[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Does this in some way point to an agenda?[/quote]
No. I’ve explained my reasoning and if you can’t click a link and see the enormity of Islamic terrorism all over the world, it’s not my problem.
Does this in some way point to an agenda?
No.
It’s clear you’ve got one.
Please quote anyone on this board who said they condone Irish terrorism in England.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Does this in some way point to an agenda?[/quote]
No. I’ve explained my reasoning and if you can’t click a link and see the enormity of Islamic terrorism all over the world, it’s not my problem.
Does this in some way point to an agenda?
No.
It’s clear you’ve got one.
[/quote]
Stop talking about all over the world and address the issue. You claim England should stop muslim immigration, yet not Irish immigration, despite more Irish immigrants being connected to/involved in/carrying out terrorism.
So why should England stop Muslim immigrants coming because of dangers of terrorism, but allow Irish immigrants, if Irish immigrants have statistically been involved in more terrorism in England? And if MI5 says the biggest threat is Irish Republican groups and our budget spends more on controlling that threat, why would you support Irish immigration but not Muslim immigration?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Please quote anyone on this board who said they condone Irish terrorism in England.[/quote]
Nope, no comparison between people who bomb remembrance day parades, capture torture and kill police officers, sell drugs and are allied to Islamic jihadists in Palestine, who bomb pubs packed with families and children.
Zero comparison, bombing toddlers in warrington and torturing police officers is pretty much legit right?
[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Stop talking about all over the world and address the issue. You claim England should stop muslim immigration, yet not Irish immigration, despite more Irish immigrants being connected to/involved in/carrying out terrorism.
[/quote]
Where did I or anyone on this board ever say that? You pulled that out of the air man. Quote someone who wrote that or gtfo.
Why don’t you address the issue I brought up?
[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Zero comparison, bombing toddlers in warrington and torturing police officers is pretty much legit right?[/quote]
You made the comparison, buddy, not me.
(oh yeah:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Stop talking about all over the world and address the issue. You claim England should stop muslim immigration, yet not Irish immigration, despite more Irish immigrants being connected to/involved in/carrying out terrorism.
[/quote]
Where did I or anyone on this board ever say that? You pulled that out of the air man. Quote someone who wrote that or gtfo.
Why don’t you address the issue I brought up?[/quote]
All your posts have been about how allowing muslims to migrate here is dangerous and they bring a high risk of terrorism and immigration of muslim people should be opposed. Now you claim you never argued that despite two pages of you doing exactly that.
[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
All your posts have been about how allowing muslims to migrate here is dangerous and they bring a high risk of terrorism and immigration of muslim people should be opposed. Now you claim you never argued that despite two pages of you doing exactly that.[/quote]
Quote someone who wrote that Irish terrorism is ok while Islamic terrorism is not.
Quote someone who said to block Muslim immigration and continue Irish immigration.
learn something new everyday
i always thought the irsh attacks in england were carried out by people who would travel to england stay long enough to do thier attack and go home i did not relise they were immagrants
so with the irsh problem it should show the dangers of the curent immagrant crisis
irsh ,reglious political
muslim ,religious political
if you do not learn from the past you are doomed
cnn has an article online that shows where refugees are coming from going to and who is paying what
Indeed.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
[quote]cavemansam wrote:
i think muslim extremist are just getting started
but what about the native american indians they lost there whole country to Immigrants
[/quote]
No they lost their entire country to invaders.
[/quote]
Rank stupidity.
[/quote]
Sorry, when did the European colonists go to America as migrants, looking to enter the native population and assimilate? They didn’t, they went and took control of the land, took slaves, abused and made war…
[/quote]
Another foolish statement made by one obviously void of knowledge of American history.
More later because you won’t get away with this kind of bullshit on this forum.
[/quote]
FNG, here’s your history lesson. Sit up and pay attention and don’t look up Candy’s dress for a few minutes and Professor Push will correctly counter the bullshit you’ve been served up in whatever half-ass educational system got its hooks into you.
Native Americans did not “lose their country to invaders” because they had no “country” to lose. None.
They were aboriginals who had no cohesiveness, no unification, which is required by virtually any definition of “country.”
North and South America, especially North, was one of, if not the most sparsely settled land masses on the face of the earth at the time of the initial “invasion” which of course was no invasion at all; it was a very slow settlement process that occurred over centuries.
Native Americans systematically and constantly engaged in some of the most brutal atrocities – against each other – long before and long after any “invaders” did all there “invading” – atrocities that would make ISIS look like a Baptist Sunday School. Genocide, slavery, rampant theft,torture, mutilations, degrading occultist ceremonies, etc. To be a native American woman was to be slightly, just slightly, higher than a camp dog in terms of treatment within the society. They were called savages because indeed they perpetuated savagery that so many modern folks can simply not even begin to comprehend.
None of that excuses the atrocities that the white “invaders” visited on natives but it does provide a proper historical context and backdrop to this inane idea that a “country” was “invaded.” At the very least, hundreds of thousands if not millions of women were “liberated” by being “rescued” by the “invaders.” Infant mortality rates plummeted; famine and death from the elements was reduced; perpetual violence deescalated; education was introduced, women’s status rose, etc.
Back to the erroneous idea of “country”: there was no system of law that defined borders and established honored legalities. Many if not most tribes drifted, were nomadic, and really could not honestly claim particular parcels of land. There was constant displacement of tribes by other tribes and it didn’t come from diplomacy and/or any recognition of “rights” or right or wrong (morality). It was by brute force and nothing but brute force.
There simply was no societal structure within which any newcomers (invaders) could “assimilate” and to suggest its possibility is to admit to historical ignorance. If they had theoretically “assimilated” they merely would’ve been swept back into the Stone Age because THAT’s essentially what existed (with some exceptions) from the Atlantic to the Pacific at the time of settlement of the America’s; there simply was no such thing as the “invasion of a country” and even if we erroneously construct such an idea the counterpoint is that the white man only did the same thing to the red man that the red man was doing to the red man but with much less, relatively speaking, ruthlessness and barbarity.[/quote]
The tribes did indeed war and commit atrocities against one another, they would, if they could, do the same, they simply, lacked the technological advancement and thus ability to wage war and conquest as well as the Europeans.
However on none of this do we disagree. Europeans on arrival enslaved Natives, demanded gold, basically they arrived and once they arrived they decided to plunder and take for themselves and the empire.
My point in this, is that the comparison of European settlement in the Americas and syrian and iraqi immigration to Europe bear no comparison, as one poster suggested: “look at the native americans, immigration didn’t end too well for them”
European arrival and conquest of North America is such a dumb comparison, which prompted my points you seemed to take issue with. Europeans as you know did not go to assimilate into Native culture, such a thing was not even possible, there was no Nation to join or state system to fold into. Hence my point that the comparison is stupid.
Refugees are coming to Europe to join the country, to assimilate, to work, to have families. As you yourself said Europeans even if they wanted to could not do that in the Americas. Hence my entire point about how the comparison was dumb.
You for some reason took that as some sort of completely different thing, then wrote a bunch of words which basically mirrored my entire point.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
[quote]cavemansam wrote:
i think muslim extremist are just getting started
but what about the native american indians they lost there whole country to Immigrants
[/quote]
No they lost their entire country to invaders.
[/quote]
Rank stupidity.
[/quote]
Sorry, when did the European colonists go to America as migrants, looking to enter the native population and assimilate? They didn’t, they went and took control of the land, took slaves, abused and made war…
[/quote]
Another foolish statement made by one obviously void of knowledge of American history.
More later because you won’t get away with this kind of bullshit on this forum.
[/quote]
FNG, here’s your history lesson. Sit up and pay attention and don’t look up Candy’s dress for a few minutes and Professor Push will correctly counter the bullshit you’ve been served up in whatever half-ass educational system got its hooks into you.
Native Americans did not “lose their country to invaders” because they had no “country” to lose. None.
They were aboriginals who had no cohesiveness, no unification, which is required by virtually any definition of “country.”
North and South America, especially North, was one of, if not the most sparsely settled land masses on the face of the earth at the time of the initial “invasion” which of course was no invasion at all; it was a very slow settlement process that occurred over centuries.
Native Americans systematically and constantly engaged in some of the most brutal atrocities – against each other – long before and long after any “invaders” did all their “invading,” atrocities that would make ISIS look like a Baptist Sunday School. Genocide, slavery, rampant theft, torture, mutilations, degrading occultist ceremonies, etc. To be a native American woman was to be slightly, just slightly, higher than a camp dog in terms of treatment within the society. They were called savages because indeed they perpetuated savagery that so many modern folks can simply not even begin to comprehend.
None of that excuses the atrocities that the white “invaders” visited on natives but it does provide a proper historical context and backdrop to this inane idea that a “country” was “invaded.” At the very least, hundreds of thousands if not millions of women were “liberated” by being “rescued” by the “invaders.” Infant mortality rates plummeted; famine and death from the elements was reduced; perpetual violence deescalated; education was introduced, women’s status rose, etc.
Back to the erroneous idea of “country”: there was no system of law that defined borders and established honored legalities. Many if not most tribes drifted, were nomadic, and really could not honestly claim particular parcels of land. There was constant displacement of tribes by other tribes and it didn’t come from diplomacy and/or any recognition of “rights” or right or wrong (morality). It was by brute force and nothing but brute force. It was a dog-eat-dog world if there ever was one.
There simply was no societal structure within which any newcomers (invaders) could “assimilate” and to suggest its possibility is to admit to historical ignorance. If they had theoretically “assimilated” they merely would’ve been swept back into the Stone Age because THAT’s essentially what existed (with some exceptions) from the Atlantic to the Pacific at the time of settlement of the America’s; there simply was no such thing as the “invasion of a country” and even if we erroneously construct such an idea the counterpoint is that the white man only did the same thing to the red man that the red man was doing to the red man but with much less, relatively speaking, ruthlessness and barbarity.[/quote]
There is so much wrong in the text above, I do not know where to begin. I will try nevertheless.
First of all, the basic premise about lacking societal structure does not hold, as can be determined by a cursory glance at the societal structure of Pueblo Indians, just to name one in the territory of the US of A. I won’t even get to Mesoamerican cultures.
Also, the “nomadic” part would be a surprise to the Native American tribes who lived in settled agricultural societies.
To take just one example from US popular history, those settlers in Jamestown were not fed by nomadic tribesmen, but by surplus generating agricultural societies. For any agricultural production above subsistence levels an established societal structure is necessary.
Not to mention that the vast majority of East Coast Native Americans were exterminated by the plague just a few years before European arrival and their batch of diseases.
Also, the “terra nullius” concept that you are invoking did not apply to the current territory of the US of A:
Many instances in which European settlers regulated their relationship with different local chieftains and entities through treaties and agreements (almost always broken nevertheless) repudiate your claim about “stone age” cultures.
Also, pretty much all written in the paragraph about “degrading occultist ceremonies” is factually incorrect and sounds like a rambling of a 16th century Spanish priest who has just landed in New Spain and is horrified by the locals and their “idolatry”.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
London is a cesspool. The immigrants have destroyed that once-great city. In 20 years it will be a no-go city for infidels. Anyone in favor of refugees, please look at London.
[/quote]
Have you ever even been to London?
If so, where and for how long?
Your description of London as a “cesspool” could not really be more inaccurate. I am speaking as someone who has spent decades living in the West/East/South of the city.
Please expand on this post. As many of the posters/readers here are Americans who have not been to London they may interpret your posts as having some basis in reality.
I just want it to be clear how completely and utterly wrong you are.