monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

coldjoint wrote:
Why? Because you and the media say so?
Well, you certainly are aware and have read their own reason about the change from Front national pour l'unité française (FNUF) ["Front national (FN)"] to Rassemblement national (RN).

Yesterday this "exchange of ideas" - today six members of the extreme right were arrested because of a planned attack on president Macron (and on Jews, kebab houses, mosques, synagogues).

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

today six members of the extreme right were arrested because of a planned attack on president Macron (and on Jews, kebab houses, mosques, synagogues).

And that changes what about Islam's plans? These extremists are no more than copycats. If it works for Islam it might work for them. Thank Islam for setting the example and establishing a new normal in Europe.

1 Reply

Quote:

Mainstream Media Hides Farrakhan’s Attacks on America

Gee, why would they do that? Maybe because not one Democrat or progressive will call him out? Could be.

Quote:

While Fox News covered the story, neither the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, HuffPost, Salon, Slate, ABC, NBC nor CBS covered. CNN’s Jake Tapper tweeted a story from Tasnim News, one of the state news services.

CBS did a live report from Tehran about the sanctions being re-imposed but did not mention Farrakhan.

That in itself condones antisemitism. And what does "Death to America" mean?
https://www.aim.org/aim-column/mainstream-media-hides-farrakhans-attacks-on-america/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

Quote:

These extremists are no more than copycats. If it works for Islam it might work for them. Thank Islam for setting the example

Historically, the exact reverse is true. The political ideology now called Islamism (as different from the religion) was created in the late 19th - early 20th century, as a copy-cat of European ideologies such as communism or nationalism.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Actually it was modelled much more on Willemite Germany .. and some of what followed in the Bhathist movement. There certainly was not the slightest whiff of socialism in it.

The original spread of Islam was almost entirely the result of conquest and the threat of individual execution. There were elements of coercion in the spread of Christianity after the 4th century as well (i.e. the religion of the King) but it was far different from that of Islam. I'll certainly agree that the distemper that has affected the Islamic World over the last Century was largely the result of European interference and betrayal. mostly that of the British and French Empires.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Islamism (as different from the religion) was created in the late 19th

It is not different, the religion makes no distinction between politics and (religion) Islam. Sharia rules Muslims not countries. Muhammad established the terror himself and left obligations for devout Muslims to continue until Sharia rules the world. Islamism is Islam in its original nasty barbaric intolerant form.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I'll certainly agree that the distemper that has affected the Islamic World over the last Century was largely the result of European interference and betrayal. mostly that of the British and French Empires.

I don't know that it was a reaction against any betrayal. It's more related to the humiliation of colonisation. The Mad Mullah in Sudan was evidently and violently anti-colonial, while the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt took a softer, longer-term approach of building an ideological corpus and spreading it through political work. The latter was clearly influenced by European nationalists, paradoxically so since they aimed to fight against the "blind imitation of the Europeans".

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

Now you're paroting the Islamists themselves, who pretend to go back to the origin of Islam. Yet Muhammad clearly advocated for respect to Christians and Jews. He never condonned mass murder of random innocent people, saw suicide as a sin, and valued science and education.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

It's more related to the humiliation of colonisation.

Like the Christian Egyptians and the Hindus in India suffered when Islam conquered them? The massacre of the Hindus by the Muslims is the worst bloodbath in history.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Yet Muhammad clearly advocated for respect to Christians and Jews.

All those verses were abrogated by the Verse of the Sword. You know nothing about Islam. Try again after some research on your part.

Quote:

He never condonned mass murder of random innocent people

He sure did, non-Muslims are not considered innocents. It is written in the Koran.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Quote:

The massacre of the Hindus by the Muslims is the worst bloodbath in history.

That's a very big claim pinky. Worse that Ghengis Khan rape of Baghdad? Worse than the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants? Worse than the Holocaust?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

That's BS.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

MASSACRES OF HINDUS BY MUSLIM INVADERS

Quote:

TAIMUR LANE

? His invasion of Hindustan: His Tuzk-i-Taimuri records:

"In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers.

They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground.... All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children ,and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors ?

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives."

http://www.naseeb.com/journals/massacres-of-hindus-by-muslim-invaders-59401
Wikipedia also lists the massacres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

[I don't know that it was a reaction against any betrayal. It's more related to the humiliation of colonisation.

Both were indeed factors. During WWI the British stirred up a rebellion of the Arabs against their then Turkish/Ottoman overlords, with promises of independence and autonomy. After the War ended they and the French imposed the consequence of their earlier Sykes-Picot Agreement on the division of the spoils. The French got Syria and Lebanon, and retained their North African colonies while the British, in defiance of their earlier commitments to both European Zionists and the Hashemite Arabs, retained all the rest, including a quasi protectorate in Egypt. Todays issues in the former Palestine are one of several consequences.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

When they took Baghdad (1258), the Mongol killed hundreds of thousands people, mostly Muslims, in the space of a few days, then proceeded to burn what was then the largest city on earth, and to destroy all the manuscripts they could find in its many libraries.

In the second century AD, Hadrien's armies slaughtered one to two million Jews in Judea in the span of a few months, to teach them not to revolt against Rome.

In the space of a month or so, in 1994, Hutu extremists mowed down an estimated one million Tutsis with machettes.

During WW2, the Nazis killed about 11 million people in their camps, half of the Jewish.

Should I go on?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Fair point.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Should I go on?

Keep going until you find a religion that sanctions those massacres, that is the difference you will not admit.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Err the crusades? The religion wars in Europe? The support offered by the Lutherians to nazism? choices choices choices...

0 Replies

I'd be interested to know what evidence you advance for Lutherans, as a religious confession, supporting the NSDAP. It is worth noting, though, that the 1933 Enabling Act, by which Hitler took over, was passed by the NSDAP, the DNVP (the German National Peoples' Party) and the Zentrum, the Centre Party, the German Catholic party. Of course, just about the first thing Hitler did with his new powers was to outlaw all other political parties, including the DNVP and the Zentrum.

One has to be careful in ascribing religious motives to wars. The so-called Thirty Years War (which was about fifteen different wars, none of which lasted 30 years) was supposedly a religious war. But in all religious wars, it comes down to power and money. France, in the person of Cardinal Richelieu, had decided that a powerful Empire was too big a threat to be ignored. So Catholic France paid huge subsidies to Protestant Sweden to stay in the war against the Catholic Empire. It is tempting to offer simplistic rationales for wars and atrocities, but that's just what cj is doing, and it's bullsh*t when he does it, so it's a good idea to be careful of doing it ones self. A better example might be the slaughter of more than 8300 nominally Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995, by the Orthodox Christian Bosnian Serbs.

4 Replies

@Setanta,

The Thirty Years' War was primarily a war of state-building IMO. At first sight it was about the decision for the Protestant/Evancelical or Catholic denomination, but in the background political power interests stood.

As is the case today, religion nevertheless played a role - not as a cause, but in the course of the conflict,

We don't have any aggressive confessional disputes between Christians at the moment, but that doesn't mean that it won't come back: after more than 400 years of religious wars, the patterns are still in the minds of the people.

[And I would mention the eight Wars of Religion in France (1562-1598) as well.]

2 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know