[almohajem]

As an ex-muslim, I can tell this with a lot of confidence: It's not the Extremist that should worry you. It's the moderate muslims.

They are wolfs in the image of a sheep.

I have seen a big number of highly talented, highly educated, well-off and mature persons turn into terrorists in a couple of weeks.

[almohajem]

I can tell you also that 70% of moderate muslims will oppose these actions. but these 70% don't sympathise with the victims and think it's good riddance. Did you see it?

[mikado]

Almohajem




You are clearly here just to troll.

[Saweeep]

(01-07-2015 12:56 PM)Brotein Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:51 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 11:58 AM)Brotein Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 09:38 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

I don't think it would take much persuasion to get the British underclass off fighting a war again, were it ever needed.

lol you think these people would make good soldiers? most of them smoke weed all day.

I'm afraid your knowledge of British military history and who did most of the fighting (and dying) is as sound as your Russian history by the sounds of it.

They may be weed smoking wastrels in the current climate but most of these scallywags are as patriotic as their forefathers who died in the trenches, died in Napoleonic squares or were press-ganged onto scurvy ridden warships.

It is oh so easy to look down on the common man; however it is he that we all always turn to to fight (and die in) our battles when the shit hits the fan.

(p.s. "lol" and the suchlike will get a man into trouble around these parts)

My Russian history is great. I just see things in a rational manner instead of some warped anti-muslim philosophy.

So you think those people on benefits street are going to turn into a well disciplined and dangerous fighting force? The UK has a decent military, but this underclass you are romanticizing are pretty much useless.

I am curious to what you want? you want an underclass of chavs to have open battles with British Muslims in the streets?

Although I think it's a ridiculous vision, It'd be interesting to see who'd win. 100 British muslims v 100 chavs. I'd pay to watch ha.

I don't recall saying anything about the British underclass having battles with Muslims on the streets; "off fighting wars" is right there at the top of this post.

Where do you think front line soldiers come from? Tarquin and his chums may be the officers but infantrymen have and always will come from the lower orders.

You do realise that military training is a rather old subject that we are rather good at here, don't you? There is a reason that the global elites send their sons to the UK for military training. Battalions aren't just formed at the local Wetherspoons (a pub for my American friends) over a pint of Fosters and a mutual desire to go kill Muslims or whoever!

I think decent is a fairly low ball description of British fighting prowess; that description alone confirms that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Old Fritz]

(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)almohajem Wrote:  

As an ex-muslim, I can tell this with a lot of confidence: It's not the Extremist that should worry you. It's the moderate muslims.

They are wolfs in the image of a sheep.

I have seen a big number of highly talented, highly educated, well-off and mature persons turn into terrorists in a couple of weeks.

Can you elaborate?

[Phoenix]

(01-07-2015 08:28 AM)mikado Wrote:  

I think moderates muslims should effectively stand up and display their support and rallying with France and the victims.

No it needs to be more extreme than that. Would it have been sufficient for the US if Japanese civilians displayed support and sympathy for the victims at Pearl Harbor? Obviously not. Would it have been sufficient if they revolted and overthrew their government? Yes.

To this extent, if Muslims genuinely do not support the expansionary desires of their extremists, it is their responsibility to attack the extremists themselves. Not "don't blame us", but "these people are tarnishing our name, let's smash them".

(01-07-2015 09:44 AM)mikado Wrote:  

My question is:
how would you conduct that war?

You first identify the enemy. In WW2, it was "militant Japan". In this case it is "militant Islam". Then the goal is to "demoralize their desire to fight", which can only be assured by "total defeat" (being smashed).

It was only through suffering the pain of fighting and being totally defeated, and having their society forcefully reorganised, that the Japanese didn't simply rebuild and resume the conflict.

If I was commander-in-chief, the first question I would answer would be: "who is supporting who". Who is providing the ideological fuel? Who is providing the resources? I suspect it would trace back to the states of Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as many other minor institutions in North Africa, and the Near and Middle East.

Then I would deliver an simultaneous ultimatum to those institutions as a group:
"You are to cease advocating attacks against the West;
You are to cease advocating the use of violence to further the power of your religion;
You are to cease providing support to other groups who support or engage in such violence;
You are to publicly preach your support for these measures, including in your sermons in your places of worship;
You are to publicly renounce using violence to solve the Israel-Palestine question;
You are to publicly preach your acceptance of criticism of your religion.
If you are not complying with these measures within 90 days, you will be attacked."

If they didn't comply (which I expect they wouldn't), I'd invade accordingly, totally defeat them, dismantle all of the institutions that were fueling militancy, rewrite their constitutions at gun-point Japan-style, and put their leaders through the military tribunals.

(01-07-2015 09:23 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

Here are some scary statistics and sources:

Yep, the sooner the West wises up, the less bloodshed their children are going to have to go through. Does anyone actually think this all just goes away by itself?

(01-07-2015 09:07 AM)UroboricForms Wrote:  

This is so fucked up. As much as I think free speech is important its exactly this kind of "I'll say/do what I want" attitude that is the problem. Evidence? It just got 12 people filled with bullets. Like someone said, what do you expect when you poke fun at the most aggressive culture in the world right now?

That sentiment is disgraceful.

[Brotein]

(01-07-2015 01:07 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:56 PM)Brotein Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:51 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 11:58 AM)Brotein Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 09:38 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

I don't think it would take much persuasion to get the British underclass off fighting a war again, were it ever needed.

lol you think these people would make good soldiers? most of them smoke weed all day.

I'm afraid your knowledge of British military history and who did most of the fighting (and dying) is as sound as your Russian history by the sounds of it.

They may be weed smoking wastrels in the current climate but most of these scallywags are as patriotic as their forefathers who died in the trenches, died in Napoleonic squares or were press-ganged onto scurvy ridden warships.

It is oh so easy to look down on the common man; however it is he that we all always turn to to fight (and die in) our battles when the shit hits the fan.

(p.s. "lol" and the suchlike will get a man into trouble around these parts)

My Russian history is great. I just see things in a rational manner instead of some warped anti-muslim philosophy.

So you think those people on benefits street are going to turn into a well disciplined and dangerous fighting force? The UK has a decent military, but this underclass you are romanticizing are pretty much useless.

I am curious to what you want? you want an underclass of chavs to have open battles with British Muslims in the streets?

Although I think it's a ridiculous vision, It'd be interesting to see who'd win. 100 British muslims v 100 chavs. I'd pay to watch ha.

I don't recall saying anything about the British underclass having battles with Muslims on the streets; "off fighting wars" is right there at the top of this post.

Where do you think front line soldiers come from? Tarquin and his chums may be the officers but infantrymen have and always will come from the lower orders.

You do realise that military training is a rather old subject that we are rather good at here, don't you? There is a reason that the global elites send their sons to the UK for military training. Battalions aren't just formed at the local Wetherspoons (a pub for my American friends) over a pint of Fosters and a mutual desire to go kill Muslims or whoever!

I think decent is a fairly low ball description of British fighting prowess; that description alone confirms that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Front line soldiers coem from the working class, not the underclass. The udnerclass are a dangerous social movement that will destroy the UK, they are a much greater threat to the UK than muslims. Remember those 2011 summer riots.

I think the British military is massively over rated, I recall how aghast the British army was when they had to fight goat herders without armoured land rovers and helicopter support. This isn't 1945. Kids these days play xbox all day, smoke weed and jerk off to HD porn. They will struggle in any real war.

[Saweeep]

(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)Plato Wrote:  

The underclass of today is very different to the underclass of a hundred years ago.

The underclass of a hundred years ago were held down by society.

The underclass of today are too thick and lazy to rise up in society.

Perhaps.

The underclass are the ones who have to live side by side with Muslims in our ghettos. They are the ones whose lives have been affected the most by uncontrolled immigration.

They are the ones who form groups like the EDL. It was they who were laughed at by our educated classes for speaking out about the Muslim rape gangs. It is they who are deserting Labour for UKIP in droves.

These people are the ones with St George's flags flying outside their houses, chanting in pubs when England play football and the ones most likely to sport Union flag tattoos.

They are easy to whip into a frenzy. Young men will always be attracted to the life of battle and pillage.

[mikado]

There is a hashtag #jesuisCharlie ( I am Charlie) going viral, and a lot of people are changing their Facebook profile pic to a picture with that sentence on.

[TheWastelander]

(01-07-2015 01:07 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Almohajem




You are clearly here just to troll.

I checked his post history. I don't see it.

Prove it.

[Brotein]

(01-07-2015 01:13 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)Plato Wrote:  

The underclass of today is very different to the underclass of a hundred years ago.

The underclass of a hundred years ago were held down by society.

The underclass of today are too thick and lazy to rise up in society.

Perhaps.

The underclass are the ones who have to live side by side with Muslims in our ghettos. They are the ones whose lives have been affected the most by uncontrolled immigration.

They are the ones who form groups like the EDL. It was they who were laughed at by our educated classes for speaking out about the Muslim rape gangs. It is they who are deserting Labour for UKIP in droves.

These people are the ones with St George's flags flying outside their houses, chanting in pubs when England play football and the ones most likely to sport Union flag tattoos.

They are easy to whip into a frenzy. Young men will always be attracted to the life of battle and pillage.

Basically the worst of British society.

[Saweeep]

(01-07-2015 01:12 PM)Brotein Wrote:  

Front line soldiers coem from the working class, not the underclass. The udnerclass are a dangerous social movement that will destroy the UK, they are a much greater threat to the UK than muslims. Remember those 2011 summer riots.

I think the British military is massively over rated, I recall how aghast the British army was when they had to fight goat herders without armoured land rovers and helicopter support. This isn't 1945. Kids these days play xbox all day, smoke weed and jerk off to HD porn. They will struggle in any real war.

Well I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[Saweeep]

(01-07-2015 01:13 PM)mikado Wrote:  

There is a hashtag #jesuisCharlie ( I am Charlie) going viral, and a lot of people are changing their Facebook profile pic to a picture with that sentence on.

The interesting thing here is the difference in reactions to the Australian attack a few weeks ago.

I am Charlie Vs I will ride with you (or whatever the exact wording was).

[Teedub]

Brotein, Tommy Robinson aka Stephen Lennon (founder of the English Defence League) is a member of the "underclass" [EDIT - I've noticed you've differentiated between working class and under class, fair enough.] you're dismissing. Whatever people think of him, this speech at the Oxford Union just before Xmas is brilliant. Definitely changed my mind about some of the things I thought of him previously.

He's essentially sacrificed his personal life to combat Islamic extremism, and he's certainly no racist as you'll most definitely hear in the video. Senior leadership in the organisation were Sikh, and loads of the 'boots on the ground' so to speak were black lads from his neighbourhood.

If SJWs watch that and still think he's some knuckle dragging racist (despite Islam not being a race), deserving of no support or sympathy, there's literally no hope for them. I'd highly recommend everyone watch this vid actually, because as becomes evident, it's shocking how much the establishment (I include both the media and police force in that) absolutely detest the white working class in this county.

He's one of the main reasons those Rotherham gangs got exposed, because of the relentless campaigning on behalf of victims and putting pressure on the media and police.

To see a bunch of right-on, self righteous middle class hipsters shout him down on this programme sends me round the bend. This is what you're dealing with when it comes to the BBC. Appalling standard of 'debate'.

To call him and his ilk "Basically the worst of British society" is pretty distasteful, considering the reason they're like that is because of hostile foreign elements ruining their communities, alongside years and years of having their traditional jobs sent abroad or made obsolete. Yes, plenty of people who went on marches were underclass yobs, but plenty of the 'higher ups' are decent working class lads who had/have jobs.

[mikado]

(01-07-2015 01:12 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 08:28 AM)mikado Wrote:  

I think moderates muslims should effectively stand up and display their support and rallying with France and the victims.

No it needs to be more extreme than that. Would it have been sufficient for the US if Japanese civilians displayed support and sympathy for the victims at Pearl Harbor? Obviously not. Would it have been sufficient if they revolted and overthrew their government? Yes.

To this extent, if Muslims genuinely do not support the expansionary desires of their extremists, it is their responsibility to attack the extremists themselves. Not "don't blame us", but "these people are tarnishing our name, let's smash them".

(01-07-2015 09:44 AM)mikado Wrote:  

My question is:
how would you conduct that war?

You first identify the enemy. In WW2, it was "militant Japan". In this case it is "militant Islam". Then the goal is to "demoralize their desire to fight", which can only be assured by "total defeat" (being smashed).

It was only through suffering the pain of fighting and being totally defeated, and having their society forcefully reorganised, that the Japanese didn't simply rebuild and resume the conflict.

If I was commander-in-chief, the first question I would answer would be: "who is supporting who". Who is providing the ideological fuel? Who is providing the resources? I suspect it would trace back to the states of Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as many other minor institutions in North Africa, and the Near and Middle East.

Then I would deliver an simultaneous ultimatum to those institutions as a group:
"You are to cease advocating attacks against the West;
You are to cease advocating the use of violence to further the power of your religion;
You are to cease providing support to other groups who support or engage in such violence;
You are to publicly preach your support for these measures, including in your sermons in your places of worship;
You are to publicly renounce using violence to solve the Israel-Palestine question;
You are to publicly preach your acceptance of criticism of your religion.
If you are not complying with these measures within 90 days, you will be attacked."

If they didn't comply (which I expect they wouldn't), I'd invade accordingly, totally defeat them, dismantle all of the institutions that were fueling militancy, rewrite their constitutions at gun-point Japan-style, and put their leaders through the military tribunals.

(01-07-2015 09:23 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

Here are some scary statistics and sources:

Yep, the sooner the West wises up, the less bloodshed their children are going to have to go through. Does anyone actually think this all just goes away by itself?

(01-07-2015 09:07 AM)UroboricForms Wrote:  

This is so fucked up. As much as I think free speech is important its exactly this kind of "I'll say/do what I want" attitude that is the problem. Evidence? It just got 12 people filled with bullets. Like someone said, what do you expect when you poke fun at the most aggressive culture in the world right now?

That sentiment is disgraceful.

The problem is that most of the Muslims in the West have zero relations with terrorists in the Middle East. Heck, they sometimes have to go 3-4 generations up their genealogic tree to find relatives from there.

What do you expect them to do, outside condemning these attacks? It's not like they have any influence over what happens in the Middle East.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, they were in their country, they could potentially have went against their government and overthrown it.

In France, they can't do shit in Iraq, Syria etc etc.

[Chaos]

Because of how liberal and spoiling Europe have become, many of these Muslim immigrants don't seem to understand that they are guests in another mans house.

Last week in Sweden there were a bunch of newly arrived immigrants in a bus who were disappointed with the flats they were given. Instead of thankfully accepting the flats they were given, they started to hunger strike and crying out in media of how badly they have been treaten.
They wanted to live in a city and demanded that, or they would continue with their strike outside in the cold bus.

How often do you guys start making demands in a strangers house?

Respect the host and his rules would be common sense.

When I was roaming around in the Muslim world I was a guest in their house.
I respectfully avoided anything that could be offending and played by their rules.

I did not demand bacon for breakfast.
I did not demand alcohol.
I did not demand them to build a church for me where I could do my prayers.
I respected their dresscode and wore my clothes accordingly.
I did not demand a single damn thing.

I respected Islam in their own country.
I had a great time, I showed respect for their tradition and religon and in return they treated me very well back.

I just wish that all Muslims who are coming to my country would do the same.

[almohajem]

(01-07-2015 01:11 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)almohajem Wrote:  

As an ex-muslim, I can tell this with a lot of confidence: It's not the Extremist that should worry you. It's the moderate muslims.

They are wolfs in the image of a sheep.

I have seen a big number of highly talented, highly educated, well-off and mature persons turn into terrorists in a couple of weeks.

Can you elaborate?

No Problem. I didn't bother to reply to mikado as it seems his next step is launching a rocket toward me.

I was born in a very conservative town (shithole), but in the same time we got technology and opened up to the western civilisation. Muslim people are just like any other people in the world but they are extremely committed to the ideals of their religion (even though they might not be committed to the rules of the religion).

It means they are hard-believers in God, Quran, and the Prophet. These are high-status for them. On the other hand, this strong commitment means that you can't really challenge their ideals.

I kid you not, it took me 5 years of getting over the fear of non-existance of god. For 5 years, the single thought of atheism will terrify me. Deep inside, I know the idea of god is bullshit. But just the fact of thinking about it terrifies me.

Now let's talk about the religion. It's very versatile that you can interpret it in many ways. As a muslim you are obliged to fight and kill those who don't believe in your religion. But it's better if you do it peacefully. Now you can choose.

Moderate muslims are dangerous because deep inside they can be turned into terrorists very easily. Where do you think all the ISISs fighters come from? Some of them were even British.

[El Chinito loco]

(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)almohajem Wrote:  

As an ex-muslim, I can tell this with a lot of confidence: It's not the Extremist that should worry you. It's the moderate muslims.

They are wolfs in the image of a sheep.

I have seen a big number of highly talented, highly educated, well-off and mature persons turn into terrorists in a couple of weeks.

This quote by the OP isn't as trollish as it would appear. There are some real world examples of this happening.

Jakarta 1998.

When Suhuarto was finally kicked out and his corrupt business partners fled the Jakarta masses encited by various fundamentalist Imams went on a ethnic cleansing purge of the non muslim population. The non muslims at the time were mostly Chinese-Indonesians but a few assorted other people as well. Looting, burning(including burning people alive), and raping of average Chinese-Indonesians was the standard procedure.

The majority muslim population in Jakarta (which if you know Jakarta is very liberal to moderate) stood by and did jack shit. In fact there was a general passive acceptance of what was going on as the OP said. An attitude that the people getting killed "deserved" it.

This is definitely a thing.

[mikado]

(01-07-2015 01:22 PM)almohajem Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 01:11 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)almohajem Wrote:  

As an ex-muslim, I can tell this with a lot of confidence: It's not the Extremist that should worry you. It's the moderate muslims.

They are wolfs in the image of a sheep.

I have seen a big number of highly talented, highly educated, well-off and mature persons turn into terrorists in a couple of weeks.

Can you elaborate?

No Problem. I didn't want to bother to reply to mikado as it seems his next step is launching a rocket toward me.

I was born in a very conservative town (shithole), but in the same time we got technology and opened up to the western civilisation. Muslim people are just like any other people in the world but they are extremely committed to the ideals of their religion (even though they might not be committed to the rules of the religion).

It means they are hard-believers in God, Quran, and the Prophet. These are high-status for them. On the other hand, this strong commitment means that you can't really challenge their ideals.

I kid you not, it took me 5 years of getting over the fear of non-existance of god. For 5 years, the single thought of atheism will terrify me. Deep inside, I know the idea of god is bullshit. But just the fact of thinking about it terrifies me.

Now let's talk about the religion. It's very versatile that you can interpret it in many ways. As a muslim you are obliged to fight and kill those who don't believe in your religion. But it's better if you do it peacefully. Now you can choose.

Moderate muslims are dangerous because deep inside they can be turned into terrorists very easily. Where do you think all the ISISs fighters come from? Some of them were even British.

So when someone criticizes your way of bringing your point you paint him as someone who would throw a rocket on you?
If this is not trolling, I don't know what it is.

[berserk]

Anytime in Europe there is the slightest attack on a foreigner, a muslim, there are thousands of native Europeans in the street protesting against racism and hate.

Days ago, there were 20 people in a small danish city who did a PEGIDA march. They were met by 1000 counter protesters, all danish.

Yet, not a single protest is ever seen by all these moderate muslims.

They know full well, what the European way of showing your support is: Get on the street and march.

They never do it. Until I see thousands of muslims in the street with messages of peace, then I am not going believe their claims of support. It's that easy. This is the European way of showing support and it happens ALL THE TIME, with other causes. Why is there not a single such march? The only march I've seen by muslims were Kurds against ISIS.

[Brotein]

(01-07-2015 01:25 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 01:05 PM)almohajem Wrote:  

As an ex-muslim, I can tell this with a lot of confidence: It's not the Extremist that should worry you. It's the moderate muslims.

They are wolfs in the image of a sheep.

I have seen a big number of highly talented, highly educated, well-off and mature persons turn into terrorists in a couple of weeks.

This quote by the OP isn't as trollish as it would appear. There are some real world examples of this happening.

Jakarta 1998.

When Suhuarto was finally kicked out and his corrupt business partners fled the Jakarta masses encited by various fundamentalist Imams went on a ethnic cleansing purge of the non muslim population. The non muslims at the time were mostly Chinese-Indonesians but a few assorted other people as well. Looting, burning(including burning people alive), and raping of average Chinese-Indonesians was the standard procedure.

The majority muslim population in Jakarta (which if you know Jakarta is very liberal to moderate) stood by and did jack shit. In fact there was a general passive acceptance of what was going on as the OP said. An attitude that the people getting killed "deserved" it.

This is definitely a thing.

The majority of the British public supported the war against Iraq before it started. This resulted in the murder of millions of muslims, it was a cluster fuck of epic proportions.

The US conducted 2 wars against middle eastern nations, not to mention endless drone executions.

Are all the people in these societies violent savages who can't control their aggression?

Are these people apart of a cultural war against muslim societies?

Or do you only hold these tags for people who don't look/whorship like you?

[TheWastelander]

(01-07-2015 01:18 PM)mikado Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 01:12 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 08:28 AM)mikado Wrote:  

I think moderates muslims should effectively stand up and display their support and rallying with France and the victims.

No it needs to be more extreme than that. Would it have been sufficient for the US if Japanese civilians displayed support and sympathy for the victims at Pearl Harbor? Obviously not. Would it have been sufficient if they revolted and overthrew their government? Yes.

To this extent, if Muslims genuinely do not support the expansionary desires of their extremists, it is their responsibility to attack the extremists themselves. Not "don't blame us", but "these people are tarnishing our name, let's smash them".

(01-07-2015 09:44 AM)mikado Wrote:  

My question is:
how would you conduct that war?

You first identify the enemy. In WW2, it was "militant Japan". In this case it is "militant Islam". Then the goal is to "demoralize their desire to fight", which can only be assured by "total defeat" (being smashed).

It was only through suffering the pain of fighting and being totally defeated, and having their society forcefully reorganised, that the Japanese didn't simply rebuild and resume the conflict.

If I was commander-in-chief, the first question I would answer would be: "who is supporting who". Who is providing the ideological fuel? Who is providing the resources? I suspect it would trace back to the states of Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as many other minor institutions in North Africa, and the Near and Middle East.

Then I would deliver an simultaneous ultimatum to those institutions as a group:
"You are to cease advocating attacks against the West;
You are to cease advocating the use of violence to further the power of your religion;
You are to cease providing support to other groups who support or engage in such violence;
You are to publicly preach your support for these measures, including in your sermons in your places of worship;
You are to publicly renounce using violence to solve the Israel-Palestine question;
You are to publicly preach your acceptance of criticism of your religion.
If you are not complying with these measures within 90 days, you will be attacked."

If they didn't comply (which I expect they wouldn't), I'd invade accordingly, totally defeat them, dismantle all of the institutions that were fueling militancy, rewrite their constitutions at gun-point Japan-style, and put their leaders through the military tribunals.

(01-07-2015 09:23 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

Here are some scary statistics and sources:

Yep, the sooner the West wises up, the less bloodshed their children are going to have to go through. Does anyone actually think this all just goes away by itself?

(01-07-2015 09:07 AM)UroboricForms Wrote:  

This is so fucked up. As much as I think free speech is important its exactly this kind of "I'll say/do what I want" attitude that is the problem. Evidence? It just got 12 people filled with bullets. Like someone said, what do you expect when you poke fun at the most aggressive culture in the world right now?

That sentiment is disgraceful.

The problem is that most of the Muslims in the West have zero relations with terrorists in the Middle East. Heck, they sometimes have to go 3-4 generations up their genealogic tree to find relatives from there.

What do you expect them to do, outside condemning these attacks? It's not like they have any influence over what happens in the Middle East.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, they were in their country, they could potentially have went against their government and overthrown it.

In France, they can't do shit in Iraq, Syria etc etc.

Vigilante groups of so-called moderate muslims who find radicals in the community, beat the shit out of them, and turn them into police or deal with them on their own would be a good start.

But I doubt that will ever happen, because many are partly sympathetic even if they aren't willing to go as far as their radical brothers.

Imagine for a second that the situation was reversed. There's thousands of Anders Breiviks in the Muslim world wreaking havoc and a Christian minority in those countries said 'yeah, we don't agree with that guy but don't expect us to do anything about them!'

What do you think those governments would do?

[almohajem]

(01-07-2015 01:27 PM)mikado Wrote:  

So when someone criticizes your way of bringing your point you paint him as someone who would throw a rocket on you?
If this is not trolling, I don't know what it is.

mikado you didn't criticise. You posted a GTFO image and accused of troll.

And also that particular sentence was satire, which seems that some muslims don't really get the concept of it. which resulted in today mass-murder.

[zanetti]

(01-07-2015 01:12 PM)Brotein Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 01:07 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:56 PM)Brotein Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:51 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 11:58 AM)Brotein Wrote:  

lol you think these people would make good soldiers? most of them smoke weed all day.

Front line soldiers coem from the working class, not the underclass. The udnerclass are a dangerous social movement that will destroy the UK, they are a much greater threat to the UK than muslims. Remember those 2011 summer riots.

Contrary to what was reported in the media, the majority of people in those riots were black

[Saweeep]

“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.”

Salman Rushdie, today.