Macron at a crossroads with rising riots and protests over gasoline and nuclear

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

Eliminating child labor, pollution, and other evils is always a good thing.  I have my doubts about the UN as a vehicle for accomplishing that though, centralized power being prone to corruption.  What alternatives did you consider before landing on the UN as the optimal solution? 

True. Corruption will likely always exist. Such is life. The UN is a lot less corrupt than the local alternatives. I am very pragmatic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

I make a single exception to this rule: existential threats.  When something is so overwhelmingly terrible that it will destroy civilization, I speak my mind.  Thus, I will repeat my words of caution: the people of Northern Europe are experiencing Islamic culture for the first time, and they're ignoring a millennium of history in the mere hope that this time will be different.  Islam is nothing like the culture you grew up in, and it will not assimilate.  For everyone's sake, please set aside noble intentions and warm feelings long enough to take an honest look at history.  The future of your family is at stake.  

Obviously not a student of history - Moors were in Europe for around 700 years until towards the end of the 15th century.

Conflating religious fanaticism into global doom is a tad far fetched.  On an average day of the week you could not tell which of my friends were Muslim and which were not.  Moreover, the Muslims I know probably have a greater hatred for those radicalised in thought, because the spotlight now placed on them by the media and those too ignorant to learn the facts subjects them to unwanted attention, bigotry and, sadly, hate crime.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Osama said:

The way the writer describes it......this is very serious as it clearly has undertones of a wider, broader and deeper generic resentment against the government as a whole. This also depicts situations in mamy other countries....only that it is under control...seething under the surface..

 

Inequality has once again become very sensitive issue (it always was)....EU needs more "Glue" (to borrow from Amy Chua's Day of Empire).

People seem to be waking up a bit...

 

461a09e8ccea75f5e5af0096c70576cf1e2184a1804242647c42ecc2a28165ed.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

People seem to be waking up a bit...

 

If the climate never changed it would be called "weather"... which we wake up to each day 😎.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Red said:

Obviously not a student of history - Moors were in Europe for around 700 years until towards the end of the 15th century.

Conflating religious fanaticism into global doom is a tad far fetched.  On an average day of the week you could not tell which of my friends were Muslim and which were not.  Moreover, the Muslims I know probably have a greater hatred for those radicalised in thought, because the spotlight now placed on them by the media and those too ignorant to learn the facts subjects them to unwanted attention, bigotry and, sadly, hate crime.

 

MTB was clear and correct in stating Northern Europe, for the most part, is experiencing Islam on a large scale for the first time.

Yes, the Moors have been in Europe, for a long time especially the Iberian peninsula through to Spain.   I believe this fits into MBT’s exception for discussing one culture or religion over the other as it pertains to an existential threat.  Conquest.  Clash of Civilizations.

It is good that your Muslim friends are peaceful and despise radicalized Muslims.  The problem is there still to this day is no non-radicalized main-stream Muslim leader with credibility and name recognition publicly denouncing radicalized Islam.  If we are to believe that non-radicalized Muslims are the silent majority then a meaningful way forward for them would be to openly, strongly and regularly denounce the radicalized in their midst.

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TXPower said:

MTB was clear and correct in stating Northern Europe, for the most part, is experiencing Islam on a large scale for the first time.

Not exactly what he said, and did not fit in well given the thread is about France.  Anyway, Sweden's first mosque of the modern era was built in 1963 and Denmark's first mosque was built in Copenhagen in 1967.  Luckily nobody noticed them for over 50 years 🤥 because some of their culture might have rubbed off...

And then you said, "If we are to believe that non-radicalized Muslims are the silent majority then a meaningful way forward for them would be to openly, strongly and regularly denounce the radicalized in their midst."  Really?  I am not sure how many times they need to do that here to make people like you happy, but you are welcome to think that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mthebold said:

 

I would add to that:

1) Islam obtained much of its territory & influence - including the Iberian peninsula - via conquest.  In fact, conquest was its SOP until Europe repeatedly defeated Islamic invaders.  It was only Europe's clear military superiority that stalled the conquest motif.  Notice I say "stalled"; Islamic leaders still attempt conquest where they believe they'll succeed. 
2) Non-Muslim populations in Muslim-majority countries have always been oppressed, causing them to slowly disappear.  E.g. the Christian communities of North Africa and the Middle East that existed pre-Islam.  This oppression & slow disappearance is the norm for any country with a Muslim majority.
3) Islam makes it clear that its people are to multiply and conquer the world, which is why they have the highest birth rate of any group.  This is not a problem in itself, but it creates a long-term, existential threat when added to Islam's tendency to oppress non-Islamic groups.  
4) Even today, Islamic leaders use conquest to achieve their goals where they believe they can.  Most of the terrorist groups we fought in Iraq were foreigners motivated & funded by religion.  Some of them were funded by Islamic states, such as Iran. 
5) This is a religion with a clear history of violating human rights.  Even today, we see Islamic countries murdering homosexuals and treating women like property.  This is incompatible with Western values; I will not voluntarily subject my community to these unacceptable behaviors. 
6) In nearly every case where Islamic populations grow, they come into conflict with the locals.  If it was just once or twice, I would brush it off as the locals being intolerant.  It's not an anomaly though; it's nearly every time - and the consistent element in these conflicts is Islam.  

So sure, there exists a minority of Muslims who are good, peaceful people - but that's the exception rather than the norm.  We have over 1400 years detailing the effects of Islam, and the data is not flattering.  I don't care what they do in their own countries, but I will not willingly subject my community to violent, oppressive behaviors.  My opinion is that the majority of Islam should reform itself before it's allowed to spread to Western nations.  

A final thought: if Muslims don't want fanaticism to be the face of their religion, they either need to fight to reclaim their religion or, as Christian Protestants did, rename themselves to create a distinction.  That tells people they're dealing with a different set of beliefs, which they'll be happy to learn about.  If the distinction isn't made, however, it's reasonable to apply the previous 1400 years of history. 

Some people still believe the world is flat, or that it was "created" 6000 years ago.  Education, however, seems not to be a cure for delusion or bigotry.

(Now I know why people in some countries keenly promote gun ownership.)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mthebold said:

Don't take my word for it; study the history.  Here's the most recent example, which demonstrates that Islam hasn't made a wholesale change.  

I am sure that sometimes you have something useful to contribute - I have yet to find it in these forums, but it's early days.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Red said:

Not exactly what he said, and did not fit in well given the thread is about France.  Anyway, Sweden's first mosque of the modern era was built in 1963 and Denmark's first mosque was built in Copenhagen in 1967.  Luckily nobody noticed them for over 50 years 🤥 because some of their culture might have rubbed off...

And then you said, "If we are to believe that non-radicalized Muslims are the silent majority then a meaningful way forward for them would be to openly, strongly and regularly denounce the radicalized in their midst."  Really?  I am not sure how many times they need to do that here to make people like you happy, but you are welcome to think that way.

People like me huh.  I don’t like the koolaid it’s true.  But if you mean people who recognize that the Quran clearly calls for world domination, well, then.....

Many, many more times.  The mullahs of note are not speaking or advocating the Islam that your friends believe in.  Quite the opposite.  I do concede that Islam has many peaceful adherents.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TXPower said:

People like me huh.  I don’t like the koolaid it’s true.  But if you mean people who recognize that the Quran clearly calls for world domination, well, then.....

Many, many more times.  The mullahs of note are not speaking or advocating the Islam that your friends believe in.  Quite the opposite.  I do concede that Islam has many peaceful adherents.  

I do not need Muslim leaders to denounce terrorism or fanaticism yet another time to appease those - yes, like you - who consider it important to be done on a regular basis.

Maybe it's because you invent what you want to believe about the Islamic faith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 minutes ago, mthebold said:

If you disagree, show me the data that proves I'm wrong.  

Do you always make such indeterminable requests?  Your recent claims in a separate thread were consistently in error, and even pointed out as so by others.

Edited by Red
usual... bad spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Red said:

I do not need Muslim leaders to denounce terrorism or fanaticism yet another time to appease those - yes, like you - who consider it important to be done on a regular basis.

Maybe it's because you invent what you want to believe about the Islamic faith. 

Or, perhaps you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

24 minutes ago, mthebold said:

 

To make this absolutely clear: the Moors conquered their way through the Iberian peninsula.  There was nothing peaceful or integrated about the process.  They invaded France as well - until Charles Martel stopped them.  The Moors were then pushed out of Spain over some centuries, after which the oft-maligned Spanish Inquisition was commissioned to root out lingering Islamic influence.  

We can add further examples to this: 

- The Turkish empire attempted to conquer its way through Eastern Europe, spreading Islam as it went.  We saw the lingering effects of this invasion in Kosovo in the 1990s.  Serbian aggression against Albanians was yet another example of locals opposing an aggressively expanding Islamic presence.
- I already linked to the issue with Rohingya in Myanmar.  It's interesting that Myanmar's actions took place after Muslims began murdering and expelling native non-Muslims.  

It's interesting that, around the world, people who encounter significant populations of Muslims conclude that co-existence is impossible.  These groups then resort to extraordinary means - often in defiance of the global community and knowing they'll be brought to trial for their actions - to expel the Muslims.  That's not normal human behavior, it's not an isolated incident, and the common element is Islam.  The facts on the ground suggest that something is very wrong with this ideology, and it should be thoroughly investigated before it's allowed to spread.  

Religion isn't particularly important in my life, and I don't particularly care what other people do with theirs - but when the facts say an aggressively spreading ideology leads to conflict, I heed the facts.  I am amenable to evidence.  If you disagree, show me where I'm wrong.  

Your initial claims about Northern Europe were not very clear given this thread is about what's happening in France.  Your claims omitted the dominance of the Ottoman Empire in Europe - stretching into Poland and Lithuania.  If you were talking about Scandinavia, then there has been an organised Islamic presence in those countries for over 50 years.  

You appear to know very little about the Rohinga: The nub of their problems stem from an Act in 1982 (from memory) to take away their citizenship rights.  Linking to a single article painting them as the baddies is poor analysis.  Myanmar could have solved the problem by giving them partial citizenship, but then constitutionally that would give them autonomy and create another problem, viz. what to do with the Buddhists in Rakine. 

You epitomise the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Edited by Red
I only know how little you "appear" you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably just as well that nobody is focusing much on what Christians have done in the name of Christ. Let's see  (just a very short list from memory):

Invasion and military conquest. Yup, the Christian nations knocked over all of Africa, all of North and South America, knocked over Australia, and New Zealand, and the Dutch East Indies, don't forget them, and the ports of China in the Opium Wars, don't forget those, and let's see: oh yes, then there was that enslavement of seven million survivors of the African slave trade, exported for profit to the "New World," and dumped overboard in long chain lengths to go drown if they ran a bit short on food, or were being engaged by police boats, and that does not count the other seven million that never survived some portion of the enslavement experience before being sold; 

Then the treatment of various Protestants, you have the Night of the Long Knives, where the French Catholics rose up and started knifing and slaughtering their Huguenot neighbors; 

And let's not forget anybody who did not toe the line, we had those fire pits and flaming crosses, remember Jeanne d'Arc;

And then you had the charming devises of the Inquisition, the human-form machine with spikes in it, and they closed the doors and rotated the big wheel that compressed you into a hundred spikes, so your corpse came out all speared;

And let's not forget the garrote,  you put your dissident tied to a pole and fixed that twist device onto the back of the neck, and started turning the wheel to tighten the strap, until it went all the way through your neck and your head fell off;

And we won't even mention the Crusades and the wanton slaughter that brought;

Yup, all done in the name of Christ himself by His stalwart supporters, the Holy Church, underwritten by the Pope himself, all in Love thy Neighbor and compassion for others.  Just charming. 

We won't talk about killing Jews off, that at least was a reasonable project, organized to benefit humanity.  Call that one a "plus," gotta keep those alien populations under control. Hey, great stuff, that Western religious tradition. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mthebold said:

The number of years isn't the important variable here.  Fraction of the total population - which determines power, influence, and how much an ideology can get away with - is what matters.  Islam's behavior is observed to change as it gains a larger fraction of the population.  E.g. the increasingly aggressive behavior of Islamic immigrants towards Swedish women.  My understanding is that this is being repeated across Europe as immigrants fail to integrate, take control of entire neighborhoods, and feel emboldened.  

My point is not that Islam is always "the baddies"; it's that the introduction of Islam to other ideologies consistently leads to violence.  Who is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant.  My concern is maintaining safety and human rights, and the introduction of Islam has consistently proven incompatible with that.  Immigration should be halted until the source of conflict is understood and eliminated.  For example, if we can demonstrate peaceful integration in the Muslim majority nations - where Islam exerts the most influence - then it would be reasonable to cautiously introduce Islam to new nations.

Again, it's not necessary to assign blame - but we do need to acknowledge that this ideology is the common element in many conflicts.  Recklessly mixing ideologies is just as bad for the immigrants as it is for the natives; we should halt immigration until we understand what's going on.  

I will leave you to your bigotry as it adds nothing to this thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Red said:

Obviously not a student of history - Moors were in Europe for around 700 years until towards the end of the 15th century.

Conflating religious fanaticism into global doom is a tad far fetched.  On an average day of the week you could not tell which of my friends were Muslim and which were not.  Moreover, the Muslims I know probably have a greater hatred for those radicalised in thought, because the spotlight now placed on them by the media and those too ignorant to learn the facts subjects them to unwanted attention, bigotry and, sadly, hate crime.

 

So the Moors were just 'around' Europe eh? Aliens just dropped them in for a bit of cultural exchange...yet the Spanish saw fit to expel them by force of arms. You seem to be a student of selective history. Naturally, you end your post by playing the victim card when in fact Muslims are overwhelmingly the victimizers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I read this thread with great interest, as a Moderator here I would like to gently point out a few items, addressed to no one in particular.

1) This derail onto religion is so far going much more amicably than it could have.  The topic of religion tends to get some people fairly excited.  Adding "religion" to an "environmental" and "political" themed thread can be a risky road to navigate, without people blowing up in fits of irrationality.

2) Early on, I insisted to Oil Price staff (I'm just a volunteer Moderator here) that a set of forum rules be drafted and put into writing, so that everyone is aware of the basic does and don'ts.  Please take note, as a gentle reminder:

Community Guidelines

3) I need to recuse myself as a Moderator from this particular derail in this particular thread, as I live in country where criticizing certain topics can get me hauled off to prison or worse.  Not joking.  Please read between the lines here...

4) And since I need to recuse myself on this particular derail in this particular thread, I'll tag team and ask for Moderator assistance from @Rodent or @Selvedina or any other Moderators for any further concerns that may need to be addressed.

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2018 at 1:38 AM, Dan Warnick said:

Complacency and ignorance.

First, Complacency.  From a search on Google and then DuckDuckGo:

Google.

image.png.2dd19772f0496cada73fc736e6a717dc.png

DuckDuckGo.

image.png.609ad4f61b48a062ac25d06a25741e31.png

Interesting?  Why does Google go with the more critical definition as the first highlighted result?  I'm sure they don't have real people making that decision day in and day out.  So, why?  Is there an algo that goes with the more negative version?

Anyway, going with the second (DuckDuckGo) definition, I'll get on with a point that seems relevant to me when it comes to the immigration issues we've all had to start coming to grips with in recent times.

My feeling is that most Americans were (past tense) complacent about their government when it came to issues such as immigration.  That was due to many reasons, not the least of which being that we all acknowledge we are a nation of immigrants (Sorry American Indians; as usual we'll have to discuss what we did to you another day).  But most importantly, it was because we were complacent and believed that the government's laws on immigration hadn't changed all that much over the years and they were doing a pretty good job of screening and admitting basically good, honest, hardworking or, in cases where it was warranted, persecuted, people into the country to realize the American Dream, as it were.

I believe that most American people thought (past tense) of their nation's immigration policies as being pretty darn fair, if not downright sympathetic and lenient.  Interestingly, Google and the Duck (I can't be bothered to type "duckduckgo" every time, which unfortunately helps Google win that war for my search efforts) came up with the exact same results for "lenient".

That brings us to Ignorance.  Let's go with Wikipedia this time for the (American) definition:

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. The word ignorant is an adjective that describes a person in the state of being unaware, and can describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts, or individuals who are unaware of important information or facts. Wikipedia

Put people's complacency together with their ignorance as to what our political leaders were in fact changing about our immigration laws, or at the very least were changing with regards to the application and enforcement of our existing immigration laws, and you have the recipe for calamity that we are dealing with today.

Now, we are all playing catch-up. 

The problem is this issue involves the lives of millions of people and fast action is necessary, or so we are told.  Politicians, without taking responsibility for the changes to our nation's immigration "policies", now tell us that we have to accept their mass solutions and let these people in by the millions or else we are bad humans.  Most good people don't respect others who don't take responsibility for their actions, and they sure don't like the implication that somehow they have become bad humans because of the first group's mishandling or manipulation of policies they thought were being fairly carried out.  Being human, and assuming the basic goodness of humans in general, we all want to do what is right.  That starts in our homes with our direct families and then spreads out from there.  People who feel that they are already struggling will push back at anyone trying to force what they perceive to be more hardship down their throats.  And the issue of accepting mass immigration affects just about every facet of the lives of the people in the receiving country (much good, much bad).

Therefore, if our governments wish to get our support, they have an incumbent responsibility to inform the current citizenry of the issues and costs, and then lay out a plan to handle the integration of these new arrivals into society.  One of the first and foremost requirements of any such plan is that the new arrivals agree, and yes even swear under oath (remember, our society requires such norms), that they will make every effort to assimilate into our culture while (secondarily) sharing the cultures of the countries they have come from.  Maybe then we can hope to effectively handle the challenge; not before.

Anyway, that's just my opinion and I'm sure others will have differing points of view.  

Interesting you should bring up Google and DDG. Recently DDG did a study examining Google's search results.

https://spreadprivacy.com/google-filter-bubble-study/

It's a long post and obviously DDG is a competitor of Google. But, in the interest of transparency they've made the code and data available to anyone to analyze so that they can draw their own conclusions. Their summary of findings.

  1. Most participants saw results unique to them. These discrepancies could not be explained by changes in location, time, by being logged in to Google, or by Google testing algorithm changes to a small subset of users.
  2. On the first page of search results, Google included links for some participants that it did not include for others, even when logged out and in private browsing mode.
  3. Results within the news and videos infoboxes also varied significantly. Even though people searched at the same time, people were shown different sources, even after accounting for location.
  4. Private browsing mode and being logged out of Google offered very little filter bubble protection. These tactics simply do not provide the anonymity most people expect. In fact, it's simply not possible to use Google search and avoid its filter bubble.

Already in 2012 DDG ran a study and concluded:

"Back in 2012 we ran a study showing Google's filter bubble may have significantly influenced the 2012 U.S. Presidential election by inserting tens of millions of more links for Obama than for Romney in the run-up to that election."

Of course Obama won that election so there was no media uproar about any country or corporation influencing or 'hacking' the election. You can see for yourself how Google changes the search results by searching in Google via the Tor browser and then doing the same search in Google in any other browser.

In related news...

Google has been developing a search engine for China, codenamed Dragonfly, that would censor whatever the Chinese government tells them to censor.

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/29/google-china-censored-search/

Some recommendations if you value your privacy. Protonmail or tutanota for email. DDG, DDG onion, or Startpage search engines when you're in the Tor browser...for starters.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Any thoughts on Apple's security? 

Probably safe to assume that Apple (and Android and any other electronic device) is not secure.

 

20181206_143910.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Any thoughts on Apple's security? 

Certainly better than Google or Facebook whose business model requires they collect as much info about you as they can. Some red flags regarding Apple are: iMessage seems to use non-standard protocols i.e. Apple proprietary methods, if you back up your email on iCloud it is not encrypted on Apple's servers, and Apple's centralized control of encryption keys.

If you really require a secure messenger app for your phone you can try Signal. Drawback to that is it requires a phone number. For desktop/laptop OTR messaging. I don't use these myself but if I needed to discuss sensitive matters I would. I mostly use iMessage for everyday texts. I don't think the average person can hack it but state actors may be another matter. Email I use protonmail, doesn't require a phone number to join - preferred method of secure communication.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mthebold said:

 

I would challenge everyone to ask these questions: 
- Which countries are most experienced with Islam? 
- What are their thoughts on mass immigration?  

I think that would be a reasonable starting point for discussion.  

Paul, my guess would be Indonesia.  As I understand it, there are more muslims in INdonesia than in any other country. 

How long that religious tradition has been there, I dunno.  But it seems to work for them, so hey, what works, works. 

On a strictly personal note, after the fiascos and mass deaths of 9/11 in New York, the local muslim folks have made it a point to reach out to the Christian communities near where I live and invite the Christians, and this is through various church groups, not posters on the street  poles, to come join them for the celebration of the end of Ramadan.  A nice feast is prepared and we (the Christians) are graciously invited over to participate.  I must say I was warmly received.  The Islamic religion is basically rather mild, it is the crazies that warp things in order to fit into some mentally-ill agenda.  That is a quite small group.  Personally, I am perfectly happy to have Muslim neighbors, it just happens that there are none in my neck of the woods.  In Vermont, two Syrian refugee families were invited to settle, and that was all that could get past the Trump prohibitions on Muslim refugees.  Personally, I find that to be a bit of a shame.  I would certainly have enjoyed having a new Syrian restaurant in town. Oh, well. 

The other thing you want to keep in mind is that a good number of the Syrian refugees that sought admission to the USA were in fact Christians. Cheers.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Paul, my guess would be Indonesia.  As I understand it, there are more muslims in INdonesia than in any other country. 

How long that religious tradition has been there, I dunno.  But it seems to work for them, so hey, what works, works. 

On a strictly personal note, after the fiascos and mass deaths of 9/11 in New York, the local muslim folks have made it a point to reach out to the Christian communities near where I live and invite the Christians, and this is through various church groups, not posters on the street  poles, to come join them for the celebration of the end of Ramadan.  A nice feast is prepared and we (the Christians) are graciously invited over to participate.  I must say I was warmly received.  The Islamic religion is basically rather mild, it is the crazies that warp things in order to fit into some mentally-ill agenda.  That is a quite small group.  Personally, I am perfectly happy to have Muslim neighbors, it just happens that there are none in my neck of the woods.  In Vermont, two Syrian refugee families were invited to settle, and that was all that could get past the Trump prohibitions on Muslim refugees.  Personally, I find that to be a bit of a shame.  I would certainly have enjoyed having a new Syrian restaurant in town. Oh, well. 

The other thing you want to keep in mind is that a good number of the Syrian refugees that sought admission to the USA were in fact Christians. Cheers.

"after the fiascos and mass deaths of 9/11 in New York"   You mean mass murder? It's clear what you're about. You ever think that those Syrian Christians fleeing Syria might have something do to with "the local muslim folks".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mthebold said:

If you disagree, show me the data that proves I'm wrong.  

Under @Marina Schwarzs multiculturalism thread I already sent you a link to an interview with a gay imam that has founded an inclusive mosque. Why do you choose solely to focus on the negative rather than the positive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

My point is not that Islam is always "the baddies"; it's that the introduction of Islam to other ideologies consistently leads to violence.  Who is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant.  

What about holocaust? Is that also a muslim conspiracy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

I would challenge everyone to ask these questions: 
- Which countries are most experienced with Islam? 
- What are their thoughts on mass immigration?  

I will be happy to answer: the former territories of the Ottoman empire have pretty extensive first-hand experience with Islam without actually being Muslim countries. The majority of the population was decidedly not in favour of incoming migration.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites