You seem rather naive about Jihad. It's not some silly ideological bandwagon for teenagers, it's holy war against infidels. Jihadists kill people, or at least try to. Many Muslim youths have left their homes in the West to join the global Jihad.
What does it matter that they're Blogspot addresses? Are you going to argue that the information must be unreliable or false because it's posted on a blog?
We only have Lionhearts words for what the police want to question him for.
I really have no particular reason to disbelieve him.
Frankly, from a man who has already managed to spew death threats at U.S. Conservative supporters (Google "Lionheart BNP" to see how Little Green Footballs dropped him like a hot potato), I doubt that his acts in the U.K. were any more peaceful, especially given his Neo-Nazi connections.
LGF sees Neo Nazis everywhere.
Lionheart is a Neo-Nazi, and Nazism is impossible to advocate without incitement to violence. Murdering the lesser people, and calling for murder, is part and parcel of the ideology.
A Neo Nazi? I can't say I'm very familiar with his writings, but a quick visit to his blog will tell you that he supports Israel and Jews. I searched his blog for "jew" and found the following:
Who are the people who are willing to stand up and be counted with Jewish people in the United Kingdom and around the World? It is me and people like me no matter what the cost to ourselves because it is the right and just thing to do and I personally have some very good Jewish friends. Another Holocaust - Not in my life time!
The same devil driven spirit and motivation that was behind Hitler and his Nazi party...
And so on. Even if he was a Neo Nazi, it wouldn't matter in this case. You're basically saying he should be arrested because of something he might say. That's some serious 1984 shit right there.
As for the riots in Brussels, you Neo-Nazi kooks...
Whoa. When did I become a Neo Nazi? For that matter, when did the demonstrators in Brussels become Neo Nazis? If you recall, one of them was pre-emptively arrested for carrying an Israeli flag. The demonstration was against the Islamization of Europe. What does that have to do with Nazism? Muslims, if anyone, are prone to supporting Hitler and Nazism, because Islam and Nazism have at least one thing in common: hatred towards Jews. For instance, Mein Kampf was a big seller at the Cairo Book Fair. I also remember reading news about Mein Kampf being a best seller in Turkey, and possibly elsewhere.
And again, it was not a riot. It was a peaceful demonstration. If you want real riots, take a look at what certain immigrant groups are doing in Europe.
... are the first to scream and yell in approval and applaud if the police hits on left-wing demonstrators. How does it feel now the shoe's on the other foot, eh?
I wouldn't know what Neo Nazis think about that, but I know that left-wing groups have a track record for violently attacking their political opponents. For example, presumed "anti-fascists" attempted to assassinate members of SIOE (Stop Islamisation of Europe). "Anti-fascists" have been assaulting their enemies for years in Sweden in a similiar fashion.
And as for what I advocate or not, stick your strawman where you can stick your swastikas.
Strawman? Hardly. It's quite clear that you believe freedom of speech should only be granted to people who agree with you.
So a bunch of right-wing kooks ran afoul of statutes...
So you are saying that "right-wing kooks" are not allowed to have an opinion? Nice.
... forbidding incitement to violence
Except nobody was inciting anyone to commit violence. These laws are complete bullshit, and only used to punish people for thought crimes. They're so open-ended that virtually anything can be called "incitement to violence." Factual statements that contradict multiculturalist ideology can be "incitement to violence." The only purpose of these laws is to suppress freedom of speech.
and a bunch of rioting right-wingers got caught by the police? Forgive me if I don't shed a tear.
They weren't rioting. You're making shit up. They were protesting against the Islamization of Europe, and the only reason the authorities banned their demonstration was because they didn't agree with it. The whole idea of freedom of speech is that people can say things even if the government disagrees with it.
For the other Slashdot readers: Lionheart is a stooge of the British National Party, a neo-nazi party whose adherents are well known for their charming custom of 'Paki-bashing'. Not quite the peaceful dissent that Das Modell wants to pretend it is.
How is it not peaceful dissent? Lionheart wasn't summoned by the police because of anything he physically did. He was just guilty of a thought crime. He even specifically said: "I am not calling for people to march in the streets murdering people, we are civilized people we do not need to, we carry the 'sword of truth', that is enough at this moment in time."
You can't deny that people are persecuted for throught crimes, but you don't seem to care either. You're advocating a Soviet-style society where only ideologically pure opinions are allowed.
Really? I actually hear racist comments very often. Like my dutch teacher who said that every muslim was a radical. Like newspaper stories telling about how unfortunate it is not to be able to arrest some orthodox muslims because they haven't committed any crime yet.
I had no idea Muslims are now a race.
There are whole political parties in Belgium and the Netherlands defending the right to discriminate people.
Not really suprising, considering that immigration is slowly but surely destroying many European countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands. What kind of reaction do you expect?
He had **officially** told police to focus investigations on **legal** somali residents of the Netherlands because they were more likely to commit crime.
Well they are more likely to commit crimes, but I doubt that has anything to do with their skin color as you seem to suggest.
You got to be really blind and deaf to claim there is no such a thing as racism in Europe nowadays.
If it really was a problem, people wouldn't have to constantly make shit up. The overwhelming majority of today's "racism" is pure fiction.
Personally, I think this nonsense has more to do with xenophobia, racism, and political control than with combating actual terrorism.
Hardly. The EU is hysterical about fighting perceived xenophobia and racism (unless it's xenophobia and racism towards white people, then it's okay). Immigration from Africa and the Middle-East keeps accelerating, and that's exactly the way the political elite wants it. It's also likely that Turkey will eventually be accepted into the EU, despite not being a European country.
Racism and xenophobia are greatly feared in Europe. In some countries you can be sentenced to fines or imprisonment for saying "racist" or "xenophobic" things. I use quotation marks because actual racism and xenophobia are virtually non-existent these days. Practically everything that passes for racism these days isn't even about race, and criticizing a belief system (Islam) or immigration policies is confused with xenophobia. It's utter madness, and the "tolerant" elite are perpetually shitting bricks because in their minds there's a racist Nazi genocider lurking behind every corner. Meanwhile everyone else is walking on egg shells and trying really hard not to get lynched by a crazed mob of morally enlightened thought police for saying something politically incorrect.
Note to moderators: this post is not a flamebait, nor is it a troll. I mean every word I say and I will respond to anyone who challenges me. If you don't know what flamebaiting and trolling mean, don't mod people as flamebaiters or trollers.
You tell me you know/are pretty sure/whatever then prove it. Don't affirm thing you imagined. Your imagination and belief is no proof. You're too lazy and dumb (or have you never been in the army?) buthere you go.
Like I already told you, it's an absurd claim. You might as well call me lazy and dumb for not attempting to refute the claim that soldiers deployed to Iraq are equipped with water pistols.
I'll spare you the effort of clicking:
I don't see how this proves that as a rule US troops are not educated in laws of warfare. Abu Ghraib was a total fuckup in general, and it occured years ago.
I will not link to previously linked articles (as you obviously did not even click on the links) which show executions of prisoners and wounded... or is that part of the Geneva Conventions?
This is the old "since the US military is not perfect, they're all savage murderers" argument.
Am I? I lived in different countries, cultures and places. I adapt quite well. And I understand how rules are applied and enforced in the places I live. I talk to people come to know and understand them and their story... listen to their personal stories. As an immigrant I learn to play by the local rules.
Doesn't mean you can't be a multiculturalist drone. You certainly sound like one.
Have you been assaulted by someone looking a bit tanned? This would explain a shift of stance and a perception of continual persecution (you display this erratic behavior in most of your posts).
My shift of perception started when I began to wonder why Muslims all over the world were having fits of hysterical, homicidal rage over some pictures drawn in Denmark. Speaking of which, caricatures of Mohammed recently caused a few deaths in Nigeria.
I'm sorry but linking to a website blocked by corporate firewalls for being racist / Islamophobic is not the greatest source.
Hah hah. A site run by former Muslims is Islamophobic and racist. That's a good one. Maybe you shouldn't blindly trust some stupid webfilter. Many Finnish ISPs maintain a blacklist of sites provided by the police. Before I switched to OpenDNS, I was regularly prevented from accessing absolutely 100% legal sites because the idiots in charge of the list weren't too specific about what sites they included.
I have been reading that. I can't say it's journalism... Linking Ottoman invasions to justify the war in Iraq is basically sick. But you might find comfort in this kind of "stories".
As I suspected, this is hopeless. You will simply deny historical facts because they just don't happen to fit your ideology.
My god you formidably fail to read (or understand) the main piece of information and bounce on the less relevant part. The word terrorism is well defined... Oxford English Dictionary: "government by intimidation". But is was quite extended. Despite that the definition of the invasion of Iraq falls into most definitions you can find.
A lot of words are well defined. Doesn't mean they can't be abused until they lose all meaning.
Yes... I see you are quite limited.
How the fuck can you argue that being serious is trolling? That's completely batshit crazy.
I should stop assuming everyone has the same level of knowledge... My quote was a reference to the deep problem of French immigration policy, to the political tensions and other factors which led french youth from lower classes to the streets as well as set french students on strike (political leftist sabotage and agitation). Please don't use the French riots as an example as you are too far from the topic.
Similiar riots (and other problems) occur in many others places in Europe. Immigrants from
1. Ones persons verifiable personal contact to an act of terrorism is not "utterly meaningless" - it is at least one datum. I guess if I were to call a fact that your school buddy lost a leg in 9/11 "utterly meaningless" I would be marked as a troll too.
When talking about terrorism on a global scale, one personal experience is indeed meaningless.
If I were to say something like "And what about those Christian American paediophile soldiers who pack-raped a 14 year old Iraq girl then shot her and her family in Mahmoudiya - those sons-of-a-b@#$h Americans are evil". That, my friend, is quite a worthy troll.
No, just looking at your statements was sufficient.
Choo choo. Here comes the clue train, last stop is you: disagreeing with Slashdot's leftist dogma is not trolling.
Especially get on him for the 'their own fault' statement.
Really? Is there perhaps a Zionist Mind Control Satellite forcing them to do things against their will?
Not every member of a group is an extremist
And I never said otherwise.
and if we antagonize those members who work against extremism, we do ourselves a severe disservice as well.
It's actually "moderate" Muslims and Islamic apologists like you who do the most damage to reform efforts by shutting down all critical discussion about Islam and attacking freedom of speech.
Pulling out the Nazi card for no reason is juvenile and irritating.
I am not informed well enough to discuss this matter, could you link to some sources of yours?.
Muslims have waged Jihad for nearly one and a half millennia all over the world, though most people are unaware of it because they're too busy apologizing for the Crusades. Islam Watch, a site run by former Muslims, has a collection of articles on the history of Jihad.
I don't know so many muslims but i probably know more of them than you must have ever seen in your life to act in such an xenophobic way... but please enlighten me, link to information about jihad adhering currents and non adherents.
There's over a billion Muslims in the world. The amount of Muslims you know is not even a drop in the sea. What exactly does it matter that you know a few Muslims? It's hilarious that if I, for example, cite a statistic that says 500,000 Muslims in country X support Jihad, people say that I'm generalizing based on just a few people. Yet when these same people want to prove that the Vast Majority of Muslims are peaceful, they tell me that they know a Muslim at work and he's a really cool guy.
Also, I'm not xenophobic. Why would you even accuse me of xenophobia?
I totally agree on that... Also note that this regime is backed and supported by the defenders of freedom, the USA! (That was a very tempting one, sorry)
The US has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia's culture.
I do recognize there is a problem with extremists... all over the world and whatever their religion and color and shaving habits.
Not all extremists are equal in numbers, influence and danger.
The fact that Radical Islam gets all the attention doesn't mean you should put all the muslims in the same basket. [It's impossible anyway, they won't fit (joke! don't flame!)]. All germans are not nazis... are they? So stop generalizing, meet people, talk to them.
I never said all Muslims are anything. Why should I meet people and talk to them? Again, there over a billion Muslims in the world.
You're on the Internet, and you presumably use it frequently to find all kinds of information. Why, then, do you not use the Internet to inform yourself of things related to Islam and Muslims? It seems that you don't want to know what's happening outside your immediate surroundings, and you believe personal experiences are the only way to know anything. The Internet enables people to access a virtually unlimited amount of information, as well as read news and personal experiences from others. It's like a hive mind. I have not personally been to some random Muslim controlled territory in Sweden or Britain, but many others have, and their experiences are just as valid as anyone else's. The information available at your disposal is non-existent because you arbitrarily limit it to things that you have personally witnessed, whereas I use the Internet to gain information from all corners of the world. My pool of information is astronomically larger than yours.
That reminds me of something I once called the fallacy of personal experiences. I have noticed that the validity of a personal experience is determined solely by its ideological and moral purity. If a person goes into a Muslim neighborhood and experiences terrible and negative things, he is labelled a xenophobic Nazi racist. His experience contradicts multiculturalist ideology, and it's morally wrong to contradict it. If another person says that he recently met a nice Muslim family, everyone takes that experience as further proof of the fact that the Vast Majority of Muslims are peaceful and decent people.
Islamic culture is peaceful... The islamist who call for Jihad for political reasons and introduced suicide as a norm are heretics in their own religion... Just like the Catholics during the XIII and XV to XVII centuries there is a primitive violent movement in the religion. Religion have been used as a good justification it hundreds of murders and massacres.
There's nothing heretical about what they're doing, and they don't do it for political reasons. They follow their religion correctly, in the footsteps of Mohammed. The methods have changed to reflect the diminished power of Muslim nations, but the nature of Jihad warfare has not changed during its ~1400 years of existence.
I think you don't read the news. Anyway "chritianofascism" was related to your "islamofascism"... You know humor, sarcasm and all... no?
This "Chritianofascism" of yours is an imaginary construct, at least in the context of US foreign policy. Just because Islamofascism exists doesn't mean there somehow must be an equal, identical force within Christianity. The world is not symmetrical and balanced.
Please, prove it was a racist act done by muslims as it is the topic here (a hint look for Mama Galledou).
I don't remember claiming that it was a racist attack. I don't remember bringing up race, either.
It is for the lads from the cités... Just as it was for right wing skinheads to drown or burn muslims and jews a couple of years back... Idiocy and violence just passed into the hands of another undereducated part of the society... the part that was repressed before and expresses its blind, pointless rage now. I have been an immigrant and also lived through some difficult moments with some native idiots... but I had a pretty strong education and feel blessed for it.
Funny how it's always immigrants from Islamic countries that do this kind of stuff. I'm sure it's just a bizarre coincidence. Nothing to see here, move along. Even if we pretend that their culture has nothing to do with their actions, it's still a fact that they are causing immense amounts of trouble and instability.
Which muslims? Shias or Sunni? Ismailis, Alawis, Druzes, Twelvers, Imami, Zaidiyyah, Ash'ari, Maturidiyyah, Athariyyah... ? You might ignore it, but there is a large number of currents in Islam just as there are different currents in Christianity and Judaism.
There are probably some sects that don't believe in Jihad, but they are insignificant.
I believe Mormons and other sects in our culture are very close to dark ages on that point. But I might be wrong here I am not familiar with these christian sects. I believe american culture concerning women and sex is very different from mine... I don't consider women as "hoes"... nor do i think you will "burn in hell for being sexually active as a teenager" to quote only two American ideals
What the hell do Americans have to do with this? Are you completely unable to deal with Islam and Muslims without immediately trying to drag someone or something else down to their level, or without trying to ignore issues by pointing the finger elsewhere?
"American culture" doesn't see women as hoes, nor does "American culture" dictate that you will burn in hell for being sexuall active as a teenager. You're either deliberately misrepresenting them or you're confused, but either way I really have to salute you for thinking that encouraging abstinence is morally equal to murdering or raping women for acting in an un-Islamic fashion (which can mean anything from going outside without a male escort to wearing Western clothes to getting an education). There is no religion or culture on Earth that treats women as badly as Islam does. Today's Saudi Arabia is more backwards than Europe or Asia a thousand years ago.
Again. It might not be legal for soldiers of the regula
Japan and Germany were attacking other nations, thus the suspicion against people of Japanese and Germany descent. At least some Muslim nations are funding terrorists, thus the suspicion of Muslims. I don't know how you can dismiss the similarities. If you are in agreement with the interment during WWII, then at least have the balls to say so. Then at least you would have a consistent point of view. If you don't see a problem with what happened then, it's obvious that you wouldn't see a problem now.
That... doesn't make any sense. Seriously, what the fuck?
How is that a rational argument? My friends vs. the number of extremists among 1.5 billion Muslims. Yeah, that's a fair comparison.
It's not supposed to be fair. You're using a few friends to argue that most Muslims are not fundamentalists, but that doesn't work since there's a much larger amount of Muslims out there who are fundamentalists. You're actually arguing that your friends are somehow more important and influential than, say, 50 million people.
You're more likely to killed by a non-Muslim in New York. Maybe you're statistically more likely to get killed by someone of a particular race or ethnicity. Let's fear them too! What point were you trying to make?
I never said Muslims should be feared because you could suddenly be killed by one (though the chances of that happening will greatly increase if you wander into a Muslim controlled area in Europe).
Am I going to argue that all Muslims pose no threat? No, of course not. I'm a New Yorker. I'm also not going to say that all Muslim nations pose no threat to other nations, because that's obviously not true. On the other hand, you argue that Islam is a Religion of Hate(tm). How small is your world that you think that all Muslims are evil and violent or actually believe that a majority of them are?
The de facto majority of them are, in one way or another, enemies of the modern world (but primarily the West). Some of them are actual terrorists, some of them support terrorists, some of them engage in propaganda, manipulation and infiltration, some threaten and bully, and some commit crimes, while many others just give them their silent support. Even so-called moderate Muslims support these people, but often unwittingly. They confuse and mislead infidels by claiming that Islam is a Religion of Peace (tm) and that "extremists" are just misunderstanding its unquestionably peaceful teachings. They may try to silence dissidents by accusing them of Islamophobia, xenophobia, Nazism and racism. They defend and rationalize the actions of terrorists and fundamentalists. By doing these things, they ensure that no reform within Islam will ever be possible, assuming it's possible at all. Actual reformists are often threatened, harrassed, assaulted or murdered, even if they live in Western countries.
If that were true, the U.S. would have been driven out of Afghanistan and Iraq a long time ago because the death toll would have been at least an order of magnitude higher than it is now.
As I said, not everyone engages in physical warfare.
I'm not ignoring anything. You just make broad, sweeping rationalizations about 1.5 billion people, hence the hate mongering. Would it appease you to call it prejudice instead?
Prejudiced would imply that I'm passing judgement without sufficient knowledge, but that's incorrect. I have plenty of knowledge, and I know what's going on. Most people don't really know anything. They don't follow any specialized news services or read about the subject, but they still consider themselves experts of the highest order.
This may come as a shock to you guys, but trolls don't write long, detailed and serious rebuttals.
What's funny is that modding someone -1 for no reason can actually be considered trolling. But I'm sure the irony is too hard for Slashdotters to grasp.
Do you fucking morons even know what trolling is? Having an unpopular opinion is not trolling. Having an opinion that differs from Slashdot's leftist dogma is not trolling. Get a fucking clue.
You think it's a bad reason to accuse jews or irish and harass them, send them to torture camps as soon as you think they might be a threat to your comfort? On the other hand when it concerns muslims it's normal... So where exactly is that limit between normal and not? Is it when your skin is not the right color? Your beard too long? Or is it the religion?
That doesn't make any rational or logical sense. Just because Hitler was a crazy person who persecuted the Jews for no reason doesn't mean that it's exactly the same thing with Muslims. By the way, I don't remember saying that Muslims should be sent to death camps or that they should be opposed because they're a "threat to your comfort."
It's people like you who are responsible for the rise of Sadam, Hitler, Bush and other despots. You justification is: there are "good" reasons to persecution. Hitler shared your point of view.
Depends on how you define persecution. You don't seem to have a problem with the way Muslims persecute people, though. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the way religious minorities are treated in Islamic societies.
Instead of going after the people who failed to act (or juts let things happen that 9/11 to get the convenient war propaganda), you let your rights burn, you justify your own oppression, you take the lies about terrorism in Iraq as granted (the only terrorists active in Iraq were backed by the US and were acting to replace Sadam by a more cooperative dictator, just like in the very well documented coup against Mohammed Mossadegh which led to the current Iranian situation). You support the american terrorism. You can't recognise a failed leader when you see one, Bush speaks in YOUR name, he acts in YOUR name.
Newsflash: I'm not American. I'm Northern European.
This matter has hardly anything to do with 9/11, Bush, Iraq or the US. You're clearly way out of your depth in this discussion.
You can't count any of those in Iraq or Afghanistan as these are part of the war and civil war process.. Otherwise you would have to count every person killed by us troops as a victims of US terrorists activities.
The statistics only count incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan where particularly heinous terrorist tactics were used. However, Iraq and Afghanistan are just two places. Islamic terrorism is global. Thailand is a notable hotspot, though.
There's a dramatic difference between what terrorists and US forces are doing. The terrorists routinely, deliberately and indiscriminately target civilians because they're waging Jihad against infidels or heretics. They also have no qualms about using innovative tactics like child suicide bombers. US forces, as a rule, do not deliberately kill civilians, and it's not legal for them to do so. One reason for collateral damage and accidental killings in Iraq is the situation that has been caused by terrorists. Any person US forces come in contact with can be hostile. Any car that comes near could be set to explode. It's really easy to armchair criticize them when you're not in that situation. If the terrorists would cease their Jihad efforts, Iraq would be a much more peaceful place.
he british were saying that. Anyway the IRA vs UDA/british government was a war over national independence and political influence. What happens in Iraq now is exactly the same thing... but instead of one IRA there are dozens of clans and politicians with their own armies. I don't believe even one tenth of the bombings in that country would be driven only by religion. Sadam had focused on nationalism driving religion away from the government. He had most extremists executed or broken, I don't see how so many people would have changed into religious fanatics overnight. But seeing abuses committed by your troops and the overall chaos and destruction of their nation might have
Seriously? That was a reference to the internment of the Japanese and Germans (even American citizens of Japanese and German decent) in America during World World II.
Too bad those internments have nothing to do with anything.
The examples are real ones taken from history. They're not theoretical.
What are those examples supposed to prove? Because Japanese and German people were once treated with suspicion, it must somehow mean that treating Muslims with suspicion is wrong? Or what? I don't get it. This is now, and what Muslims are doing or not doing has nothing to do with what some other people were doing or not doing many decades ago. There's no connection.
The fact still remains that Muslims have a reputation for being terrorists and troublemakers, and it's their own fault. Thus, people are suspicious of them. Their reputation is well deserved, and if you look at Islam's history you'll see that there's nothing new about what they're doing.
Oh, and I've had Muslim friends. They never even tried to kill me for being an infidel! They must've failed terrorism training camp or something.
I bet the number of Muslim friends you have is considerably lower than the number of Muslims who would gladly decapitate you. Are you really going to argue that Muslims pose no threat and that Islam is a Religion of Peace (tm) just because you have a couple of benign Muslim friends? Did it ever occur to you that maybe there's a world outside your small sphere of existence?
Your brand of hate mongering is eerily similar to the kinds of justifications that has been used throughout history in order to unjustly attack or oppress "undesirable" groups of people.
Except I'm not, you know, attacking or oppressing anyone. Muslims, on the other hand, are actually doing that as we speak.
Muslims always get a free pass. No matter how much they threaten, terrorize, kill and rampage, nobody says a word. If someone does say something, he's guilty of "hate mongering" or "racism." Muslims are never guilty of anything. Do you have a rational reason for ignoring what they do and attacking anyone who talks about it?
Slashdot Mirror
You seem rather naive about Jihad. It's not some silly ideological bandwagon for teenagers, it's holy war against infidels. Jihadists kill people, or at least try to. Many Muslim youths have left their homes in the West to join the global Jihad.
What does it matter that they're Blogspot addresses? Are you going to argue that the information must be unreliable or false because it's posted on a blog?
Ok, thanks for that insightful observation.
I really have no particular reason to disbelieve him.
LGF sees Neo Nazis everywhere.
A Neo Nazi? I can't say I'm very familiar with his writings, but a quick visit to his blog will tell you that he supports Israel and Jews. I searched his blog for "jew" and found the following:
And so on. Even if he was a Neo Nazi, it wouldn't matter in this case. You're basically saying he should be arrested because of something he might say. That's some serious 1984 shit right there.
Whoa. When did I become a Neo Nazi? For that matter, when did the demonstrators in Brussels become Neo Nazis? If you recall, one of them was pre-emptively arrested for carrying an Israeli flag. The demonstration was against the Islamization of Europe. What does that have to do with Nazism? Muslims, if anyone, are prone to supporting Hitler and Nazism, because Islam and Nazism have at least one thing in common: hatred towards Jews. For instance, Mein Kampf was a big seller at the Cairo Book Fair. I also remember reading news about Mein Kampf being a best seller in Turkey, and possibly elsewhere.
And again, it was not a riot. It was a peaceful demonstration. If you want real riots, take a look at what certain immigrant groups are doing in Europe.
I wouldn't know what Neo Nazis think about that, but I know that left-wing groups have a track record for violently attacking their political opponents. For example, presumed "anti-fascists" attempted to assassinate members of SIOE (Stop Islamisation of Europe). "Anti-fascists" have been assaulting their enemies for years in Sweden in a similiar fashion.
Strawman? Hardly. It's quite clear that you believe freedom of speech should only be granted to people who agree with you.
So you are saying that "right-wing kooks" are not allowed to have an opinion? Nice.
Except nobody was inciting anyone to commit violence. These laws are complete bullshit, and only used to punish people for thought crimes. They're so open-ended that virtually anything can be called "incitement to violence." Factual statements that contradict multiculturalist ideology can be "incitement to violence." The only purpose of these laws is to suppress freedom of speech.
They weren't rioting. You're making shit up. They were protesting against the Islamization of Europe, and the only reason the authorities banned their demonstration was because they didn't agree with it. The whole idea of freedom of speech is that people can say things even if the government disagrees with it.
How is it not peaceful dissent? Lionheart wasn't summoned by the police because of anything he physically did. He was just guilty of a thought crime. He even specifically said: "I am not calling for people to march in the streets murdering people, we are civilized people we do not need to, we carry the 'sword of truth', that is enough at this moment in time."
You can't deny that people are persecuted for throught crimes, but you don't seem to care either. You're advocating a Soviet-style society where only ideologically pure opinions are allowed.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/01/asylum-in-usa-for-lionheart.html
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/01/its-my-bloody-right-to-do-so.html
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/01/muzzled-again-in-finland.html
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/06/muzzled-in-skne.html
This one is kind of similiar:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/arrested-in-brussels-for-carrying.html
The demonstration mentioned in the above link was banned and quite brutally suppressed because the authorities personally disagreed with it.
No. Why would I?
Calling someone a troll without a reason constitutes trolling. Oh, the irony.
I had no idea Muslims are now a race.
Not really suprising, considering that immigration is slowly but surely destroying many European countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands. What kind of reaction do you expect?
Well they are more likely to commit crimes, but I doubt that has anything to do with their skin color as you seem to suggest.
If it really was a problem, people wouldn't have to constantly make shit up. The overwhelming majority of today's "racism" is pure fiction.
Hardly. The EU is hysterical about fighting perceived xenophobia and racism (unless it's xenophobia and racism towards white people, then it's okay). Immigration from Africa and the Middle-East keeps accelerating, and that's exactly the way the political elite wants it. It's also likely that Turkey will eventually be accepted into the EU, despite not being a European country.
Racism and xenophobia are greatly feared in Europe. In some countries you can be sentenced to fines or imprisonment for saying "racist" or "xenophobic" things. I use quotation marks because actual racism and xenophobia are virtually non-existent these days. Practically everything that passes for racism these days isn't even about race, and criticizing a belief system (Islam) or immigration policies is confused with xenophobia. It's utter madness, and the "tolerant" elite are perpetually shitting bricks because in their minds there's a racist Nazi genocider lurking behind every corner. Meanwhile everyone else is walking on egg shells and trying really hard not to get lynched by a crazed mob of morally enlightened thought police for saying something politically incorrect.
Note to moderators: this post is not a flamebait, nor is it a troll. I mean every word I say and I will respond to anyone who challenges me. If you don't know what flamebaiting and trolling mean, don't mod people as flamebaiters or trollers.
Like I already told you, it's an absurd claim. You might as well call me lazy and dumb for not attempting to refute the claim that soldiers deployed to Iraq are equipped with water pistols.
I don't see how this proves that as a rule US troops are not educated in laws of warfare. Abu Ghraib was a total fuckup in general, and it occured years ago.
This is the old "since the US military is not perfect, they're all savage murderers" argument.
Doesn't mean you can't be a multiculturalist drone. You certainly sound like one.
My shift of perception started when I began to wonder why Muslims all over the world were having fits of hysterical, homicidal rage over some pictures drawn in Denmark. Speaking of which, caricatures of Mohammed recently caused a few deaths in Nigeria.
Hah hah. A site run by former Muslims is Islamophobic and racist. That's a good one. Maybe you shouldn't blindly trust some stupid webfilter. Many Finnish ISPs maintain a blacklist of sites provided by the police. Before I switched to OpenDNS, I was regularly prevented from accessing absolutely 100% legal sites because the idiots in charge of the list weren't too specific about what sites they included.
As I suspected, this is hopeless. You will simply deny historical facts because they just don't happen to fit your ideology.
A lot of words are well defined. Doesn't mean they can't be abused until they lose all meaning.
How the fuck can you argue that being serious is trolling? That's completely batshit crazy.
Similiar riots (and other problems) occur in many others places in Europe. Immigrants from
When talking about terrorism on a global scale, one personal experience is indeed meaningless.
Uh, so what? What does that have to do with me?
Choo choo. Here comes the clue train, last stop is you: disagreeing with Slashdot's leftist dogma is not trolling.
Really? Is there perhaps a Zionist Mind Control Satellite forcing them to do things against their will?
And I never said otherwise.
It's actually "moderate" Muslims and Islamic apologists like you who do the most damage to reform efforts by shutting down all critical discussion about Islam and attacking freedom of speech.
Sorry guys, protesting ideologically driven mod abuse isn't trolling either. Try again.
Pulling out the Nazi card for no reason is juvenile and irritating.
Muslims have waged Jihad for nearly one and a half millennia all over the world, though most people are unaware of it because they're too busy apologizing for the Crusades. Islam Watch, a site run by former Muslims, has a collection of articles on the history of Jihad.
There's over a billion Muslims in the world. The amount of Muslims you know is not even a drop in the sea. What exactly does it matter that you know a few Muslims? It's hilarious that if I, for example, cite a statistic that says 500,000 Muslims in country X support Jihad, people say that I'm generalizing based on just a few people. Yet when these same people want to prove that the Vast Majority of Muslims are peaceful, they tell me that they know a Muslim at work and he's a really cool guy.
Also, I'm not xenophobic. Why would you even accuse me of xenophobia?
The US has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia's culture.
Not all extremists are equal in numbers, influence and danger.
I never said all Muslims are anything. Why should I meet people and talk to them? Again, there over a billion Muslims in the world.
You're on the Internet, and you presumably use it frequently to find all kinds of information. Why, then, do you not use the Internet to inform yourself of things related to Islam and Muslims? It seems that you don't want to know what's happening outside your immediate surroundings, and you believe personal experiences are the only way to know anything. The Internet enables people to access a virtually unlimited amount of information, as well as read news and personal experiences from others. It's like a hive mind. I have not personally been to some random Muslim controlled territory in Sweden or Britain, but many others have, and their experiences are just as valid as anyone else's. The information available at your disposal is non-existent because you arbitrarily limit it to things that you have personally witnessed, whereas I use the Internet to gain information from all corners of the world. My pool of information is astronomically larger than yours.
That reminds me of something I once called the fallacy of personal experiences. I have noticed that the validity of a personal experience is determined solely by its ideological and moral purity. If a person goes into a Muslim neighborhood and experiences terrible and negative things, he is labelled a xenophobic Nazi racist. His experience contradicts multiculturalist ideology, and it's morally wrong to contradict it. If another person says that he recently met a nice Muslim family, everyone takes that experience as further proof of the fact that the Vast Majority of Muslims are peaceful and decent people.
Also, a single personal experience describes a
There's nothing heretical about what they're doing, and they don't do it for political reasons. They follow their religion correctly, in the footsteps of Mohammed. The methods have changed to reflect the diminished power of Muslim nations, but the nature of Jihad warfare has not changed during its ~1400 years of existence.
This "Chritianofascism" of yours is an imaginary construct, at least in the context of US foreign policy. Just because Islamofascism exists doesn't mean there somehow must be an equal, identical force within Christianity. The world is not symmetrical and balanced.
I don't remember claiming that it was a racist attack. I don't remember bringing up race, either.
Funny how it's always immigrants from Islamic countries that do this kind of stuff. I'm sure it's just a bizarre coincidence. Nothing to see here, move along. Even if we pretend that their culture has nothing to do with their actions, it's still a fact that they are causing immense amounts of trouble and instability.
There are probably some sects that don't believe in Jihad, but they are insignificant.
What the hell do Americans have to do with this? Are you completely unable to deal with Islam and Muslims without immediately trying to drag someone or something else down to their level, or without trying to ignore issues by pointing the finger elsewhere?
"American culture" doesn't see women as hoes, nor does "American culture" dictate that you will burn in hell for being sexuall active as a teenager. You're either deliberately misrepresenting them or you're confused, but either way I really have to salute you for thinking that encouraging abstinence is morally equal to murdering or raping women for acting in an un-Islamic fashion (which can mean anything from going outside without a male escort to wearing Western clothes to getting an education). There is no religion or culture on Earth that treats women as badly as Islam does. Today's Saudi Arabia is more backwards than Europe or Asia a thousand years ago.
That... doesn't make any sense. Seriously, what the fuck?
It's not supposed to be fair. You're using a few friends to argue that most Muslims are not fundamentalists, but that doesn't work since there's a much larger amount of Muslims out there who are fundamentalists. You're actually arguing that your friends are somehow more important and influential than, say, 50 million people.
I never said Muslims should be feared because you could suddenly be killed by one (though the chances of that happening will greatly increase if you wander into a Muslim controlled area in Europe).
The de facto majority of them are, in one way or another, enemies of the modern world (but primarily the West). Some of them are actual terrorists, some of them support terrorists, some of them engage in propaganda, manipulation and infiltration, some threaten and bully, and some commit crimes, while many others just give them their silent support. Even so-called moderate Muslims support these people, but often unwittingly. They confuse and mislead infidels by claiming that Islam is a Religion of Peace (tm) and that "extremists" are just misunderstanding its unquestionably peaceful teachings. They may try to silence dissidents by accusing them of Islamophobia, xenophobia, Nazism and racism. They defend and rationalize the actions of terrorists and fundamentalists. By doing these things, they ensure that no reform within Islam will ever be possible, assuming it's possible at all. Actual reformists are often threatened, harrassed, assaulted or murdered, even if they live in Western countries.
As I said, not everyone engages in physical warfare.
Prejudiced would imply that I'm passing judgement without sufficient knowledge, but that's incorrect. I have plenty of knowledge, and I know what's going on. Most people don't really know anything. They don't follow any specialized news services or read about the subject, but they still consider themselves experts of the highest order.
This may come as a shock to you guys, but trolls don't write long, detailed and serious rebuttals.
What's funny is that modding someone -1 for no reason can actually be considered trolling. But I'm sure the irony is too hard for Slashdotters to grasp.
Do you fucking morons even know what trolling is? Having an unpopular opinion is not trolling. Having an opinion that differs from Slashdot's leftist dogma is not trolling. Get a fucking clue.
That doesn't make any rational or logical sense. Just because Hitler was a crazy person who persecuted the Jews for no reason doesn't mean that it's exactly the same thing with Muslims. By the way, I don't remember saying that Muslims should be sent to death camps or that they should be opposed because they're a "threat to your comfort."
Depends on how you define persecution. You don't seem to have a problem with the way Muslims persecute people, though. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the way religious minorities are treated in Islamic societies.
Newsflash: I'm not American. I'm Northern European.
This matter has hardly anything to do with 9/11, Bush, Iraq or the US. You're clearly way out of your depth in this discussion.
The statistics only count incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan where particularly heinous terrorist tactics were used. However, Iraq and Afghanistan are just two places. Islamic terrorism is global. Thailand is a notable hotspot, though.
There's a dramatic difference between what terrorists and US forces are doing. The terrorists routinely, deliberately and indiscriminately target civilians because they're waging Jihad against infidels or heretics. They also have no qualms about using innovative tactics like child suicide bombers. US forces, as a rule, do not deliberately kill civilians, and it's not legal for them to do so. One reason for collateral damage and accidental killings in Iraq is the situation that has been caused by terrorists. Any person US forces come in contact with can be hostile. Any car that comes near could be set to explode. It's really easy to armchair criticize them when you're not in that situation. If the terrorists would cease their Jihad efforts, Iraq would be a much more peaceful place.
Too bad those internments have nothing to do with anything.
What are those examples supposed to prove? Because Japanese and German people were once treated with suspicion, it must somehow mean that treating Muslims with suspicion is wrong? Or what? I don't get it. This is now, and what Muslims are doing or not doing has nothing to do with what some other people were doing or not doing many decades ago. There's no connection.
The fact still remains that Muslims have a reputation for being terrorists and troublemakers, and it's their own fault. Thus, people are suspicious of them. Their reputation is well deserved, and if you look at Islam's history you'll see that there's nothing new about what they're doing.
I bet the number of Muslim friends you have is considerably lower than the number of Muslims who would gladly decapitate you. Are you really going to argue that Muslims pose no threat and that Islam is a Religion of Peace (tm) just because you have a couple of benign Muslim friends? Did it ever occur to you that maybe there's a world outside your small sphere of existence?
Except I'm not, you know, attacking or oppressing anyone. Muslims, on the other hand, are actually doing that as we speak.
Muslims always get a free pass. No matter how much they threaten, terrorize, kill and rampage, nobody says a word. If someone does say something, he's guilty of "hate mongering" or "racism." Muslims are never guilty of anything. Do you have a rational reason for ignoring what they do and attacking anyone who talks about it?
Wow, someone modded me -1! What a brilliant counter-argument! You have surely proven me wrong!
Modding me -1 instead of presenting a counter-argument is the best way of proving me wrong. Obviously.
Ok, how was this trolling? Anyone care to explain? I must be the only Slashdotter who even knows what "troll" means.
Remember: if you disagree with Slashdot dogma, you're a troll!