The Spread of Muslims in Europe

by serotonin_wraith 94 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • darkuncle29
    darkuncle29

    Kaboom Shamus!

    I think the real issue is deeper, more sublte. It is my opinion, that it is not a persons beliefs that 'make them' do bad things, their beliefs are just a crutch or tool that they use to convince themselves...to diengage their conscience if you will...and then they can carry aout un-human acts.

    So in my mind it doesn't matter who they are or what they believe. Muslim. Christian. (extremeists of either sort) Nazis (which is originally a short form of the German word for Nationalists) Communists. These lables of ideologies are just a tool, like a gun. It is the person behind the trigger, who pulled the trigger who is to blame, who bears full responsibility.

    Almost any tool (belief system?) can be perverted into a weapon to do harm to others. Instead of saying that 'Muslims are bad mmkay', we should be standing firm in the notion that harming others is Not ok. But I also don't believe in pure pacificm either. I believe that any group that is purely pacifist, isn't really centered in reality. They can believe what they want, but when bullys -of any ideology- come at them, well then what? Then they are the gazelle, and the lion will eat them. I believe that a group can be for peace, and still defend themselves-lethally if nessesary.

    I also believe that this whole issue of terrorism is just wool being pulled over our collective eyes to distract us from deeper more urgent issues. Terrorism is real, and needs to be addressed, but it is just a surface symptom and one that maskes a deadlier problem.

  • Merry Magdalene
    Merry Magdalene

    The Spread of Imperialist Capitalist Democracy in the Middle East

    It seems inevitable that a hundred or two hundred years from now, the majority of people in the world will be human. This is based on the number of children they are having compared to Martians, and the presumption that they will be told from a very early age they are human too, and taught to believe the same things as their parents. I don't feel that presumption is too much of a stretch.

    Not a day goes by without someone killing, oppressing or preaching disguised hatred in the name of Democracy. It may be a minority of the total number of Imperialist Capitalists who do this, but that still amounts to thousands of individuals. It only takes a few of those individuals to drop bombs on crowded areas or fly war planes into other countries or impose sanctions that kill innocent children. While peaceful humans can claim Democracy is a bringer of peace, the facts show that many humans don't agree with that, after interpreting the actions of the Imperialist Capitalists for themselves and seeing it as the Imperialist Capitalists' mission from the Neocons to convert the world to Imperialist Capitalist Democracy at any cost. Those kind of people are extremely difficult to reason with.

    If they were simply hijacking Democracy, if they were simply born with a disposition to want to kill as many people as possible, then surely people would be being born all over the world using all kinds of politics with the same frequency to kill as many people as possible too. This is the case. Out of all the world's politics, it is mainly a human issue at this moment in history. What does this tell us? It tells us that if you are raised to be a human, you are more likely to turn to violence than if you were raised as a Martian.

    People in the West are not passing on bad genes, they are passing on bad ideas. Once a person believes "they hate us for our freedoms" is real, they may be influenced by Neocons to kill for Democracy. It isn't hard to imagine. When we believed in the god of the Jehovah's Witnesses, we were prepared to let our children die because of our belief that taking blood went against God and the hope of an eternal afterlife in paradise. If you truly believe the maintainers of Empire in the guise of Democracy want you to kill, you don't question it. You do an Iraq and obey out of fear, or wanting to please the President. Democratists very often defend the stories in history describing Empire's genocidal acts and commands. We know exactly what it's like to have the kind of belief that can lead to or defend terrible acts. Our sense of righteousness and conviction as God's chosen people overrode any concerns we may have otherwise had.

    Consider the chances of turning to violence in the name of Democracy I would have compared to a peaceful Muslim. I believe Western superiority exists. The chances of me killing in the name of Imperialist Democracy is zero, but only because I prefer to let soldiers do it for me, and even if I was medically insane, that insanity would have to lead to a belief in WMDs before I carried out what I thought was a just war. Now consider the chances of a peaceful Muslim carrying out violent acts for self-defense or defense of the weak and oppressed. The belief in the nonfictional Imperialist Crusade is already there, so that's one massive hurdle overcome. It could be a 1% chance, a 2% chance, it doesn't matter. However small the percentage, there would still be a chance. The chances of winning the lottery are much, much lower, yet with the number of people playing, somebody wins most weeks. The greater the number of Muslims, the greater the chance one of them will think they have to kill for protection against the Imperialist Crusade.

    Teaching children the peaceful side of Democracy is no protection. The bombers who struck Iraq had peaceful Democratists for parents, yet they were influenced from elsewhere, an influence which would have had no effect at all if they hadn't been taught to believe the Neocons in the first place.

    There is just as much reason to believe in WMDs as there is to believe in fairy tale characters, and I will use those characters to show how ridiculous the situation actually is. Imagine if several million people believed Iraq having something to do with 9/11 was a real historical event. They took comfort in the story of the removing-a-dictator-the-US-used-to-support-for-the-sake-of-Democracy tale...

    But here's the thing. If nobody believed in the literal events of 9/11 in connection with Iraq, because there was no reason to, then any negative acts done in relation to the story would be non existent (as I wish they were now).

    Some Democratists only call themselves Democrats because their family are too. They've never read the Constitution, they don't pay their taxes, they know nothing of the Imperialist history of the US. It's just a label they don't think about much. I know because I've spoken to a few, and I've managed to convince them to actually look into the beliefs to see if they should be calling themselves humans. After their initial shock that I would be questioning the teachings of Imperialist Capitalist Democracy, they discovered they were defending something they had very little knowledge of.

    Those who know more about their beliefs may only hold to them because they believe they have good reasons to. Once you know the arguments, and can show people there is no reason to believe in Empire, many can give up their belief. It's happened with many here regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses. When the facts were evident it was too difficult to just 'rely on jehovah' and use the faith card. Faith is not always enough, and that's something I'm sure we're all grateful for because it helped us leave behind a delusion which was wasting our lives and which gave cover and support to some very nasty things.

    At the very least, I think people should be aware that anything they teach their children is going to be believed, whether it's about Democracy or the literal story of WMDs. Such is the power of childhood indoctrination. Their minds are in their parents' hands, and telling them they are Democratic is forcing them to believe a particular set of beliefs, because they cannot filter what is bullshit or not when their minds are still forming.

    While the easiest, most comfortable method is to just leave them alone to believe what they want, I can think of no other way, short of violence which I do not condone, to counter the danger the spread of Imperialist Capitalist Democracy is going to bring to the Middle East than breaking taboo and talking to them about it. Questioning what they believe. If we respect them as people, perhaps we should respect them enough to believe some may be reasonable and rational enough to see their beliefs are not grounded in universal reality, only the reality which exists inside their brains, which is not a true representation of the powers controlling the universe or what is to come after the wars they inevitably bring....

  • cognizant dissident
    cognizant dissident

    Ha! Good one Merry. Very clever and it read just as true as you have written it as it does as it was origianlly written. Do you also agree witht he first version?

    I think that darkuncle nailed the crux of the matter in his post.

    Almost any tool (belief system?) can be perverted into a weapon to do harm to others. Instead of saying that 'Muslims are bad mmkay', we should be standing firm in the notion that harming others is Not ok. But I also don't believe in pure pacificm either. I believe that any group that is purely pacifist, isn't really centered in reality. They can believe what they want, but when bullys -of any ideology- come at them, well then what? Then they are the gazelle, and the lion will eat them. I believe that a group can be for peace, and still defend themselves-lethally if nessesary.

    If GWB had actually pursued the terrorists who admitted responsibility for 911 instead of using it as an excuse to invade Iraq, then this would probably not have been such an unpopular war. That would have been bringing to justice violent murderers. True self-defense. The first Gulf War was not unpopular because Iraq was acting as the violent aggressor by invading Kuwait. The US was seen as defending Kuwait. Coincidentally, it's oil supply was there, but still, it was defense not offense.

    Cog

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan

    There seems to be a shadow society in Europe of disaffected Muslims who don't think of themselves as being European in any way, while in America there's more integration. It's like, there's nothing in the European identity that these Muslims wish to amalgamate with their Islamic identity, so yeah, it's pretty scary. I think back to my 21 year old self, and how JWism was such a soothing narcotic that made sense out of a world that seemed to be such a chaotic, pointless frenzy, I imagine that it's the same for these young radicalized Islamic men and women, only much more so.

  • jookbeard
    jookbeard

    And Islam is meant to be a peacful religion, like hell it is!

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere
    It is the fastest growing faith in this country.

    What is the source of this information?

    I have heard this statement and the statement that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world... yet I can't seem to find the source. Until I see solid facts I must dismiss the claim as an urban legend.

    Where's Myth Busters when you need them???

  • serotonin_wraith
    serotonin_wraith

    darkuncle29:

    is not a persons beliefs that 'make them' do bad things, their beliefs are just a crutch or tool that they use to convince themselves...to diengage their conscience if you will...and then they can carry aout un-human acts.

    If this is so, how do you explain what I put here, or do you not agree? -

    If they were simply hijacking the religion, if they were simply born with a disposition to want to kill as many people as possible, then surely people would be being born all over the world using all kinds of religions with the same frequency to kill as many people as possible too. This isn't the case. Out of all the world's religions, it is mainly a Muslim issue at this moment in history.

    Merry,

    Being human can still allow for a myriad of beliefs. Being Muslim means you take your beliefs primarily from one book. What beliefs do all humans HAVE to have, that's universal to them all? They don't all HAVE to believe in democracy, for example.

    Killing in the name of democracy-

    Is there a democratic handbook all democrats follow? Is it a core belief that the west is superior which I can read in some constitution? Can you show me where there are rules about having to spread democracy with wars?

    I could point to many verses from the Koran in which Allah says some very despicable things about non Muslims. If the Koran speaks of infidels burning forever in hell and Muslims rejoicing at that, then any respect moderates show is superficial. If a non Muslim tried to convert your daughter, and her soul was at stake, of course you would hate what they were doing. They would be, in your eyes, condemning her to eternal torture. It's not hard to see the connection.

    Same with other bad examples. "Some drivers have killed, let's ban cars." Sure, if someone can show me a car manual that calls for people to be killed. That's not the original purpose of cars.

    Same with eco-terrorism in the name of Animal Rights groups - the core beliefs are not evil. The reason groups such as animal rights groups were set up was to make sure animals were given better treatment, but there is nothing in their charter or early documents or manifestos that says anything remotely like animals are above humans and humans should be killed if it helps protect animals. When the ones who take violent action do so, they have started their own set of ideals not based on the original.

    But with Islam, one of the core beliefs is to convert the world. You may choose to ignore it, but it's right there in your holy book.

    The greater the number of Muslims, the greater the chance one of them will think they have to kill for protection against the Imperialist Crusade.

    This falls flat on its face when you consider:

    a) 9/11 was religiously motivated, not due to western oppression from generations earlier.

    b) An immediate withdrawl from all wars in the Middle East still wouldn't stop extremist Muslims trying to kill people in the west.

    c) People in other countries are less likely to fight for land that once belonged to their ancestors many generations earlier. As a UK citizen, I should be wanting revenge on Italy for the occupation by the Romans my ancestors had to endure.

    As far as I'm aware, those who went to war in Iraq knew they had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Edited to add: If we do consider documents related to democracy and war, such as those found at the UN (the largest organisation in the world for trying to make the world a peaceful place) we see that they oppose the Iraq war. It is an illegal war which went against the UN. It went against the core beliefs. Nobody can say extremist acts in the name of Allah are illegal by the Koran's standards.

  • Simon
    Simon
    The Muslim religion is like a virus and preys on the uneducated and downtrodden members of our society. It will lead to a worldwide religious war in the future, but will become so intertwined in society by that point, that it will be impossible to stop without extreme measures.

    Exactly like many Christian religions.

  • serotonin_wraith
    serotonin_wraith
    Rather than people bring up the problems of Christianity (if anyone reads all of this!) I'd prefer this stayed focused on the Muslims. I'm well aware of the dangers from other religions, but saying "why single one out?" doesn't help solve the problem. I don't single one out - I've spoken about Christianity too, but in other threads.

    (Please don't ban me!)

  • Simon
    Simon

    Obviously, the behaviour Chritianity cannot have had any influence on how Muslims feel about them ... The same with 9/11 ... nothing to do with oppression or attrocities, let's just blame the other side for just wanting to kill us. None of it is our fault. Now, where is the head shaped hole in the sand?

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Maarat

    Cannibalism

    Maarat was not as rich as the crusaders had hoped and they were still short of supplies and food as December progressed. Most of the soldiers and knights preferred to continue the march to Jerusalem, caring little for the political dispute between Bohemond and Raymond, and Raymond tried to buy the support of the other leaders. While the leaders negotiated away from the city, some of the starving crusaders at Maarat resorted to cannibalism, feeding on the dead bodies of Muslims.

    A year after the event, one of the crusader commanders would write to Pope Urban II, explaining their actions as compelled by the lack of food:

    "A terrible famine racked the army in Ma'arra, and placed it in the cruel necessity of feeding itself upon the bodies of the Saracens."

    The Crusaders committed numerous atrocities against Muslim populations: mass executions, throwing of the heads of Muslim over besieged cities, exhibition and mutilation of naked Muslim cadavers, or cannibalism as in the 1098 Siege of Maarat. The Crusaders committed numerous atrocities against Muslim populations: mass executions, throwing of the heads of Muslim over besieged cities, exhibition and mutilation of naked Muslim cadavers, or cannibalism as in the 1098 Siege of Maarat. [1]

    Other chroniclers, such as Radulph of Caen, who participated to the siege of Maarat, describe such scenes without a hint of moral justification:

    "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled."

    The crusaders also began destroying Maarat's fortifications, forcing Raymond to finally agree to continue the march south.

    Legacy

    Those events had a strong impact on the local inhabitants of Middle East. The Crusaders already had a reputation for cruelty and barbarism towards Muslims, Jews and even Orthodox Christians (the Crusades began shortly after the Great Schism of 1054). Crusaders are still referred as "cannibals" in many Middle Eastern languages and even centuries later their image as fanatical cannibals was alive in Arabic literature. Many authors suggest that the crusaders' behaviour was not really born of their hunger but fanatical belief that the Muslims were even lower than the animals. Albert of Aix remarked that "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!"

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit