BF2S Forums Race relations thread

Maybe you've never met a regular Nazi, I'm sure you'd get along fine.

This is apt

A bus carrying 51 schoolchildren was hijacked by its driver and set alight near Milan in Italy.

The children, some of them tied up, were rescued through smashed windows at the back of the bus and no-one was badly hurt. Fourteen people suffered smoke inhalation.

The driver, a 47-year-old Italian citizen originally from Senegal, has been arrested.

"No-one will survive," the driver was alleged to have said.

"It was a miracle, it could have been a massacre," Milan chief prosecutor Francesco Greco was quoted as saying.

A teacher who had been on the bus said the suspect - named by police as Ousseynou Sy - was known to be angry about Italy's immigration policy and about the deaths of migrants in the Mediterranean.

"He shouted, 'Stop the deaths at sea, I'll carry out a massacre'," police spokesman Marco Palmieri said.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpspr … 4521-1.jpg

So Italy, which has probably done more to assist illegal immigrants from North Africa than any other nation, isn't doing enough and apparently that would justify tying up and burning 51 children to death.

dilbert you are retarded. go break bread with a muslim and do yourself a favour.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

How is that apt. Also the Nazi comparisons you're making are absurd. Why would somebody need to embrace Naziism to avoid being a hypocrite because they don't mind a moderate Muslim existing or going to college to be orthopedic surgeon or something. It's like you already gave in but feel compelled to keep replying.

Its relevant to the dicsussion and typical behaviour - bow to our demands or we will destroy you, bow to our demands and we will destroy you.

A moderate muslim and a moderate nazi are no different, they both ultimately subscribe to a perverted philosophy and quietly support atrocity, I'm highlighting the absurdity of Uziq's arguments suggesting they're different.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-03-21 05:53:05)

The only group which doesn't is white Europeans, hence we'll be consumed by all the ones which do.

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

How is that apt. Also the Nazi comparisons you're making are absurd. Why would somebody need to embrace Naziism to avoid being a hypocrite because they don't mind a moderate Muslim existing or going to college to be orthopedic surgeon or something. It's like you already gave in but feel compelled to keep replying.

Its relevant to the dicsussion and typical behaviour - bow to our demands or we will destroy you, bow to our demands and we will destroy you.

A moderate muslim and a moderate nazi are no different, they both ultimately subscribe to a perverted philosophy and quietly support atrocity, I'm highlighting the absurdity of Uziq's arguments suggesting they're different.

radical islam is fascist in its core political philosophy, yes. but many millions of muslims do not subscribe to that political ideology. their faith is a matter of family, home, good conduct; discipline. it's a matter of family rituals, holidays, observances -- they don't care a damn about 'the west' or converting people. a farmer in indonesia or an iranian doctor on long island are not out to 'foist their monoculture' on you. get a fucking grip.

Last edited by uziq (2019-03-21 07:37:23)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Where are these teeming masses of Muslim moderates threatening destruction if I don't bow to their demands.

They are only moderate because there are so few of them. Once the population of Muslims in an area reach a certain point, they start to make demands and advocate for things based on their religion.

There are plenty of nice Muslims that do their best to fit in. Headscarves are still a dumb thing for the women to have to wear.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Because islamic values are wholly at odds with liberal democracy and catholic poles aren't blowing up children's pop concerts, nor the Amish AFAIK, I could be wrong though. The scientologists I am suspicious of.

Maybe we should have sat back and 'celebrated their differences' as the Nazis invaded Poland and gassed the jews, after all, each value system is as valid as the next and its not for us to interfere in or pass judgement on someone else's cherished beliefs.

And there were actually very, very few nazis personally involved in the death camps, probably barely a few hundred out of millions and millions of decent moderate nazis who you'd be happy to have as your neighbour, barely a fringe tendency at all, you can't tar all people with the same brush for the sins of a few.

I think its time, as a member of a pluralistic democracy, for nazism to be rehabilitated and take its place in modern politics, somewhere between the liberal democrats and sinn fein.

And if the average nazi was an OK fellow, what is mutilating women when they're children, preventing them having an education, making them wear medieval outfits if they want to go outdoors in a western nation and indoctrinating their children to blow up infidels by comparison?

There's two major problems with your line of thinking. First, Islam is diverse. There is no one set of 'Islamic values' just as it's hard to pinpoint definite christian values beyond the obvious ones listed in the ten commandments, which are mostly just values of any basic society really. To constantly portray Islam as a uniform ideology with clear goals in mind supported by a single organisation is just a deliberate misrepresentation of reality. I guess you have to resort to that nonsense to even begin constructing a comparison to nazism. Which is still idiotic, because there isn't some islamic conspiracy to subdue the West or rest of the world either, which seems to be a common theme among those who oppose any/all forms of migration from the Middle East.

Perhaps it stems from a basic misunderstanding of islamic terrorism, which is the cause for this type of rhetoric anyway. The expressed goal of al qaeda and every group that came after wasn't the subjugation of the West, it was the 'purification' of the Middle East. Which meant a return to the social and moral norms/values that governed the first caliphate and the removal of all (in their mind) corrupting outside influences. That is why their progenitors fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and why, afterwards, they turned on the West. The removal of all western culture and influence is the first step in their attempt to reconstruct the Middle East in their desired image. This extended into western society because these extremists want to prevent the integration of muslim populations as well. In addition, attacks in the west are seen as a means to an end by provoking either military overreach or isolationist policies on our part. It's important to note that fundamentally the extremists are looking inward, to the ME and Islamic societies, and much less outward, to the West and others. It's not expansion that is on their mind. Let's also not forget that this is a fringe ideology not at all representative of muslims and their beliefs.

Second, the contemporary narrative constructed by people like yourselves against muslims/islam completely ignores the fact that muslims have been a part of European history for hundreds of years. The grand mosque of paris, built nearly 100 years ago, was a gift to the islamic community in France for their sacrifices in the first world war in the service of the French state. There's Dutch paintings made in the 1600s depicting ottoman traders in Amsterdam. Islamic communities have lived in our continent for hundreds of years and did so peacefully, even fighting for us if we called on them. Only until recently did that change, which has much more to do with changing social realities than some supposed fundamental incompatibility between a muslim lifestyle and western society. You've said it yourself: muslim terrorists seem to be mostly 'psychopathic losers' and not exactly stock brokers.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-03-28 03:20:36)

It is just androo. He smoked himself intelligent.

About the ten commandments - that's beside the point I was making. I'm sure you can understand what I meant without me having to reiterate it.

It's important to consider that Islamic terrorism was not a reactionary invention of muslim immigrants in western society. Its origins can more or less be traced to 1950s Egypt, specifically in the person that was Sayyid Qutb. There's a fantastic three part documentary series produced by the BBC (15 years old now..) called 'The Power of Nightmares' which gives a good introduction into his thinking. The series is also very critical of the neocons who dominated Washington politics in the early 2000s and ridicules the hunt for AQ in Afghanistan. I'm sure you'd like it.

Anyway, this matters because as you yourself note, it's often second generation children, born and raised in Western countries, who end up drawn to radical Islam and who commit terrorist attacks in the West. Often to the bewilderment of their parents, who never considered violently lashing out against the society they've made their new home in. There's obviously other forces at play that cause the descent into extremism than Islam. These 'other forces' have to do with the socio-economic standing of immigrant communities, failures in the integration process and often personal failure on the part of the prospective extremist. More often than not these kids dropped out of our education systems, are unemployed or stuck in low paying menial jobs and feel a strong disconnect with the society they're living in and doubts over their own identity. All factors which align with higher rates of criminal behaviour. In this case though, also factors which the foreign extremists have abused to convert muslims in Europe to their cause by laying the blame for their misfortune with Western society while promising deliverance & good fortune in radicalisation. The specific brand of violent extremism that is followed is not native to Europe or to muslim immigrant communities who live here. Extremist islamic terrorism is an external threat that recruits emigrant muslims as unsuspecting pawns to achieve their overarching goal which is the removal of western culture & influence in the Middle East. While the position of Israel has some relevance to this problem it's hardly a fundamental issue to immigrant extremists in Europe. Perhaps only after they've already converted or are in the process of being radicalised.

Now the cause for their disconnect with society and low socio-economic status partly rests with the immigration policies that started in the 60s and 70s. What we've done since that time is effectively replace our working class with poor immigrants from other countries, primarily places like Morocco, Turkey, Lebanon, Algeria etc. It has caused a huge overrepresentation of a certain identity group (immigrant muslims) in one segment of the population. This also caused their segregation in neighbourhoods where cheap housing can be found, something the local population contributed to because western/white people by and large choose to leave these places due to the unevenly large influx of immigrants. All these factors have naturally fed into even worse identity politics than the class divisions of old. Growing up the child of an immigrant in a very different country can be difficult, but it is all the more so in the circumstances we've created in Western cities. Particularly for children who are not gifted intellectually or in any  other way and who fail to excel in their new surroundings. Many of them retreat into religion, which has become the connective tissue between these muslim immigrants of various nationalities and a defining characteristic of their identities versus their surroundings. That's where they may eventually be contacted by extremists from the Middle East or inspired by authors & events in the Middle East.

The above is a basic overview and I realise that there's an argument to be 'anti immigrant' in there, not wholly unreasonably. But that would be an assault on the wrong issue as immigration itself is not the root of the problem here. It's also a type of policy you should consider very carefully because you only risk further alienating existing immigrant communities and exacerbating the problems I've described. Certainly with regard to the second generation immigrants, who are citizens of our countries anyway. They wouldn't suddenly disappear and instead feel backed into a corner.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-03-28 07:38:36)

Larssen wrote:

About the ten commandments - that's beside the point I was making. I'm sure you can understand what I meant without me having to reiterate it.

I'm sure you will understand that if someone can't get the simplest most trivial stuff right there's no point listening to them on much else.

Apparently Sayyid Qutb was outraged by American culture, having been lucky enough to spend two years there, and support for Israel. If exposure to foreign culture makes muslims angry maybe it would be better if they weren't.
And maybe we shouldn't be supporting Israel since they've inflamed the whole region, terrorising the Palestinians and picking fights with every neighbour.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

About the ten commandments - that's beside the point I was making. I'm sure you can understand what I meant without me having to reiterate it.

I'm sure you will understand that if someone can't get the simplest most trivial stuff right there's no point listening to them on much else.

Apparently Sayyid Qutb was outraged by American culture, having been lucky enough to spend two years there, and support for Israel. If exposure to foreign culture makes muslims angry maybe it would be better if they weren't.
And maybe we shouldn't be supporting Israel since they've inflamed the whole region, terrorising the Palestinians and picking fights with every neighbour.

No, the entire argument you were engaging in was beside the point. If you need to know (and be corrected) - the ten commandments are fundamental to Christian beliefs (as well as Judaism), but that wasn't what my post focused on. At all. The example was meant to illustrate that if you tried to condense all of Christianity to certain values not much would be left at all. Good luck trying to find more than utterly basic common values/morals/ideals among the Protestant/Catholic/Coptic/Orthodox churches and all their sub-denominations. Everyone understands there is no one christianity just as people should understand there's no one islam.

And no, Sayyid Qutb didn't start advocating a violent ideology because of the time spent in the USA. He was disdainful of US culture but this was many years before he became convinced that violence against outside influences (among which Western/US influence) was the way forward for the Middle East/Islam. His teaching exchange played one part in a much longer process leading to that conclusion.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-04-01 09:32:51)

Many Muslims in the west get disillusioned because they can't screw our women here and their women don't put out.