14-Feb-15 World View -- Germany commemorates the firebombing of Dresden / Generational Dynamics and prolactin

[Guest]

Once again, you try to justify your hate. No religion has an exclusive on violence and genocide. Who slaughtered the Jews? Who slaughtered the Chinese in 1920s-1945? It wasn't the Muslims. Once again, your "argument" rings hollow.

Let's listen to what Ronald Reagan had to say when asked about the about the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia by the Serbs:

"Evil still stalks the planet," said Reagan on Dec. 4, 1992 when he addressed the Oxford Union Society in England. "Its ideology may be nothing more than blood lust; no program more complex than economic plunder or military aggrandizement. But it is evil all the same. And wherever there are forces that would destroy the human spirit and diminish human potential, they must be recognized and they must be countered."

More to the point, evil is evil. What ever guise it operates under.

vincecate would like everyone to believe that Muslims hold some special place in the rouges gallery of evil, they do not. vincecate is trying to justify (and he is tring to do exactly that) genocide against Muslims. It's truly horrific.

The speech at Oxford was a truly great one. And, makes me cringe when I think of the people who run the world today. The 1980s was a time of revival, rebirth. The revival of America under Ronald Reagan. The resurrection of the UK under Thatcher. I was hopeful. Now, today, I feel hopelessness all around me. And anger. And this is where midgets like vincecate come into play. People like vincecate are a dime a dozen. Nothing special.

We live in the age of vincecate. A miserable age. An age of mediocracy. An age of the substandard.

Here is Ronald Reagan's speech to the Oxford Union:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?35586-1/ar ... orld-order

I watched the whole thing back in 1992. It's still valid. This speech still matters.

[Raynote]

Yet in 2015, the muslims are the problem. Nearly worldwide. Not the christians, not the communists, not the buddhists, not the hindus...
I don't know why...
50 years ago in France the muslims were not a problem, now they are. Why?

[Guest]

Six Million Muslims in France. How many are a problem? How many? If France had six million Jihadis, France would collapse. It hasn't, and it won't. The policeman who was killed in a shoot out in front the Charlie Weekly was a Muslim. Was he a problem too?

Russia is invading the Ukraine, killing thousands. Are the Russians Muslim? Or are the Russians good guys in your eyes? Is the war in the Ukraine another Muslim war? Orthodox Christian Serbia spent the 90s committing mass rape and genocide across the Balkans, and no lifted a finger until the American government finally said enough and unilaterally lifted the UN arms embargo after the Srebrenica massacre. Did anyone ever publically denounced Slavic orthodoxy? No, they didn't. And Serbia and Russia are still actively stirring up trouble. Why now? Why have these people been running wild since 1991? Was the collapse of Communism too much for the Slavic orthodox to bear? I don't know. You tell me.

If I were French, I'd be more worried about Russia than French Muslims. Or do you think the Muslims would support a Russian invasion? A bigger problem (Russia) faces Europe than a few alienated European Muslim youth.

The problems with immigrant communities in France is a univesal immigrant problem: a failure to integrate into society, alienation, lack of opportunity, etc. The same could be said for Latinos and even American blacks in the US. I'm not excusing criminality-never would. What I am saying is that its not just Muslim immigrants having difficulties and causing problems.

Genocide is not the solution. Or do you think it is? (I know what vincecate's answer will be.)

[Guest]

I'd like to add something.

All this sky is falling jihadi talk made me remember something that John wrote a few months ago. In the 1930s, everyone talked about war with Germany and the Nazis, but it was Japan who attacked the US. Not Germany. Now you have Russia, a nuclear armed country with a ramshackle 2nd rate army (at best) rampaging across the central plain, and everyone in Europe is going on about the threat of a few Muslim gunmen. Europe bends over backwards to appease Russia (and lets Serbia off the hook for Genocide) and yet Russia keeps violating every agreement it makes. Serbia plays both sides of the fence, and Greece is sticking its finger in the air trying to figure out what to do next. And yet, most of the news is about a ISIS-a long way away from Europe. It seems to me that John's theories work. People don't change. Unfortunately. Just what is the biggest threat facing Europe?

[John]

Just what is the biggest threat facing Europe?

China.

[John]

> Yet in 2015, the muslims are the problem. Nearly worldwide. Not
> the christians, not the communists, not the buddhists, not the
> hindus...

> I don't know why...

> 50 years ago in France the muslims were not a problem, now they
> are. Why?

The first generation of Algerians were grateful to France. Their
grandchildren are not.

[vincecate]

When a country breaks up it makes sense that there is a fight. If one group is seceding how much territory do they get to take with them is going to be a source of contention. Will they even be allowed to leave. If a country is breaking in two, where should the line be. When one country is breaking up other countries may support one side or another. And if 51% in some piece voting to seced from the initial country is enough to leave, then 51% voting in a piece of the new country can logically break off from that. But the new country will not be happy about that idea. These kinds of conflicts don't seem to have any clean logical solution. Self determination makes sense but can any small piece break off if it wants to? No easy answer really. Maybe something like 2/3rd majority of people who have lived in some part longer than 10 years would be reasonable but there are hardly ever rules for seceding, it is just people with guns saying "we are independent", usually followed by some fighting. Yugoslavia breaking up, or parts of Ukraine leaving, are this sort of problem. Divorces are messy as there is a fight over how to split the resources.

The vast majority of other violence seems to have Muslims on at least one side, if not both sides, of the fighting.

I am just trying to make sense of what is going on. Again, as John said, most of the Muslim killing is by other Muslims. A big problem here seems to be that many Muslim factions don't think other Muslim factions are "true Muslims" and so killing them is just like killing Infidels.

Do you Agree that the Koran teaches that Islam should control the whole world? Don't you think the world might not be happy with this and fight back?

[vincecate]

arabs.jpg (80.38 KiB) Viewed 9372 times

[Guest]

You obviously don't understand what happened in Yugoslavia.

More tired propaganda from vincecate. More pathetic excuses for brutality. The only problem is that it's not working anymore.

[NoOneImportant]

Guest wrote (omitted his quote of vincecate):

In Bosnia and Chechnya, it was "Christians" who were doing the raping and killing. There were even rape camps set up for Muslim women and girls. It's people like you that make things like this possible. War criminals always rationalize away their crimes as necessary.

Muslims have ruled Christians and Jews along side Muslims and these populations were not all forced to convert or be eliminated. It was the Catholic Spanish that expelled Muslims and Jews from Spain. The inquistion was founded to flush out Jews and Muslims hiding in the general Christian population. There have been abuses on all sides. What you write on this board is revolting and dishonest. Steve Emerson said things of this nature for almost 20 years until his comments caught up with him on FOX News. One day your comments will catch up with you, vincecate.

Oh, a scathing rebuke. Perhaps we should examine it in detail... we shall parse it.

In Bosnia and Chechnya, it was "Christians" who were doing the raping and killing. There were even rape camps set up for Muslim women and girls. It's people like you that make things like this possible. War criminals always rationalize away their crimes as necessary.

The Serbs were wrong, what they did was in fact evil. The International Criminal Tribunal Yougoslavia, or local courts to date have done the following (we presume that Wikipedia has it correct - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... Yugoslavia).
To date the courts have Indicted, tried, and convicted those responsible for Bosnia. The following people are serving roughly a total of 1300 - 1400 years of prison time (the parenthentical number reflects each person's prison sentence):

Zlatko Aleksovski (7), Milan Babić(13), Haradin Bala(13), Predrag Banović(8), Ljubiša Beara(life), Vidoje Blagojević(15), Tihomir Blaškić(9), Ljubomir Borovčanin(17), Lahi Brahimaj(6), Miroslav Bralo(20), Radoslav Brđanin(30), Mario Čerkez(6), Ranko Ćešić(18), Valentin Ćorić(16),Hazim Delić(18), Rasim Delić(3, died), Miroslav Deronjić(10), Slavko Dokmanović(died in detention), Damir Došen(5), Simo Drljača(died in detention), Vlastimir Đorđević(23), Đorđe Đukić(died during release), Dražen Erdemović(5), Anto Furundžija(10), Dušan Fuštar(9), Dragan Gagović(died in detention), Stanislav Galić(life), Momčilo Gruban(7), Milan Gvero(5), Enver Hadžihasanović(3.5), Janko Janjić(died in detention), Nikica Janjić(died in detention), Gojko Janković(34), Goran Jelisić(40), Dragan Jokić(9), Miodrag Jokić(7), Drago Josipović(12), Duško Knežević(30), Dragan Kolundžija(3), Dario Kordić(25), Milojica Kos(6), Radomir Kovač(20), Milan Kovačević(died in detention), Momčilo Krajišnik(20), Milorad Krnojelac(15), Radislav Krstić(35), Dragoljub Kunarac(28), Miroslav Kvočka(7), Esad Landžo(15), Vladimir Lazarević(15), Milan Lukić(life), Sredoje Lukić(30), Sreten Lukić(22), Paško Ljubičić(10), Milan Martić(35), Vinko Martinović(18), Željko Mejakić(21), Radivoje Miletić(19), Slobodan Miljković(died in detention), Dragomir Milošević(29), Slobodan Milošević(died in detention), Darko Mrđa(17), Mile Mrkšić(20), Zdravko Mucić(9), Mladen "Tuta" Naletilić(20), Dragan Nikolić(20), Drago Nikolić(35), Momir Nikolic(20), Mirko Norac(7), Dragan Obrenović(17), Dragoljub Ojdanić(15), Vinko Pandurević(13), Nebojša Pavković(22), Milivoj Petković(20), Biljana Plavšić(11), Vujadin Popović(life), Slobodan Praljak(20), Dragoljub Prcać(5), Jadranko Prlić(25), Berislav Pušić(10), Mlađo Radić(20), Ivica Rajić(12), Mitar Rašević(8.5), Željko Ražnatović, "Arkan"(died in detention), Duško Sikirica(15), Blagoje Simić(15), Milan Simić(5), Milomir Stakić(40), Mićo Stanišić(22), Mićo Stanišić(22), Vlajko Stojiljković(died in detention), Pavle Strugar(7.5), Nikola Šainović(22), Vladimir Šantić(18), Veselin Šljivančanin(10), Duško Tadić(20), Miroslav Tadić(8).

162 some odd defendants disposed of to spend 1300 - 1400 years in prison, several died in custody, several with trials still proceeding, and numerous having been given life sentences. It took me less than five minutes to find the dispensation of the Bosnian conflict in several places. Mr. Guest is either grossly ignorant of the Bosnian conflict's dispensation of those who perpetrated these crimes, or he is simply disingenuous, and seeks to distract from the purpose, and actions of Islam -- a red herring. How may we know whether he is just ignorant, or deceitful? In truth, we can't know which with any degree of certainty. What we can know is that Muslims are urged to practice what is called taqiyya. For the uninitiated, taqiyya permits the Muslim to practice deception (read lie), and to deny his faith to the kafir -- the non-Muslim -- so long as he is doing it in the name of furthering the cause of Islam. My question to Mr. Guest is: If Islam is so wonderful show me a corresponding pursuit of justice for the Jew, or Christian who is murdered, raped, or oppressed in any Islamic country. Regarding the beheading of innocents, Mr Guest; do such beheadings have merit and purpose in Islam? If the beheading of innocents. so mercilessly depicted on the Internet, by ISIS do in fact have purpose and merit, then why do the perpetrators of such routine heinous acts of barbarism ware a balaclava (face mask) to hide their identities? If such beheadings are meritorious, shouldn't those executing those actions be proud to have their identities known that their actions of islamic merit might bathe them in the light of that Islamic merit?

Next item:

Muslims have ruled Christians and Jews along side Muslims and these populations were not all forced to convert or be eliminated.

The point of fact is that this statement is just not so. There has been a wholesale exit of Jews and Christians out of the Islamic world over the last 50 years. The estimates range from 800,000 to a million Jews alone have exited the Muslim world in fear of their lives in the last 50 years. For example: prior to the administrative transfer to the Palestinian Authority, Bethlehem had a population that was 80% Christian (30 years prior to the transfer to PA Bethlehem was under Israeli administration). Since the control of Bethlehem has reverted to the Palestinian Authority that population demographic has changed to be 80% Muslim. To clarify, a town that has had a significant majority Christian population for 2000 years, in 20 year period of time, switched from 80% Christian to a significant Muslim majority (80%), no other changes! In Iraq alone, a country that has had a significant Jewish community since being carried off in bondage into Babylon. From the time of the Babylonian conquest of Judah 587 B.C. -- the Exile, 2500 years ago -- until the mid 1950s, what was once a Jewish population that estimates ranged from between 130,000 - 150,000, has been reduced to less than 500, again see Wikipedia for a brief history of Jewish exit from Muslim countries since the end of WW-II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exo ... _countries.
Or, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/view ... sp?id=1436
And the list may go on, and on, and on. Another bit more recent example of non-Muslim repression by the Muslim majority is that of the Coptic Christians in Egypt. It is a repression exhibited in Egypt with the burning of numerous Christian churches after the "election" of the Muslim Brotherhood's Morsi (again deposed via the sword). The point of fact is, as is perhaps unintentionally implied in your above noted quote, that once Muslims obtain political power the Christians, and the Jews who survive, and do not convert to Islam, are relegated to a position of fear, and servitude for all time.

Next item:

It was the Catholic Spanish that expelled Muslims and Jews from Spain. The inquistion was founded to flush out Jews and Muslims hiding in the general Christian population. There have been abuses on all sides.

Islam is a rather funny mentality (funny in an odd way, not funny ha, ha). Islam basically boils down to: "... what's mine is mine, and what's yours will soon become mine, unless, of course, you can stop me; in which case I will brand you as an islamophobic bigot." Islam believes that anyplace that it has ever occupied, or anyplace a Muslim has ever prayed is theirs forever. Islam believes that it may impress it's belief upon virtually everyone else via the sword; but Islam finds it repugnant when those being subjugated, and enslaved by Islam resist and expel Islam using the same force-of-arms (sword) that Islam used to subjugate those lands. Muslims bristle at any mention of the Crusades, yet Muslims experience a convenient bout of amnesia about Islam sweeping out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century and subjugating all of North Africa, and the Holy Land, culminating in the siege and fall of Constantinople in 1453 - all done via the sword. Islamics are quick to cite the injustice of the oppression of Muslims, but find no fault and, conspicuous by its absence, is any mention of Islamics impressing their presence in Spain, and France by the sword. Spain, and Southern France are the only two occasion I can think of where Islam's political control has ever reverted to non-Islamic control, and those two occasions happened by conflict. Islam never goes willingly; there is no freedom in Islam, to not choose Islam.

Next item:

There have been abuses on all sides.

There can be no question that this is true. What this attempts to imply is that both are equally at fault, and thus both are flawed. To a degree this is true. What is different between Islam and the Judeo-Christian ethos is there are no 162 Muslims rotting for 1300 - 1400 years for their transgressions against innocent Jews, and Christians. Further in non-Muslim lands actions like the Inquisition, and the cruelty exhibited by the crusaders is recognized to be what it is: hypocritical (self-interested evil done in the name of God), and is thus condemned as wrong. There is no corresponding condemnation of anything Islamic, regardless of the obvious barbarity of any subject Islamic atrocity. Injustice or oppression -- real, or perceived -- somewhere in the world is always used as a justification for the monstrous acts of Islam. "... well you just shouldn't have done that to those poor Muslims in over there; so we just had to murder all those innocent people in the name Islamic justice. You just have to be more careful otherwise your just going to force us to murder some more innocent people... it's only fair."

Next item:

What you write on this board is revolting and dishonest. Steve Emerson said things of this nature for almost 20 years until his comments caught up with him on FOX News.

Having read, and re-read vincecates post several times I find no dishonesty in it. Vincecate makes no reference to Steve Emerson at all, nor does he reference Fox News at all. This is a standard tactic meant to distract. What the weak of mind do once they have expended their intellectual ammunition is to seek to divert attention from the issues under consideration, issues that they can no longer intellectually defend. The tactic is to launch a simple personal attack upon their opponent of a selected position. The purpose is clear, he who has expended all his arguments, can no longer deal with the issue at hand so he attempts to divert consideration away from the position that he can no longer intellectually defend by a simple personal attack upon his opponent (the messenger). It is important to not take the amateurish "bate" being offered. Reiterate that he who is dangling the "bate" must answer the question regarding the topic under examination.

Next item:

One day your comments will catch up with you, vincecate.

And finally, and possibly most importantly, we come to Mr Guest reinforcing of virtually everything that I have posted above: Mr Guest responds to vincecate with a not so veiled threat. It is what Islam does to those who differ with it -- you will be convinced, or we will terrify, and kill you. Again, within Islam, there is no freedom to agree to disagree, their positions is ultimately the only position. They are reduced to: "... if I can't convince you, I can kill you..." It is, again, convert or the sword, made palpable.