Ooh. That really put me in my place. I congratulate you sir - you are clearly a master of debate.
Says the person who opened his post by calling me a troll for no reason.
Your comments indicate otherwise.
How so?
I think you may qualify as xenophobic as well.
If a person doesn't like Nazism, does that make him a "xenophobe?" According to your logic, yes. To further refute your accusation of xenophobia, I have an active interest in foreign cultures. I am, for instance, currently learning Korean.
Dude, you can quote yourself as many times as you like, but doing so will not make any of your claims any less ridiculous. At best, it seems that you actively seek out sources of information that reinforce your pre-conceived notions and dismiss out-of-hand any dissenting point of view. That's fine, you can believe whatever you want - but please don't try to pass it off as enlightenment.
I never had any "pre-conceived notions." My notions about Islam developed gradually, as a result of things that Muslims did in Islam's name. Your position, on the other hand, is preconceived, since it's something that's simply been absorbed from the prevailing cultural atmosphere. It's not something you've ever critically analyzed or thought about. It's just there. I was just like you about five or six years ago.
The site I mainly go to is Jihad Watch (and their subsection Dhimmi Watch), which presents you with a problem because they cite a very wide variety of news sources, including the usual MSM suspects like BBC, CNN, Reuters and so on, as well as local newspapers and channels from all over the world. In other words, they are simply an information hub that gathers news from other sources. Are you saying, then, that more or less every news source on the planet is actively involved in some anti-Islam conspiracy? They're not. They're simply reporting what Muslims say and do. You will not hear about most of it if you only read a few MSM sources, which might give you the illusion that not much is going on. As for the opinions and analysis provided by JW, I trust them. They make sense and they're consistent with reality, and the site's director has never given me a reason to doubt his intellectual honesty, which is more than I can say for some other, less successful counter-Jihad sites.
The "other side" (the "Islam is a Religion of Peace" crowd) has proven to be unreliable, irrational, childish and deceitful, and frequently employs fascist and underhanded tactics, even violence. I have not "dismissed" their position, as I've argued with them for years. They've had plenty of time to make their case, which usually just consists of pearls of wisdom like "ur a nazi."
That said, you're going off-topic. I was responding to your argument that I should personally meet more Muslims, but you changed the subject.
Oh really? Perhaps you might want to reconsider one of those two statements...
Do you not understand the definition of "generally?"
Presumably you believe yourself to be of the former, even though your posts indicate that you are a slightly more polite version of the latter. But that's the key - your entertainment value is that you are desperately trying to portray bigoted opinions as the product of reason and wisdom.
Empty accusations of "bigotry" are the last resort of the intellectually challenged.
Now, how can I go about this? Since I am saying that a *minority* has some behavior my sample would have to much smaller for a given level of uncertainty in the assessment. This basically means that my small drop in the ocean is probably much more representative than your random statements.
Haha. My "random statements" are based on years of information gathered on a daily basis from every corner of the planet.
Then you bring to the table other issues that are not under discussion and that doesn't directly affect you or I in the least even though it might appall us.
I'm not allowed to be concerned about things that don't have an immediate effect on me?
And, by the way, genital mutilation is not a Muslim thing it is much more related to geographical regions and it is conducted by Christians too for instance.
Doesn't matter.
Domestic violence and honor killings is very common in many Christian countries.
Domestic violence is legally and culturally frowned upon in the West, so it's not at all the same thing as domestic violence in Islamic societies which is sanctioned by Islam. The overwhelming majority of honor killings are perpetrated by Muslims. Honor killings are a foreign concept to Westerners.
You don't even know what a troll is. Stop using big words you don't understand.
The alternative is not so kind. I have a difficult time believing that any sane individual would believe the nonsense you are posting here, but stranger things have happened. I suppose some sympathy is called for - it must be terrifying to be so ignorant and afraid.
I'm not ignorant, but I am afraid for the future of Europe. I didn't know being afraid is now supposed to be morally reprehensible.
Perhaps if you actually met some people who come from a different culture than your own...
I've addressed this fallacy so many times it's not even funny. Quoting from another post I made, for the second time already:
Let me guess: you believe your limited personal experiences can accurately describe the entire world, and you believe information is only valid when it's acquired through direct personal experience? I'm also going to guess that if I said "some Muslims robbed me, ergo most Muslims are robbers" you would disregard it as a stupid generalization, even though it's exactly the same thing.
Thanks to the Internet and other forms of modern communication, there's an infinite amount of information available to anyone who wants it. That's what my views are based on. If you simply rely on direct personal experience, you'll know nothing, because the world is too big for that (unless you have a very, very substantial amount of experience). Even if you read the news on a daily basis, you'll still have only a superficial grasp on all the things that Muslims say and do, which is why it would be a better idea to read sites that specialize in the subject (analogy: if you want to know what's going on in the Half-Life community, it's better to read Planet Half-Life rather than a generic gaming site). That's what I do.
Simply put, your pool of information is too small to be worth anything.
... you might realize that not every member of a group will conform to every aspect of the stereotype for that group. Hey - you might even learn that the stereotype you have using is inaccurate.
I never said every single member of the group is the same.
How you deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance would your own problem, but giving up on the hating is certainly an option you should consider...
You seem to have problems distinguishing between people whose views are based on evidence and rational analysis, and people whose philosophy is no more complex than "damn towelheads."
Do you have any reliable statistics on the percentage of Muslims in the UK who advocate Shariah? Without this, your statement stands unsupported.
No, there are no "reliable" statistics, because any link I provide will be dismissed as xenophobic racist rightwing propaganda. It always happens without failure. Then, of course, I am accused of not providing evidence. Nice.
Also, there's rarely any one, magical link to prove something. I have spent years reading about the Islamization of Europe on a daily basis. It's maddening when people think all that information can somehow be condensed into a few links (which will then be dismissed as fascist Nazi propaganda). People don't really even want to know. If they did, they'd read about it themselves.
Because here in the US, you never hear about it from them. This may be just a local thing in some countries, or an overblown sentiment.
Not even Europeans know what's happening in Europe, or in their own countries, so it's no wonder that Americans are in the dark.
I would know this because I've read about it for years. All the information I've accumulated has made it painfully obvious.
Since when did ignorance become a valid point of view? I must have missed that memo...
Hahahaha. You're saying it's ignorance to actively seek information about a subject? I'm guessing you read 1984 and thought that "Ignorance is Strength" was meant to be taken literally.
Let me understand this correctly. You say that the majority behave one way and my pool of information is too small?
I was quoting something I wrote to someone else, but it clearly seems that you suffer from the same problem. "Several Muslims" are barely a drop in the ocean.
I guess you must be a master mind reader sucking the wishes and pathologies of millons of Muslims every where.
Read the entire post and you'll find out where I get my information from.
I read somewhere on this topic that there are 2 million Muslims on England (or UK). Let's assume the majority means 1 million. If they behave like you say they are awfully quiet and well behaved. Maybe they are just waiting for the right moment. But that doesn't sound much like the behavior of raging religious fanatics to me. Maybe they are just scared of British police.
Some of them just give their quiet support and approval. Some of them do things that won't (necessarily) put them under the public spotlight, like forced marriages, genital mutilation, domestic violence in the name of Sharia etc. There is so much going on that you don't know about.
It's funny I've met several Muslims and many of them are close friends and they are from several places and include Shia and Sunni and I haven't met a single one who tried to change, rule or convert me in any way.
I have never met a Chinese person. It therefore follows that Chinese people do not exist.
From another post I made:
Let me guess: you believe your limited personal experiences can accurately describe the entire world, and you believe information is only valid when it's acquired through direct personal experience? I'm also going to guess that if I said "some Muslims robbed me, ergo most Muslims are robbers" you would disregard it as a stupid generalization, even though it's exactly the same thing.
Thanks to the Internet and other forms of modern communication, there's an infinite amount of information available to anyone who wants it. That's what my views are based on. If you simply rely on direct personal experience, you'll know nothing, because the world is too big for that (unless you have a very, very substantial amount of experience). Even if you read the news on a daily basis, you'll still have only a superficial grasp on all the things that Muslims say and do, which is why it would be a better idea to read sites that specialize in the subject (analogy: if you want to know what's going on in the Half-Life community, it's better to read Planet Half-Life rather than a generic gaming site). That's what I do.
Simply put, your pool of information is too small to be worth anything.
I have never heard of a Christian Palestinian thanking Israel's "multiculturalism" or for their liberation from the nasty Muslim yoke. But I see many of them fighting with Muslims for their liberation.
Yes, of course they publically claim to fight with their Muslim brothers against the evil Zionists. If they didn't, they'd be in trouble.
Muslims do not believe in co-existence with other religions. What an accurate statement!
I do not consider dhimmitude to be co-existence.
And I'm not including other places such as Indonesia.
I wish you were joking.
Suicide bombings did not exist until the 1980's. Terrorism in arab countries was no different from terrorism in other places until 1980. And it was not restricted to Muslims. In Lebanon there were even a few Christian suicide bombers.
Suicide bombings are just a new form of Jihad, which has existed as long as Islam has. As for Christian terrorists, they are very rare and do not enjoy any popular, official or theological support. Their existence also does not excuse Islamic terrorism.
It is interesting that the more the west pokes on arab countries, the worse things get.
The problems we're talking about have nothing to do with that.
But one thing is certain: Islamic rule co-existed every sort ethnic and religious faith for a 1000 years.
Well yeah, if you count dhimmitude as legitimate co-existence. Much of Islam's history, including its supposedly wonderful multiculturalism, is nothing but historical revisionism and propaganda.
Don't mistake recent behavior of a few people with a the attitudes of a civilization.
Islamization? Muslims are a tiny proportion of our population and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Immigration is going down not up.
Immigration and birth rates will ensure that they will not remain a tiny population for long. For a tiny population they sure cause a disproportionate amount of problems too, but this is also the norm in other European countries.
Your blind hatred of non-whites sickens me, and your lack of knowledge about the reality of Britain amuses me.
Why are you bringing race into this? I never said anything about race. I did not even know that Muslims now constitute a race, but thanks for letting me know. Also, my opposition towards Muslims has nothing to do with "blind hatred."
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is, just because this is a purely-Muslim phenomenon at the moment doesn't mean that it will be a purely-Muslim phenomenon in ten years' time.
Do you have a specific reason to believe that in ten years time there will exist another group that wishes to do what the Muslims are doing, and has the capability to do it?
And I'd put forward the point that spreading one's religion is as much a tenet of Christianity as it is of Islam.
Their methods are wildly different.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of having a religion shoved down my throat, but - treating others as I would like to be treated - I wouldn't want to shove my beliefs down anybody else's throat either, no matter where they lived or what their skin colour was.
The BNP are the only ones willing to 'do anything'?
By "anything" I mean doing something about the Islamization of Britain.
If by 'do anything' you mean turn Britain into a fascist state, then yes. They advocate ethnic cleansing and military expansionism - including the insane policy of reclaiming the Republic of Ireland by force.
Well, tough shit. People will vote for them if they are given no other choice.
Your comments regarding the BNP betray your far right sympathies. You are one of the many fascist scum rotting this country from the inside as you worship Enoch Powell's ghost and long to return to our blood-stained imperial past. You, not the immigrants, will destroy this country.
It's actually people like you who are destroying Britain and many other European nations. We have major problems with immigration and Islamization, and people like you are actively preventing anyone from finding a solution by shutting down all discussion under the pretext of fighting "fascism," forcibly if necessary (irony alert), and opposing anything that might help. It was not the "far right" that opened the floodgates of immigration and Islamization, it was people like you. You fucked things up and won't clean up the mess you made, so now it's up to groups like the BNP to do it for you. This fascism that you're worried about is a direct result of policies and ideas formulated by people like you.
The longer these problems remain unaddressed, the uglier the solution will be. If you were a doctor and remained logically consistent, you would treat an infected leg wound by waiting until you have to amputate.
If you're trying to prove that the desire to change a country's demographic makeup is, has always been, and always will be a Muslim phenomenon, then I think I've already proven you wrong.
It isn't, but I'm not aware of any other group that's currently attemping the same thing in the Western world.
If you're trying to prove that such a desire is currently a Muslim phenomenon, then this has no implications for the state of play ten years ago or ten years into the future. So I fail to see the point of trying to prove such a thing.
It's always been a Muslim phenomena. Spreading Islam was and still is their religious duty. I don't understand how you can say that it won't have any implications in the future, because Muslim immigration has already changed Europe a great deal, and there's no reason to believe that this process will be suddenly stopped or reversed. On the contrary, it gains more and more momentum every year.
Note that I've not touched on the racial side until now. I have no problem with racial demographic changes as long as it occurs due to immigration, emigration and interbreeding - as opposed to genocide and forced deportation.
Well, in this case it's immigration, but no interbreeding will occur. The immigrants will simply replace the native population, unless the natives take steps to prevent it. People call this multiculturalism.
Why is the date relevant?
Because I was talking about groups that are currently attempting the same thing the Muslims are.
What I'm trying to say is that we in the UK are hypocritical to say that Islamification should be opposed simply because it alters the country's demographics. The country as it stands is a product of such demographic change.
So that justifies turning a first world Western democracy into a third world Islamic theocracy? Also, just because demographic changes occured in the past doesn't mean they must occur to infinity.
The circumstances of the precedent I referred to were quite different, true, but in the context of your statement it's not a leap of logic to describe the reformers as "a group that wished to completely transform the country culturally and religiously".
You were referring to the 16th century. I was talking about the 21st century.
Finally, as a non-religious person living in a decreasingly Christian and increasingly non-religious country, I object to your implication that religious change in particular is something to be avoided.
Okay, when you talk about how an entirely group of people feels as if they all feel the same way, you're obviously talking out your ass and know it.
They're called generalizations. Generally speaking, Muslims do not believe in peaceful co-existence with other religions.
But just to let you know, as someone who's spent a lot of time talking to a lot of people from a lot of different religions, the substantial majority of Muslims I know do feel the way you say they don't, and a substantial number of Westerners I've spoken to don't feel the way you say they do.
Let me guess: you believe your limited personal experiences can accurately describe the entire world, and you believe information is only valid when it's acquired through direct personal experience? I'm also going to guess that if I said "some Muslims robbed me, ergo most Muslims are robbers" you would disregard it as a stupid generalization, even though it's exactly the same thing.
Thanks to the Internet and other forms of modern communication, there's an infinite amount of information available to anyone who wants it. That's what my views are based on. If you simply rely on direct personal experience, you'll know nothing, because the world is too big for that (unless you have a very, very substantial amount of experience). Even if you read the news on a daily basis, you'll still have only a superficial grasp on all the things that Muslims say and do, which is why it would be a better idea to read sites that specialize in the subject (analogy: if you want to know what's going on in the Half-Life community, it's better to read Planet Half-Life rather than a generic gaming site). That's what I do.
Simply put, your pool of information is too small to be worth anything.
Indians in the 60's and 70's, asians, Blacks... all were accused of "changing the beloved country"
Just because something was a certain way in the past doesn't mean it will always be that way. In other words, just because there were false alarms in the past doesn't mean that everything is a false alarm. In any case, this has nothing to do with alarmism, because the Islamization of Europe is simply a fact. It's not theory, it's happening before our eyes in a very concrete fashion.
Treat people as individuals, judge them by their actions, not by their colour or belief.
We can't just sit around and only react to individual cases on an individual basis. It's not going to work. If you were fighting a war, would you treat every battle and skirmish as an isolated incident without any larger context? Would you view your enemy as a collection of individuals without a unifying cause?
If you don't you WILL create more "enemies" and instead of fixing the problem, it will make it worse.
And what does that say about Muslims? They see any attempt to combat terrorism as an attack against Islam, and then they start making thinly disguised threats of violence and terror.
Only some and then no more than some Catholics or Hindus or Buddhists.
What? The concept of an Ummah does not exist in Hinduism or Buddhism. Even if it did, we can plainly see that Hindus and Buddhists are not struggling to build one.
There are approximately 2 million muslims in the UK, the trouble mainly coming from the least educated, poorer section, the same as the christian and black "houligans" - of which there are plenty.
No, the trouble comes from their religious beliefs.
There were a few muslims that bombed the railways and I suspect there are some more that have similar intentions but the IRA, which last I looked was not muslim, also did similar things so it is not JUST muslims.
Nobody has said that only Muslims can be terrorists, even if nearly all terrorism today is Islamic. What is your point anyway?
Something to ponder: If a group of football supporters break the law, do you punish all football supporters?
If the majority of football supporters were causing massive amounts of problems, then clearly measures would have to be taken against football.
I received a question about some character in Winnie the fucking Pooh. I didn't know the answer to this important piece of cultural trivia, so I guess that means I'm stupid. I also liked all the questions where the answer is completely up to personal interpretation, which is something I've seen in other tests too. Intelligence tests, in my experience, are complete bullshit, and this one is no different.
Using knowledge of culture and history to measure intelligence is dubious. If I can't answer some questions about Western culture, but I can answer several questions about Japanese culture (I know a few things), does that make me stupid or intelligent? Is it more "intelligent" to have deep knowledge of one area or broad knowledge of several areas? And so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Says the person who opened his post by calling me a troll for no reason.
How so?
If a person doesn't like Nazism, does that make him a "xenophobe?" According to your logic, yes. To further refute your accusation of xenophobia, I have an active interest in foreign cultures. I am, for instance, currently learning Korean.
I never had any "pre-conceived notions." My notions about Islam developed gradually, as a result of things that Muslims did in Islam's name. Your position, on the other hand, is preconceived, since it's something that's simply been absorbed from the prevailing cultural atmosphere. It's not something you've ever critically analyzed or thought about. It's just there. I was just like you about five or six years ago.
The site I mainly go to is Jihad Watch (and their subsection Dhimmi Watch), which presents you with a problem because they cite a very wide variety of news sources, including the usual MSM suspects like BBC, CNN, Reuters and so on, as well as local newspapers and channels from all over the world. In other words, they are simply an information hub that gathers news from other sources. Are you saying, then, that more or less every news source on the planet is actively involved in some anti-Islam conspiracy? They're not. They're simply reporting what Muslims say and do. You will not hear about most of it if you only read a few MSM sources, which might give you the illusion that not much is going on. As for the opinions and analysis provided by JW, I trust them. They make sense and they're consistent with reality, and the site's director has never given me a reason to doubt his intellectual honesty, which is more than I can say for some other, less successful counter-Jihad sites.
The "other side" (the "Islam is a Religion of Peace" crowd) has proven to be unreliable, irrational, childish and deceitful, and frequently employs fascist and underhanded tactics, even violence. I have not "dismissed" their position, as I've argued with them for years. They've had plenty of time to make their case, which usually just consists of pearls of wisdom like "ur a nazi."
That said, you're going off-topic. I was responding to your argument that I should personally meet more Muslims, but you changed the subject.
Do you not understand the definition of "generally?"
Empty accusations of "bigotry" are the last resort of the intellectually challenged.
Haha. My "random statements" are based on years of information gathered on a daily basis from every corner of the planet.
I'm not allowed to be concerned about things that don't have an immediate effect on me?
Doesn't matter.
Domestic violence is legally and culturally frowned upon in the West, so it's not at all the same thing as domestic violence in Islamic societies which is sanctioned by Islam. The overwhelming majority of honor killings are perpetrated by Muslims. Honor killings are a foreign concept to Westerners.
You don't even know what a troll is. Stop using big words you don't understand.
I'm not ignorant, but I am afraid for the future of Europe. I didn't know being afraid is now supposed to be morally reprehensible.
I've addressed this fallacy so many times it's not even funny. Quoting from another post I made, for the second time already:
I never said every single member of the group is the same.
You seem to have problems distinguishing between people whose views are based on evidence and rational analysis, and people whose philosophy is no more complex than "damn towelheads."
No, there are no "reliable" statistics, because any link I provide will be dismissed as xenophobic racist rightwing propaganda. It always happens without failure. Then, of course, I am accused of not providing evidence. Nice.
Also, there's rarely any one, magical link to prove something. I have spent years reading about the Islamization of Europe on a daily basis. It's maddening when people think all that information can somehow be condensed into a few links (which will then be dismissed as fascist Nazi propaganda). People don't really even want to know. If they did, they'd read about it themselves.
Not even Europeans know what's happening in Europe, or in their own countries, so it's no wonder that Americans are in the dark.
I would know this because I've read about it for years. All the information I've accumulated has made it painfully obvious.
Hahahaha. You're saying it's ignorance to actively seek information about a subject? I'm guessing you read 1984 and thought that "Ignorance is Strength" was meant to be taken literally.
Based on what?
I was quoting something I wrote to someone else, but it clearly seems that you suffer from the same problem. "Several Muslims" are barely a drop in the ocean.
Read the entire post and you'll find out where I get my information from.
Some of them just give their quiet support and approval. Some of them do things that won't (necessarily) put them under the public spotlight, like forced marriages, genital mutilation, domestic violence in the name of Sharia etc. There is so much going on that you don't know about.
The majority.
I have never met a Chinese person. It therefore follows that Chinese people do not exist.
From another post I made:
Yes, of course they publically claim to fight with their Muslim brothers against the evil Zionists. If they didn't, they'd be in trouble.
That wasn't a troll. I was simply pointing out that my message wasn't off-topic.
Slashdotters sure as fuck aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.
-1 Flamebait, huh.
I take it that the moderator did not manage to get to the end of my post before he went apeshit.
I do not consider dhimmitude to be co-existence.
I wish you were joking.
Suicide bombings are just a new form of Jihad, which has existed as long as Islam has. As for Christian terrorists, they are very rare and do not enjoy any popular, official or theological support. Their existence also does not excuse Islamic terrorism.
The problems we're talking about have nothing to do with that.
Well yeah, if you count dhimmitude as legitimate co-existence. Much of Islam's history, including its supposedly wonderful multiculturalism, is nothing but historical revisionism and propaganda.
Who said anything about a few people?
Immigration and birth rates will ensure that they will not remain a tiny population for long. For a tiny population they sure cause a disproportionate amount of problems too, but this is also the norm in other European countries.
Why are you bringing race into this? I never said anything about race. I did not even know that Muslims now constitute a race, but thanks for letting me know. Also, my opposition towards Muslims has nothing to do with "blind hatred."
*buzz* Wrong answer. This isn't off-topic at all.
Do you have a specific reason to believe that in ten years time there will exist another group that wishes to do what the Muslims are doing, and has the capability to do it?
Their methods are wildly different.
What does skin color have to do with this?
By "anything" I mean doing something about the Islamization of Britain.
Well, tough shit. People will vote for them if they are given no other choice.
It's actually people like you who are destroying Britain and many other European nations. We have major problems with immigration and Islamization, and people like you are actively preventing anyone from finding a solution by shutting down all discussion under the pretext of fighting "fascism," forcibly if necessary (irony alert), and opposing anything that might help. It was not the "far right" that opened the floodgates of immigration and Islamization, it was people like you. You fucked things up and won't clean up the mess you made, so now it's up to groups like the BNP to do it for you. This fascism that you're worried about is a direct result of policies and ideas formulated by people like you.
The longer these problems remain unaddressed, the uglier the solution will be. If you were a doctor and remained logically consistent, you would treat an infected leg wound by waiting until you have to amputate.
By the way, I'm not British.
It isn't, but I'm not aware of any other group that's currently attemping the same thing in the Western world.
It's always been a Muslim phenomena. Spreading Islam was and still is their religious duty. I don't understand how you can say that it won't have any implications in the future, because Muslim immigration has already changed Europe a great deal, and there's no reason to believe that this process will be suddenly stopped or reversed. On the contrary, it gains more and more momentum every year.
Well, in this case it's immigration, but no interbreeding will occur. The immigrants will simply replace the native population, unless the natives take steps to prevent it. People call this multiculturalism.
Because I was talking about groups that are currently attempting the same thing the Muslims are.
So that justifies turning a first world Western democracy into a third world Islamic theocracy? Also, just because demographic changes occured in the past doesn't mean they must occur to infinity.
You were referring to the 16th century. I was talking about the 21st century.
It is when the religion is Islam.
Hahaa, modded -1 troll. Score one for me.
People only resort to downmodding because they cannot come up with a valid counter-argument.
There's also a precedent for genocide. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with genocide.
Also, the precedent you're referring to is completely different.
They're called generalizations. Generally speaking, Muslims do not believe in peaceful co-existence with other religions.
Let me guess: you believe your limited personal experiences can accurately describe the entire world, and you believe information is only valid when it's acquired through direct personal experience? I'm also going to guess that if I said "some Muslims robbed me, ergo most Muslims are robbers" you would disregard it as a stupid generalization, even though it's exactly the same thing.
Thanks to the Internet and other forms of modern communication, there's an infinite amount of information available to anyone who wants it. That's what my views are based on. If you simply rely on direct personal experience, you'll know nothing, because the world is too big for that (unless you have a very, very substantial amount of experience). Even if you read the news on a daily basis, you'll still have only a superficial grasp on all the things that Muslims say and do, which is why it would be a better idea to read sites that specialize in the subject (analogy: if you want to know what's going on in the Half-Life community, it's better to read Planet Half-Life rather than a generic gaming site). That's what I do.
Simply put, your pool of information is too small to be worth anything.
Sarcasm. I has it.
That would be an excellent start, and it's exactly what we're missing.
Just because something was a certain way in the past doesn't mean it will always be that way. In other words, just because there were false alarms in the past doesn't mean that everything is a false alarm. In any case, this has nothing to do with alarmism, because the Islamization of Europe is simply a fact. It's not theory, it's happening before our eyes in a very concrete fashion.
We can't just sit around and only react to individual cases on an individual basis. It's not going to work. If you were fighting a war, would you treat every battle and skirmish as an isolated incident without any larger context? Would you view your enemy as a collection of individuals without a unifying cause?
And what does that say about Muslims? They see any attempt to combat terrorism as an attack against Islam, and then they start making thinly disguised threats of violence and terror.
What? The concept of an Ummah does not exist in Hinduism or Buddhism. Even if it did, we can plainly see that Hindus and Buddhists are not struggling to build one.
No, the trouble comes from their religious beliefs.
Nobody has said that only Muslims can be terrorists, even if nearly all terrorism today is Islamic. What is your point anyway?
If the majority of football supporters were causing massive amounts of problems, then clearly measures would have to be taken against football.
I received a question about some character in Winnie the fucking Pooh. I didn't know the answer to this important piece of cultural trivia, so I guess that means I'm stupid. I also liked all the questions where the answer is completely up to personal interpretation, which is something I've seen in other tests too. Intelligence tests, in my experience, are complete bullshit, and this one is no different.
Using knowledge of culture and history to measure intelligence is dubious. If I can't answer some questions about Western culture, but I can answer several questions about Japanese culture (I know a few things), does that make me stupid or intelligent? Is it more "intelligent" to have deep knowledge of one area or broad knowledge of several areas? And so on.
You get 0 points for reading comprehension.