the Middle East. In 1963, the BASP took control of the Syrian government in a bloodless coup de tat and have been in control ever since.
Evidence against the claim:
Given the date the BASP was officially founded in 1947 and the collapse of the German regime in 1945, one cannot be responsible for the others creation. Any kind of power or influence Germany had in the region was utterly wiped out as consequence to its defeat in WW2. Although sympathetic to the Nazi cause, there have not been any documented cases of Aflaq or Bitar meeting with any kind of German agent for the purposes of receiving aid.
Germany was sending aid to Syria, as well as other Arab satellites, but the money was being handled by the French Vichy, not the Arabs, and that all changed in 1941 when the allies defeated the Vichy. Once the allies established military control of the area (by successfully defeating the Iraqi insurrection and the German Afika Korps in Egypt) Germany abandon its immediate hopes of conquest and worried more about the Soviet Red Army inching its way to Berlin slowly but surely. The bottom line is that Nazi money was being sent into the Middle East not to inspire another arm of the Nazi party and gain an ally, but instead to undermine the British control of the region and to gain access to vital resources.
Although Michel Aflaq’s Nazi sympathies are well documented, he was dedicated to starting the Baath movement by non-violent means. He was a proponent of democratic rule by way of Arab Socialism. The stated goal of the Baath party was not to emulate any world philosophies, but to promote an Arab political ideology free from any kind of foreign influence, whether it be Nazism, Marxism or Western capitalism.
“Freedom, Unity and Socialism”
-Baath Arab Socialist Party platform
Conclusions:
National Socialism does not have the historical monopoly on fanatical governments. That said, I have studied the evidence and I am led to believe that Nazi Germany is NOT responsible for the formation of the BASP. Although the founders of the Baath party may have been inspired by the actions of Nazi Germany, it most certainly was not the first movement for a united Arab land. Although Nazism and the BASP do share some philosophical ties (one nation, one people) the root cause in Baathism is not anti-bolshevism or anti-Semitism, as is the Nazi doctrine, but freedom from colonial rule in a secular Arab society.
I ask this question in order to justify my conclusion. Did Germany give money to the Baath party before it was officially organized? No. Not specifically but Germany did send aid to other Arab nationalist groups. Did the BASP model itself from the National Socialist experience? I believe it did, but I believe the BASP would have existed whether the Nazis took power or not. Why did the BASP gain such a broad support base following WW2? Because the BASP was the only political group in the Middle East that appealed to the masses, that had a set and established ideology and at the same time seemed to be the only answer to combat the creation of the state of Israel, an issue that was at the top of Arab concern.
Sources:
http://www.iraqinews.com/party_baath_party.shtml
http://www.baath-party.org/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re … p?ID=16533
http://baath-party.biography.ms/
http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/aFarrokhArab.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac … os/sy.html
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/baath.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Part … 27th_Party
it got me an "A"
Id hazard a guess and say Im a bit more versed about this area of the world than you are
If the second paragraph is true, then how come they aren't standing up for the defense of free speech? If they demand censorship to avoid offense, they obviously don't understand free speech.dayarath wrote:
Not going to happen. All the muslims I know treat women with dignity and a certain amount of respect, especially the second generation that grew up here, hell they're like normal kids. The immigration amount of muslims is not that huge, just birth rate here among muslims is higher than the dutch people, but I don't think they'll ever become the vast majority of the population.
And even if, that would be a thousand years from now. Nobody likes Sharia Law, most muslims that get here do it because they fear their old countries' policies and the strict islamic law, the netherlands is like a safe haven to them.
Perhaps, but I don't see that working against extremists. That works with the Muslims who aren't a problem or are just a slight problem.dayarath wrote:
They're different, can't help it. Letting two stubborn people bump up in eachother only results in them hating eachother, what I do is adjusting myself to that other person in order to become his friend. Then after a while advising him on how he should behave - and there's your profit. In the last 4 years everyone I met became my friend eventually. I'm sure something like this works with foreign policy aswell.
That means said Muslim isn't normal. These Muslims need to toughen up some -- otherwise they aren't suited for living in a free society.dayarath wrote:
'our muslims' are two seperate groups. Radicals (0.1% in the netherlands, yes that few.) and normal (the rest). Normal muslim doesn't care what you say about radical as long as you're really talking about mr. radical.
Normal muslim does get angry however, when you insult his beliefs and put him in the same corner as the radical muslim (aka wilders style). What do you get? Very angry radical, and angry muslim. At this point mr angry radical can influence normal muslim into hostile behavior, meaning conflict.
It depends. If I insulted the entirety of the Catholic community, I'd be condemned thoroughly by Catholics, but there wouldn't be a significant call for my death. If I did a cartoon of Christ, a lot less people would threaten to kill me than if it was of Mohammed. To me, that says that there is a higher proportion of extremists among the Muslims. This is why you have to be wary.dayarath wrote:
Why would you be overly stubborn in this? Obviously if you're going to insult a whole group you'll get to deal with the entire group, best part being they make up quite a bit of your society.
You do that = you lose.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-03-28 16:30:31)
Aryan is just a term of an Ethnic Group of people (sort of). The Nazi's had a different view of it. Just like they had a different view of the Swastika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-03-28 16:28:31)
I read your post, GS. It's far from conclusive about the whole of the Middle East.
I'm not saying all of them were Nazi supporters, but the conflict in Palestine lent itself to making many of them Nazi-sympathetic. It also didn't help that the Allies were running much of the area in an official sense. Some saw the Nazies as liberators.
I'm not saying all of them were Nazi supporters, but the conflict in Palestine lent itself to making many of them Nazi-sympathetic. It also didn't help that the Allies were running much of the area in an official sense. Some saw the Nazies as liberators.
Of course these days, the Persians are everything but Persian. Seeing as their language, religion and writing system has been taken over and now they practice an Arab religion and write in a script Similair to Arabic. The notion of Persia ended the day they lost to the Arab Muslims and gave up their religion/writing script. IMO.
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-03-28 16:33:07)
nr.1Turquoise wrote:
If the second paragraph is true, then how come they aren't standing up for the defense of free speech. If they demand censorship to avoid offense, they obviously don't understand free speech.dayarath wrote:
Not going to happen. All the muslims I know treat women with dignity and a certain amount of respect, especially the second generation that grew up here, hell they're like normal kids. The immigration amount of muslims is not that huge, just birth rate here among muslims is higher than the dutch people, but I don't think they'll ever become the vast majority of the population.
And even if, that would be a thousand years from now. Nobody likes Sharia Law, most muslims that get here do it because they fear their old countries' policies and the strict islamic law, the netherlands is like a safe haven to them.Perhaps, but I don't see that working against extremists. That works with the Muslims who aren't a problem or are just a slight problem.dayarath wrote:
They're different, can't help it. Letting two stubborn people bump up in eachother only results in them hating eachother, what I do is adjusting myself to that other person in order to become his friend. Then after a while advising him on how he should behave - and there's your profit. In the last 4 years everyone I met became my friend eventually. I'm sure something like this works with foreign policy aswell.That means said Muslim isn't normal. These Muslims need to toughen up some -- otherwise they are suited for living in a free society.dayarath wrote:
'our muslims' are two seperate groups. Radicals (0.1% in the netherlands, yes that few.) and normal (the rest). Normal muslim doesn't care what you say about radical as long as you're really talking about mr. radical.
Normal muslim does get angry however, when you insult his beliefs and put him in the same corner as the radical muslim (aka wilders style). What do you get? Very angry radical, and angry muslim. At this point mr angry radical can influence normal muslim into hostile behavior, meaning conflict.It depends. If I insulted the entirety of the Catholic community, I'd be condemned thoroughly by Catholics, but there wouldn't be a significant call for my death. If I did a cartoon of Christ, a lot less people would threaten to kill me than if it was of Mohammed. To me, that says that there is a higher proportion of extremists among the Muslims. This is why you have to be wary.dayarath wrote:
Why would you be overly stubborn in this? Obviously if you're going to insult a whole group you'll get to deal with the entire group, best part being they make up quite a bit of your society.
You do that = you lose.
Well they don't really oppose freedom of speech much, but they do get angry, ofcourse. If someone insults your personal beliefs quite a bit, you'd get pretty angry too I would suppose. Especially if noone tries to stop said person from saying the stuff he does, which hurts others alot.
nr.2
Well, the normal good muslim is a very good factor in the help of rooting out the radical ones, get those on your side and you've just gained a foothold in the core of the islamic world. They could help you better in finding radicals than you can on your own.
nr.3
I think they're pretty normal :p.
nr.4
Radical islam / middle eastern islamic ruled states = a whole lot different from catholicism. We have to accept that one way or another imo.
inane little opines
People insult atheists all the time. Do I care? No... People can tell me I'm ignorant or going to hell all they want, but I don't give a shit.dayarath wrote:
Well they don't really oppose freedom of speech much, but they do get angry, ofcourse. If someone insults your personal beliefs quite a bit, you'd get pretty angry too I would suppose. Especially if noone tries to stop said person from saying the stuff he does, which hurts others alot.
Agreed, but if they can't accept free speech, they are as good as an enemy.dayarath wrote:
Well, the normal good muslim is a very good factor in the help of rooting out the radical ones, get those on your side and you've just gained a foothold in the core of the islamic world. They could help you better in finding radicals than you can on your own.
Let's say you are a Christian politician in your country, and you publicly say for whatever reason that all atheists are going to hell if they don't convert, and instead of me just shaking my head, I yell, "YOU SHOULD DIE FOR SAYING THAT!!!" I then call for your head upon a stake and for the restriction of your ability to say I'm going to hell.dayarath wrote:
I think they're pretty normal :p.
If I did that, would you think I'm normal?
No kidding, but it doesn't mean we should bow to them.dayarath wrote:
Radical islam / middle eastern islamic ruled states = a whole lot different from catholicism. We have to accept that one way or another imo.
Guess this post really wraps it up, there's no way I can convince you of my opinion / beliefs, and it doesn't seem to work the other way around either.Turquoise wrote:
People insult atheists all the time. Do I care? No... People can tell me I'm ignorant or going to hell all they want, but I don't give a shit.dayarath wrote:
Well they don't really oppose freedom of speech much, but they do get angry, ofcourse. If someone insults your personal beliefs quite a bit, you'd get pretty angry too I would suppose. Especially if noone tries to stop said person from saying the stuff he does, which hurts others alot.Agreed, but if they can't accept free speech, they are as good as an enemy.dayarath wrote:
Well, the normal good muslim is a very good factor in the help of rooting out the radical ones, get those on your side and you've just gained a foothold in the core of the islamic world. They could help you better in finding radicals than you can on your own.Let's say you are a Christian politician in your country, and you publicly say for whatever reason that all atheists are going to hell if they don't convert, and instead of me just shaking my head, I yell, "YOU SHOULD DIE FOR SAYING THAT!!!" I then call for your head upon a stake and for the restriction of your ability to say I'm going to hell.dayarath wrote:
I think they're pretty normal :p.
If I did that, would you think I'm normal?No kidding, but it doesn't mean we should bow to them.dayarath wrote:
Radical islam / middle eastern islamic ruled states = a whole lot different from catholicism. We have to accept that one way or another imo.
Anyhow, atheism and islam are still fundementally quite different, with atheism being unorganized as one of the most important factor. Also, not everyone reacts the same way to stuff people say as you do.
inane little opines
Well, thanks for at least discussing it. I know this isn't an easy thing to address, and I hope you didn't feel that I was harassing you.dayarath wrote:
Guess this post really wraps it up, there's no way I can convince you of my opinion / beliefs, and it doesn't seem to work the other way around either.
Anyhow, atheism and islam are still fundementally quite different, with atheism being unorganized as one of the most important factor. Also, not everyone reacts the same way to stuff people say as you do.
Whatever the case, I will agree with you on both points here.
I guess I'm just saying you sometimes have to endure conflict so that people grow a thicker skin. If they become violent, you at least have to imprison them.
Sorry, could you clarify that last statement? Are you saying that because atheists are unorganized, they pose no danger so they can be insulted at will? While Islam is organized, and the backlash could be dangerous, so better not say anything to upset anyone?dayarath wrote:
Anyhow, atheism and islam are still fundementally quite different, with atheism being unorganized as one of the most important factor. Also, not everyone reacts the same way to stuff people say as you do.
Just wondering...
Ahhh, another Islam bashing thread;p
I'm assuming that the video only shows clips of terrorists doing terrorist activities.
What the FECK is wrong with these people who riot and protest and scream like they're being accused of grand heresy?! Do they WANT to be labeled extremists? Do they WANT America to nuke them all and turn them into 'martyrs'??
Bloody idiots not reading the Quran properly, bloody idiots being freaking sheep, bloody idiots not thinking about the stupid shit they're doing.
Disgusting. I'm ashamed that these asstards call themselves Muslim, and I'm ashamed that the rest of us aren't doing shit about it.
What the FECK is wrong with these people who riot and protest and scream like they're being accused of grand heresy?! Do they WANT to be labeled extremists? Do they WANT America to nuke them all and turn them into 'martyrs'??
Bloody idiots not reading the Quran properly, bloody idiots being freaking sheep, bloody idiots not thinking about the stupid shit they're doing.
Disgusting. I'm ashamed that these asstards call themselves Muslim, and I'm ashamed that the rest of us aren't doing shit about it.
well said. maybe all the white kids on this forum who think they know better from their little suburb life should read this.Tetrino wrote:
I'm assuming that the video only shows clips of terrorists doing terrorist activities.
What the FECK is wrong with these people who riot and protest and scream like they're being accused of grand heresy?! Do they WANT to be labeled extremists? Do they WANT America to nuke them all and turn them into 'martyrs'??
Bloody idiots not reading the Quran properly, bloody idiots being freaking sheep, bloody idiots not thinking about the stupid shit they're doing.
Disgusting. I'm ashamed that these asstards call themselves Muslim, and I'm ashamed that the rest of us aren't doing shit about it.
Aye exactly. As someone said, bunch of youtube clips, put together... In other word, NOTHING new.Ayumiz wrote:
Ahhh, another Islam bashing thread;p
or a discussion about a video, like loose change and others. seems like you missed the point.r'Eeee wrote:
Aye exactly. As someone said, bunch of youtube clips, put together... In other word, NOTHING new.Ayumiz wrote:
Ahhh, another Islam bashing thread;p
A discussion that has been covered, since the launch of BF2s just few times.usmarine wrote:
or a discussion about a video, like loose change and others. seems like you missed the point.r'Eeee wrote:
Aye exactly. As someone said, bunch of youtube clips, put together... In other word, NOTHING new.Ayumiz wrote:
Ahhh, another Islam bashing thread;p
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Sarcasm of course
Last edited by r'Eeee (2008-03-29 15:06:59)