It's again that time of the year ... or Muslim bashing!

What the hell are you even talking about?
Eitherway even if any of that completely random conjecture you just came up with was true, it doesn't justify why Europe should have to take these people in and they don't.
Uh, I don't need to be a Canadian to know the price of oil dropped severely as soon as ISIS showed up.

You don't think the destabilisation of the countries over there has anything to do with our interventions over history, recent and long-established; effective proxy wars over resources, over which global power decides how their natural resources are put up on the global market?

The regimes that stand and the regimes that fall have been decided by these factors, by disputes in the West more than the nations themselves, and now we're losing control again. The brutal theocratic regime we have been most mutually complicit with and have left stable now faces existential threat as it watches states struggle with populist Islamic State upstarts all around them. We are justifiably afraid of terror, we've shopped around for enemies; they're afraid of complete deposition.
 
So then why bring up Saudi Arabia rhetorically when you already know the answer?
I was referring to you talking about the West's activity in the Middle East.
As far as your guess as to why Saudi Arabia isn't taking in refugees I already explained why it's inconsequential. If that's enough justification for Saudi Arabia to not have to take them in, then Europe shouldn't have to either.
Everyone seems to want to try and make the argument about something it's not.
 
Let's see your reasoning for random attacks against civilians.
Islam is a brutal ideology that is on the most part incompatible to our Western values and way of life. ISIS in specific wants to destroy the West (ayy lmao) and uses terrorism to do just what the name implies, terrify and undermine the target nation. Your idea that they are making them all enter Western countries...... only to make them all leave by getting the governments to crack down on immigration doesn't make any sense and isn't backed up by anything. You're saying we shouldn't deport moslem criminals and to stop taking in migrants some how let's ISIS win. Care to explain how the hell that works?
 
I'm fairly sure Dr. Fallout is saying ISIS wants the West to alienate the peaceful Muslim population, therefore radicalising them and increasing the extremist population significantly, which we've already seen happen on a small scale with home-grown terrorists. Please, correct me if I'm wrong Dr Fallout.
 
I'm fairly sure Dr. Fallout is saying ISIS wants the West to alienate the peaceful Muslim population, therefore radicalising them and increasing the extremist population significantly, which we've already seen happen on a small scale with home-grown terrorists. Please, correct me if I'm wrong Dr Fallout.
But what is his solution to that problem? Keep allowing more extremists into the country and don't deport the ones we currently have?
 
Idk. I think we should engineer a virus that targets genes on human Y chromosomes that would make haploid sperm cells carrying it non-viable, either dying during spermatogenesis or unable to fertilise unassisted. But hey idk, that's just me and my scorched earth proposal on how to substantially reduce senseless violence on the planet.

I honestly think it sounds more humane.
 
I'm fairly sure Dr. Fallout is saying ISIS wants the West to alienate the peaceful Muslim population, therefore radicalising them and increasing the extremist population significantly, which we've already seen happen on a small scale with home-grown terrorists. Please, correct me if I'm wrong Dr Fallout.
This is correct yes.

But what is his solution to that problem? Keep allowing more extremists into the country and don't deport the ones we currently have?
Solution? Solution to what? Terrorist attacks in Europe? Stop the migrants and deport. But while that would allow more Europeans to live in safety, it only strengthens ISIS in the Middle East, as angry migrants turn more and more to radical Islam.

Also your post on Islam being a brutal ideology is ignorant. They've done a lot for science (the numbers we use are Arabic numerals, devised by Islamic mathematicians) and were the epitome of logic and reasoning for a time. It's like saying Christianity is a brutal ideology because the same logic is there. Both God's have killed thousands, if not millions of people and both support their followers to kill the enemy.

So unless you agree that Christianity is a brutal ideology, you're just picking and choosing to suit your beliefs.
 
Also your post on Islam being a brutal ideology is ignorant.
The ideology that tells people that women are second class citizens, that gays should be killed, that it's ok to have sex with a 9 year old and to kill those who blaspheme against it isn't brutal? What is your definition of brutal then?
(the numbers we use are Arabic numerals, devised by Islamic mathematicians)
Completely false. What we call "arabic numerals" were actually devised in Inda by Hindus. It was merely introduced over to the west by moslem conquest.
were the epitome of logic and reasoning for a time.
[CITATION NEEDED]
It's like saying Christianity is a brutal ideology because the same logic is there.
No, it's not.
The Bible (New Testament, for the millionth time Christians don't follow the Old Testament law) does not order the killing of gays, the idea of having sex with toddlers or the other brutal things the qu'ran justifies.
Both God's have killed thousands, if not millions of people and both support their followers to kill the enemy.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Not that it's very relevant, please tell me when the last time a Christian terrorist organization flew planes into a building or shot up a nightclub. Christianity is obviously not the violent religion Islam is otherwise we (a Christian culture) wouldn't have a problem with a moslem shooting up a club full of gays.
So unless you agree that Christianity is a brutal ideology, you're just picking and choosing to suit your beliefs.
Until you actually prove that Christianity is a brutal ideology, you're just talking out of your ass.
 
The ideology that tells people that women are second class citizens, that gays should be killed, that it's ok to have sex with a 9 year old and to kill those who blaspheme against it isn't brutal? What is your definition of brutal then?
Yep, there's no such thing as different interpretations in Islam. Kind of how that NEVER happens with Christianity and every other religion. Yes it happened to Buddhism as well.
Completely false. What we call "arabic numerals" were actually devised in Inda by Hindus. It was merely brought over to the west by moslems.
True, but they also expanded it with fractions and the decimal point.
[CITATION NEEDED]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
http://islamichistory.org/islamic-golden-age/
Sadly, the rise of radicalism and fundamentalism ended that as the Muslim world became more rigidly Islamic. Too much religion is never good.
No, it's not.
The Bible (New Testament, for the millionth time Christians don't follow the Old Testament law) does not order the killing of gays, the idea of having sex with toddlers or the other brutal things the qu'ran justifies.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/the-but-thats-just-the-old-testament-cop-out/
[CITATION NEEDED]
Not that it's very relevant, please tell me when the last time a Christian terrorist organization flew planes into a building or shot up a nightclub. Christianity is obviously not the violent religion Islam is otherwise we wouldn't have a problem with a moslem shooting up a club full of gays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mu...0-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619
Until you actually prove that Christianity is a brutal ideology, you're just talking out of your ass.
Sure.
 
Vergil, you are talking about literalism, which again does not paint a becoming picture of anyone's holy book. Muhammad rode a pegasus, Aisha was depicted as exceptional in every sense and I'm pretty sure her chronological age was more depicting her as a prodigy than a child or non-adult--otherwise we would have hadith endorsing sleeping with children. Do we?

I think men who are so inclined indulge in fucking children whenever the circumstances are conducive to it, so war, destabilisation, periods of monarchical power, white vans. I'm not sure the Qur'an was a necessary innovation for this or even plays a meaningful role.
 
Yep, there's no such thing as different interpretations in Islam. Kind of how that NEVER happens with Christianity and every other religion. Yes it happened to Buddhism as well.
If theres all these vast differences in interpretation why do all moslem countries treat women like shit and continue brutal practices? You failed to counter my point entirely. Where are these moslem nations that don't kill gays? Where are these moslem nations with equal rights for women? If Islam is just like Christianity with all these different interpretations why are the laws in every islamic country barbaric as fuck?
True, but they also expanded it with fractions and the decimal point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
http://islamichistory.org/islamic-golden-age/
Sadly, the rise of radicalism and fundamentalism ended that as the Muslim world became more rigidly Islamic. Too much religion is never good.
Yes, when the moslem world was the most secular it ever was (with many of the people on that list not actually being moslems) and with the help of having control over half of what used to be the Christian world and all the writings that were there through conquest they managed to have a Golden Age. How that someone justifies the modern actions of moslem countries, I dunno.
Ah, these sites look very reputable. Some really scholarly shit coming from "loonwatch" and a website dedicated to taking quotes out of context.
The point of Christ coming down to Earth was not to abolish the law as he says. It was to fulfill it which in the Christian religion he did by sacrificing himself and thus starting a new covenant. Now obviously if you want to you can try and find translation of the Bible that use words that sounds very striking out of context but when you actually read the full story and take the time to actually understand the meaning it becomes clear. In the Christian religion the laws of the Old Testament are invalided by Christ's sacrifice and the formation of the New Covenant. That's why you are no longer required to be a Jew either to go to Heaven.
Going by the first list, that's only 7 examples spread out since the early 80s. Meanwhile in just the past few months we've had multiple attacks and the worst terror attack ever on US soil committed by a moslem.
And the second and third both rely on the same information, that is not only 3 years behind, thus missing some of the biggest terrorist attacks in US history, but it also highlights another issue. Moslems make up only about 1% of the population, yet the worst terror attacks are caused by them.
Well, I'm still waiting.
Vergil, you are talking about literalism,
Which is what these people believe in. Strict and total adherence to the qu'ran
Muhammad rode a pegasus, Aisha was depicted as exceptional in every sense and I'm pretty sure her chronological age was more depicting her as a prodigy than a child or non-adult--otherwise we would have hadith endorsing sleeping with children. Do we?
Yes
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/062-sbt.php#007.062.064
I would suggest doing research before speaking next time.
I think men who are so inclined indulge in fucking children whenever the circumstances are conducive to it, so war, destabilisation, periods of monarchical power, white vans. I'm not sure the Qur'an was a necessary innovation for this or even plays a meaningful role.
Complete conjecture and ignores the fact that Muhammed, who is supposed to be a prophet of allah and the perfect moslem is written very specifically as having married a 6 year old and then fucked her at 9. It obviously plays a pretty important role as child brides are still a thing in the Middle East meanwhile it's totally out of the question in the West.

And also considering you recently suggested that the key to stopping violence was the killing of all men makes me very unlikely to feel like responding to whatever you have to say in the future. If you wouldn't like me to ever take you seriously again, maybe include some actual sources in your posts next time, thanks.




EDIT: Also again, we're starting to debate the ancient roots and Islam and Christianity and the deeper meaning of religious texts. Not really all that pertinent to finding solutions to Europe's current Immigration problem.
 
Last edited:
It seems that a video of the beheading of a Palestinian child by anti-assad forces has emerged online. And now the U.S has vowed to stop support to the rebels if this video turns out to be real.

“If we [the United States] can prove indeed what happened and this group [al-Zenki] was involved in it… it would give us pause about any assistance or frankly any further involvement,” Deputy Spokesperson for the State Department, Mark Toner

:lol:

So all it took was the head of a Palestinian child to stop the support to Muslim extremists?!

Bravo, sir! Bravo! :clap:
 
If theres all these vast differences in interpretation why do all moslem countries treat women like shit and continue brutal practices? You failed to counter my point entirely. Where are these moslem nations that don't kill gays? Where are these moslem nations with equal rights for women? If Islam is just like Christianity with all these different interpretations why are the laws in every islamic country barbaric as fuck?
Because two major interpretations have taken hold, the Shia and Sunni sects and with that power they've forced out other sects.

Yes, when the moslem world was the most secular it ever was (with many of the people on that list not actually being moslems) and with the help of having control over half of what used to be the Christian world and all the writings that were there through conquest they managed to have a Golden Age. How that someone justifies the modern actions of moslem countries, I dunno.
It was still a heavily Islamic empire, just because it was the 'most' secular doesn't mean it was. Examples? Actually you're referring to ROMAN writings, which was a decadent and brutal society. Christianity had a weak hold in Northern Africa, and it only started creating scholarly texts that had some merit during the late medieval age. Stop making strawmen, I have never justified their actions.

Ah, these sites look very reputable. Some really scholarly shit coming from "loonwatch" and a website dedicated to taking quotes out of context.
The point of Christ coming down to Earth was not to abolish the law as he says. It was to fulfill it which in the Christian religion he did by sacrificing himself and thus starting a new covenant. Now obviously if you want to you can try and find translation of the Bible that use words that sounds very striking out of context but when you actually read the full story and take the time to actually understand the meaning it becomes clear. In the Christian religion the laws of the Old Testament are invalided by Christ's sacrifice and the formation of the New Covenant. That's why you are no longer required to be a Jew either to go to Heaven.
Taking the easy way out I see. Just because they don't look reputable doesn't mean they're not. Remember, they're looking at a fictional text, not the law of gravity and theory of evolution. You don't need some science degree to analyze the bible. So Jesus was exaggerating and making shit up?
Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one dot of the Law to become void.
(Last time I checked, heaven and earth did not disappear)
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Going by the first list, that's only 7 examples spread out since the early 80s. Meanwhile in just the past few months we've had multiple attacks and the worst terror attack ever on US soil committed by a moslem.
And the second and third both rely on the same information, that is not only 3 years behind, thus missing some of the biggest terrorist attacks in US history, but it also highlights another issue. Moslems make up only about 1% of the population, yet the worst terror attacks are caused by them.
All that means is that RADICAL Islam is on a rise, which it is. Keep in mind that Anders Breivik killed 77 people to further a pro-Christian Europe while the Orlando Shooting had 49 people being killed. The reason why Muslims are doing the worst terrorist attacks are because of well armed Islamic extremist groups, many which have been funded by world powers like the US or Russia.

Well, I'm still waiting.
Of course.

Which is what these people believe in. Strict and total adherence to the qu'ran
What people? You create a blanket statement and expect it to apply to all Muslims which is stupid and false.
 
Back
Top