More Proof Muslims Are Nuts!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
…
Westernization? Wow. And I thought I would never see the colonialist spirit still alive in a white person. Guess my anthropology prof was right. [/quote]

What the hell should I call it? Bringing them into this century?

If your anthropology professor thinks introducing western ideals is forming a colony then you should ask the school for a refund.

EDIT: Or we could just help an eastern philosophy such as Buddhism thrive. It is too bad we didn’t go in before the intolerant thugs destroyed the giant Buddhas.

62

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What the hell should I call it? Bringing them into this century?[/quote]

How about calling a spade a spade? It was the overthrowing of a regime that demonstrabely harbored terrorists.

It is indeed the line used by every single colonial power from the dawn of civilization. How do you think countries justified their imperial agenda?

63

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What the hell should I call it? Bringing them into this century?

How about calling a spade a spade? It was the overthrowing of a regime that demonstrabely harbored terrorists.
[/quote]
And brutalized its own people and had zero tolerance for other viewpoints.

[quote]
If your anthropology professor thinks introducing western ideals is forming a colony then you should ask the school for a refund.

It is indeed the line used by every single colonial power from the dawn of civilization. How do you think countries justified their imperial agenda?[/quote]

WTF are you talking about? Imperial agenda? To throw money at backwards third world countries?

The old time empires took over to exploit the other nations. Are we exploiting Afghanistan? Fuck no. It is costing us a fortune. As is Iraq.

Your accusations are silly but they show your mindset.

Afghanistan is backwards and intolerant. Just because western countries are far more tolerant shouldn’t get you upset. You should understand this. You moved to a western country to go to school!

64

[quote]lixy wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
You mentioned that “If you look closely, Britain, Australia and Germany have always had issues assimilating Muslims.” I’d say that if you keep looking, you’ll find that Sweden does as well…

Actually, I meant to say “issues assimilating immigrants”. Just watch how third generation of Turk immigrants who were born in Germany and don’t speak a word of Turkish are not considered Germans. Or the way British society is hermetic to any outside culture.

Hope that the situation is improving. I guess you can help the Swedes - especially their women - figure out how it’s their fault this trend is occurring.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20552

Buddy, I’ve been here for some time now, and I can tell you with a certain degree of confidence that whatever was reported in the article is a load of BS.

People around here will literally laugh at you, were you to present them with the article. Yes, there’s a town in the south where immigration has caused lots of trouble, but trying to connect it to Islam is seriously sick.[/quote]

Islam as a religion is not responsible for the rape wave. However, it is true that many immigrants view provocatively dressed females as “sluts”. Many of these immigrants come from very conservative backgrounds, a lot of them grow up with a “ghetto”-like attitude, where one essentially looks down upon the typical Swedish female. Thus, it is true that some immigrants may

Furthermore, the sentiments echoed in the article are illustrative of what a lot Swedes actually feel with regards to immigration and it would foolish to ignore them. Like in France there’s a lot of latent racism and Swedes, I believe, tend to want to be very PC.

With that said that article is clearly bogus. Don’t think there’ are enough Libyans and Tunisians in Sweden to rent an apartment. Besides that most immigrants in Sweden are non-Muslim so the dude’s grasping at straws when he’s explicitly stating that Islam is the root cause for this “rape wave”. But I do remember having read about this particular case somewhere…

65

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
WTF are you talking about? Imperial agenda? To throw money at backwards third world countries?[/quote]

So, it’s just a coincidence really that it happened to be in a resource rich region?

It’s not about exploitation anymore. It’s about control of those resources. Having troops and bases all around the Gulf is crucial to maintain a grip on the world. Stop pretending that you’re spending billions on the war for altruistic reasons. Makes you sound rather simple-minded (which I know you’re not).

I’m not upset about tolerance. I tend to get pissed when some of you buy into the BS line that the Iraq war was to save the world and destroy the alleged WMD’s. After some time, when none were found, the official line reverted to bringing democracy and freedom. It was so flagrant, that the whole world - except Americans - noticed the crap and knew you were there to build bases and control the oil.

I moved here because they happen to be good at the stuff I’m doing. It has absolutely nothing to do with tolerance whatsoever.

66

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
Furthermore, the sentiments echoed in the article are illustrative of what a lot Swedes actually feel with regards to immigration and it would foolish to ignore them. Like in France there’s a lot of latent racism and Swedes, I believe, tend to want to be very PC.[/quote]

France “suffered” from immigration from Arab countries for ages already. You just have to turn on the tube to see all the violence in the banlieues. The population is ghetto-ized and that contributes to accentuates racism.

In Sweden, the bulk of immigrants comes from Estonia, Danemark and such countries. For that reason, immigrants are in general better integrated into the society. IMHO, it has nothing to do with political correctness. I mean look at the political scene in France; In 2004, the FN, and LePen, almost got to power. They have a huge supporter base. The radical nationalistic right in Sweden is almost non-existent.

Other than that, I totally agree with your analysis.

67

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
…
Westernization? Wow. And I thought I would never see the colonialist spirit still alive in a white person. Guess my anthropology prof was right.

What the hell should I call it? Bringing them into this century?

If your anthropology professor thinks introducing western ideals is forming a colony then you should ask the school for a refund.

EDIT: Or we could just help an eastern philosophy such as Buddhism thrive. It is too bad we didn’t go in before the intolerant thugs destroyed the giant Buddhas.[/quote]

Your argument involves the idea that a certain way of life should be imposed on a people. That was colonization. Colonies were first made to acquire land and power, and impose Christianity on the peoples, often resulting in revolt towards the occupying party.

Nothing that is happening is new, just on a larger scale.

68

[quote]k.elkouhen wrote:

I don’t believe you, but if you really are a junior high math teacher, your lack of comprehension of some pretty basic stuff is astounding.[/quote]

Who said anything about junior high? I teach Calculus and PreCalculus to kids whose average ACT in math is 28 (was 23 when I took over the program, btw).

Do you even know what cardinality is? Or the cardinality of the Naturals (if you know what cardinality is)? What is a MacLaurin Series? What’s an Improper Integral?

Happy Googling!!

69

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
…
But then again, it would have been wiser for me not to include Afghanistan in the list since I supported the initial strikes against it. I apologize for that.

I don’t undrestand this. It is not air strikes that are needed. What is needed in Afghanistan is liberalization/westernization.

Strikes against the Taliban and military forces on the ground are only meant to protect fledgling westernization from the Taliban types.

Bombing does not solve anything. How can people support the bombing but not the more important follow up? [/quote]

The Taliban actually LIKES the bombing. They want to prevent the spread of democracy and retain their insane theocracy bullshit. What better way than to invoke Allah and prattle on about the West ‘invading’ Allah’s sacred domain?

I think the surrounding countries around Iraq/Afghanistan are funding the terror for precisely these reasons: they don’t WANT their people to be in charge. The Imams and other Satanists want to keep a theocratic dictatorship.

How long would any of these Satanic regimes last if a fair election were held? Ha!!!

70

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
…
Westernization? Wow. And I thought I would never see the colonialist spirit still alive in a white person. Guess my anthropology prof was right.

What the hell should I call it? Bringing them into this century?

If your anthropology professor thinks introducing western ideals is forming a colony then you should ask the school for a refund.

EDIT: Or we could just help an eastern philosophy such as Buddhism thrive. It is too bad we didn’t go in before the intolerant thugs destroyed the giant Buddhas.

Your argument involves the idea that a certain way of life should be imposed on a people. That was colonization. Colonies were first made to acquire land and power, and impose Christianity on the peoples, often resulting in revolt towards the occupying party.

Nothing that is happening is new, just on a larger scale.[/quote]

Beyond ludicrous…how many colonial powers let the ‘conquered’ people hold their own elections?

And if its a colony, then doesn’t that mean that we want some of our citizens to move there, to ‘colonize’? Yeah…I want to move to Iraq…LMAO!

Is all of this similar to a lawsuit I heard about…a guy pulled a woman from a burning building and she sued him — he didn’t rescue her fast enough.

71

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beyond ludicrous…how many colonial powers let the ‘conquered’ people hold their own elections?

And if its a colony, then doesn’t that mean that we want some of our citizens to move there, to ‘colonize’? Yeah…I want to move to Iraq…LMAO!

Is all of this similar to a lawsuit I heard about…a guy pulled a woman from a burning building and she sued him — he didn’t rescue her fast enough.[/quote]

Most Americans think oil was a factor in your invasion of Iraq.

90%+ of Iraqis say the reason you went to Iraq is to control their oil. The majority of the world population thinks the same thing. You can’t possibly dismiss all these opinions and keep thinking inside your bubble.

72

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
k.elkouhen wrote:

I don’t believe you, but if you really are a junior high math teacher, your lack of comprehension of some pretty basic stuff is astounding.

Who said anything about junior high? I teach Calculus and PreCalculus to kids

[/quote]

If you are a math teacher then why are you making such silly mistakes ?

When I pointed them out to you earlier in this thread, you could have acknowledged and that would have been the end to it.

73

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
…
Westernization? Wow. And I thought I would never see the colonialist spirit still alive in a white person. Guess my anthropology prof was right.

What the hell should I call it? Bringing them into this century?

If your anthropology professor thinks introducing western ideals is forming a colony then you should ask the school for a refund.

EDIT: Or we could just help an eastern philosophy such as Buddhism thrive. It is too bad we didn’t go in before the intolerant thugs destroyed the giant Buddhas.

Your argument involves the idea that a certain way of life should be imposed on a people. That was colonization. Colonies were first made to acquire land and power, and impose Christianity on the peoples, often resulting in revolt towards the occupying party.

Nothing that is happening is new, just on a larger scale.[/quote]

I don`t know.

I think America is in trouble because it has all the imperial instincts though it was born out of an anti-imperialist revolt.

Snce it is kind of hard to enslave people in the name of freedom, the game has to be played a little bit different.

It kind of works, more or less, by selling the American public the idea of " spreading Democracy" or “make the world save for Democracy” (Wilson).

That, and BS wars like the war on Drugs/terror mean constant warfare and a massive redistribution of wealth to “defense” contractors.

I think the idea is not so much to colonize but to destroy as much expensive equipment as possible, which has to be replaced, kind of like the constant warfare in 1984.

The Rumdfeld doctrine fits neatly into that: Less boots on the ground, more high tech.

I think all of this works pretty well for people in power or otherwise it would end tomorrow.

And that is not even a conspiracy theory, they could install revolving doors between congress, lobbyists, defense contractors and the military.

A big, happy family…

74

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
…
Westernization? Wow. And I thought I would never see the colonialist spirit still alive in a white person. Guess my anthropology prof was right.

What the hell should I call it? Bringing them into this century?

If your anthropology professor thinks introducing western ideals is forming a colony then you should ask the school for a refund.

EDIT: Or we could just help an eastern philosophy such as Buddhism thrive. It is too bad we didn’t go in before the intolerant thugs destroyed the giant Buddhas.

Your argument involves the idea that a certain way of life should be imposed on a people. That was colonization. Colonies were first made to acquire land and power, and impose Christianity on the peoples, often resulting in revolt towards the occupying party.

Nothing that is happening is new, just on a larger scale.

Beyond ludicrous…how many colonial powers let the ‘conquered’ people hold their own elections?

And if its a colony, then doesn’t that mean that we want some of our citizens to move there, to ‘colonize’? Yeah…I want to move to Iraq…LMAO!

Is all of this similar to a lawsuit I heard about…a guy pulled a woman from a burning building and she sued him — he didn’t rescue her fast enough.

[/quote]

I didnt say the words colony or colonize. I hinted at a colonial attitude. The whole prospect of thinking the your way of life is better than theirs and imposing it on them against their will.

And if you like analogies… your an architect with a design for a building, and you think its the best design ever. You’ve both spent years working on your designs. Another architect has the design for the same building, and he believes the same thing, that his is the best design. Everyone outside agrees that both designs are appropriate and workable. But you know your design is the best, so for his own good you grab his hard-worked design, crumple it up, throw it in the bin, put yours in its place and tell him he has to follow it for his own best interest.

I don’t know about you, but if I was the other architect, I’d punch you in the face.

75

[quote]lixy wrote:

France “suffered” from immigration from Arab countries for ages already. You just have to turn on the tube to see all the violence in the banlieues. The population is ghetto-ized and that contributes to accentuates racism.

In Sweden, the bulk of immigrants comes from Estonia, Danemark and such countries. For that reason, immigrants are in general better integrated into the society. IMHO, it has nothing to do with political correctness. I mean look at the political scene in France; In 2004, the FN, and LePen, almost got to power. They have a huge supporter base. The radical nationalistic right in Sweden is almost non-existent.

Other than that, I totally agree with your analysis.[/quote]

This is very much true, however, there is a growing discontent towards immigrants and immigration policy in Sweden. One need just to look at the emergence of the Swedish Democrats who might earn some seats in the parliament by the time the next election comes around.

Also, the discontent is aimed at the African, Middle Eastern and Balkan segments of the immigration population as opposed to the Western European ones. That is exactly what the Swedish Democrats are petitioning against, the so-called emerging multiculturalism. Swedish integration policy is, or has been, down-right miserable as it has resulted in similar types of “banlieues” as those found in France.

Most non-European immigrants are not well integrated at all. In fact look at the graduation rates in many of these immigrant-heavy suburbs and you see that only about 50% or below have qualifying grades to go from MIDDLE SCHOOL to HIGH SCHOOL.

Combine this with the fact that a majority of these same people are unemployed and live of welfare, you begin to see how Swedish integration policy has failed as opposed to a country like Canada.

76

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
This is very much true, however, there is a growing discontent towards immigrants and immigration policy in Sweden. One need just to look at the emergence of the Swedish Democrats who might earn some seats in the parliament by the time the next election comes around.

Also, the discontent is aimed at the African, Middle Eastern and Balkan segments of the immigration population as opposed to the Western European ones. That is exactly what the Swedish Democrats are petitioning against, the so-called emerging multiculturalism. Swedish integration policy is, or has been, down-right miserable as it has resulted in similar types of “banlieues” as those found in France.

Most non-European immigrants are not well integrated at all. In fact look at the graduation rates in many of these immigrant-heavy suburbs and you see that only about 50% or below have qualifying grades to go from MIDDLE SCHOOL to HIGH SCHOOL.

Combine this with the fact that a majority of these same people are unemployed and live of welfare, you begin to see how Swedish integration policy has failed as opposed to a country like Canada. [/quote]

They’re still doing much better that Britain, France or Germany in that context. But, it’s just my opinion.

All you said is true. I just want to add something to support it: All bicycle repairmen, and I mean every single one of them, in my town are of Arab descent, and there are a dozen shops. Can’t complain; Speaking Arabic with them gets me discounts. :wink:

77

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
…
Westernization? Wow. And I thought I would never see the colonialist spirit still alive in a white person. Guess my anthropology prof was right.

What the hell should I call it? Bringing them into this century?

If your anthropology professor thinks introducing western ideals is forming a colony then you should ask the school for a refund.

EDIT: Or we could just help an eastern philosophy such as Buddhism thrive. It is too bad we didn’t go in before the intolerant thugs destroyed the giant Buddhas.

Your argument involves the idea that a certain way of life should be imposed on a people. That was colonization. Colonies were first made to acquire land and power, and impose Christianity on the peoples, often resulting in revolt towards the occupying party.

Nothing that is happening is new, just on a larger scale.[/quote]

Afghanistan is not Iraq.

If anything, there should be 150,000 troops on the ground there, and not in Iraq at all.

I still believe Iraq is about oil. Afghanistan is about vengeance. Firebomb the Taliban, and lets get the fuck out of Iraq.

78

[quote]lixy wrote:
They’re still doing much better that Britain, France or Germany in that context. But, it’s just my opinion.
[/quote]

Yes and no. I think each country in itself are dealing with different issues. Sweden for one is still dealing with widespread discrimination in the workplace. I might be wrong but it’s probably easier for a non-European to attain a professional or even a “regular” job in England and France than it would be in Sweden. The Somalian unemployment rate in Sweden is estimated at 80% causing many of them to move abroad and to England in particular. Educated doctors and the like are forced to become cab drivers and what not. But yes there’s less of a frictional relationship between ethnic groups (Swedes contra non-Europeans)than say France. Neverthless, latent “racism” and discontent towards multiculturalism is growing and is becoming more readily apparent day by day.

79

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Do you even know what cardinality is? Or the cardinality of the Naturals (if you know what cardinality is)? What is a MacLaurin Series? What’s an Improper Integral?

Happy Googling!!

[/quote]
Are you kidding me? You are challenging someone’s knowledge when they are sitting behind one of the greatest (and worst) information tools ever invented. If you had taken the time to understand the flaw in your argument you could have avoided this silly challenge.

Here’s the irony: You are attempting to make a “proof” that “Muslims are nuts” yet fail to realize the subject you teach was practically invented by them. Hilarious!

80

[quote]lixy wrote:
It was so flagrant, that the whole world - except Americans - noticed the crap and knew you were there to build bases and control the oil.

[/quote]
No. Some of us saw what was really going on. No one likes to admit to the brutality with which we enforce our energy (economic) policies. Seriously, we need to wake up. I see no difference in waging war for religious zealotry or economic independence.