/liberty/ - Liberty

Thesis 1 m8 :)

>>18610

ISIS seem to be crazy. They are almost like Hollywood villains.

Wouldn't be surprised if they are getting funding to give the politicians an excuse to invade

>>18604

It's about 90% option 1, and 10% option 2.

/pol/ likes to stereotype and generalize until those stereotypes are used against them, making their arguments retarded.

If we left shitskins alone, they wouldn't have an excuse to attack us, and the left wouldn't have an excuse to import them. They'd probably be violent, but they should solve their own internal conflicts.

>>18611

Believe it or not, ISIS is the result of taking autists/NEETs, killing their parents, subjecting them to a surveillance state, then abandoning them.

The darkest literally want the same shit as you and me (wife and kids, normal life, etc.), just within their own cultural context.

>>18615

>>18611

Forgot ny link

http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/

Also, the blowhard thesis is what cost Ron Paul the nomination. Deservedly so.

>>18627

The Muslim invasion sparked the Orthodox to move to other parts of the world. What, is Russia not considered Christian any more either?

2 and it's the mainstream interpretation. It's not racialist, it's cultural.

Muslims attack all their neighbours because they're Muslims. Islam doesn't do pluralism. They attack us at home because we invited them to live among us. They attack soldiers because soldiers occupy their homelands.

It's not all Muslims but it's enough Muslims within any given population of Muslims.

Blowback is merely the exacerbation of a pre-existing issue. It contributes to islamism but is not the principle cause.

the /pol/ philosophy is

"Muslims are here attacking us because the Jews are attacking them."

get it right

>>18656

Not sure, but I think to the East there were Mongols (Russia was more to the North):

http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101

>>18666

>There have been non-Muslim minorities spread throughout the Middle East since Islam was a thing. The notion that all Muslims are locked in a constant war with non-Muslims is a belief propounded by neocons and Zionist Jews.

pluralism =/= diversity

In Islam, non-Muslims are allowed to live in peace provided they live in such a way that is in accordance with Islamic law. Islam extends this tolerance to monotheists only. No non-Muslim should never be in a position of authority over Muslims. This isn't pluralism.

In history, the Rashiduns, Umayyads, Abbasids, the Ottomans, the Mughals were always in a state of expansion. Each caliphate had its own unique history of pogroms, inquisition and persecution.

>>18656

East Slavs weren't Christianised until 867.

>>18668

True.

>>18666

Terrorism is nothing but theatre satan. All of it.

>>18631

>implying Ron Paul stood a chance

>ever

>>18627

>mythical_arab_conquest.jpg

Both

>>18631

Sure, it wasn't the rigging.

>>18669

>867

Well before the fall of Constantinople.

>>18678

>mythical

Hi Achmed

>>18611

ISIS has been proven to be funded by (((them))). Their job is to destroy the Assad regime, which was the only one to survive the arab spring.

>>18666

The Koran teaches to commit violence against unbelievers, whereas The Bible teaches to Love your enemy, turn the other cheek etc.

What is with this "oh Christians act the same" argument from Muslim apologists?

>>18669

>In Islam, non-Muslims are allowed to live in peace provided they live in such a way that is in accordance with Islamic law. Islam extends this tolerance to monotheists only. No non-Muslim should never be in a position of authority over Muslims. This isn't pluralism.

Then what is? It describes a society that is virtually no different from Western ones until quite recently, and even today American politicians must worship Jesus Christ.

It's not entirely accurate either. There are non-Abrahamic minorities in places like Malaysia and Bangladesh. Tensions are high in the latter state, but current Salafi fundamentalism was not always the norm.

>In history, the Rashiduns, Umayyads, Abbasids, the Ottomans, the Mughals were always in a state of expansion.

Like empires throughout history. To make an argument that Islam was the sole cause of this, you would have to show that Muslims only made conquests against non-Muslims.

>>18682

>What is with this "oh Christians act the same" argument from Muslim apologists?

If you can't make an argument, then go back to /pol/.

That thing with "they're just fighting back against our interventionism!" was a rare misstep by the honorable Dr. Paul. Those folks are as God made them and weird though it sounds I think the US army giving them the occasional beat down makes them less aggressive than they could be. Just look at how second and third gen muslims in a PC bennie-spreading wonderland like the UK behave. They attack because they perceive weakness, that's just the way they are. The mid east wars have done nothing to their psyche, they've just made it so that there's more of them in the west and demagogues like Bin Laden can talk footsoldiers and maybe even themselves into thinking their Project Mayhem shit means more than it does.

>>18682

>Hi Achmed

You understand what the word mythical means, yes?

>>18682

>Sure, it wasn't the rigging.

Do you remember how he was almost booed off the stage? Trump is promoting a similar policy in a much smarter way.

Exactly, they respect strenght. It's not that hard to understand. According to the Koran, it's a sin to leave non-Muslims alone, to let them act proud and rule over Muslims when you can do something about it. If you can't because they are much stronger, you can live your life at peace with the world and with Allah. In showing weakness, the West is pretty much forcing Muslims to attack.

>>18692

Meant to:

>>18686

>>18684

>Then what is? It describes a society that is virtually no different from Western ones until quite recently, and even today American politicians must worship Jesus Christ.

Civil mutual respect and equality before the law. Muslims make a caste from non-Muslim from which they exact a poll-tax. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim. A Muslim cannot convert into a minority religion, nor is that religion allowed to proselytise. The punishment for both is death,

Only a Muslim could compare Islam as-practised to American cultural fundamentalism.

>but current Salafi fundamentalism was not always the norm.

It's been worse than this before, hell, it's been worse than this for most of Islamic History.

>>>The notion that all Muslims are locked in a constant war with non-Muslims is a belief propounded by neocons and Zionist Jews.

>>In history, the Rashiduns, Umayyads, Abbasids, the Ottomans, the Mughals were always in a state of expansion.

>Like empires throughout history. To make an argument that Islam was the sole cause of this, you would have to show that Muslims only made conquests against non-Muslims.

It was a factual correction. Which is it, either it's a filthy zionist lie or something normal?

I did not argue that Islam was the cause of Islamic imperialism; I said that imperialism is the norm in an Islamic polity. Nowhere did I say that this behaviour is exclusive to Muslims.

>>18694

>Muslims make a caste from non-Muslim from which they exact a poll-tax.

Not in the 20th century.

>A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim.

There were similar prohibitions re Jews testifying against Christians in the Middle Ages.

You are going to have to give time and places if you want to make a cogent argument.

>It was a factual correction.

If it's factual, then answer my challenge. Show me that Muslims only made conquests against non-Muslims.

>I did not argue that Islam was the cause of Islamic imperialism

No, you just like to use the word Islam rather than digging down through these issues until you are called on it. It's mentally sloppy.

>I said that imperialism is the norm in an Islamic polity

So all Islamic governments were and are empires? Are any current Islamic governments empires?

>Only a Muslim could compare Islam as-practised to American cultural fundamentalism.

Let me point out that, as you did here:

>>18682

>Hi Achmed

>argument from Muslim apologists

you default to the use of the standard /pol/ argument

>you must be a Muslim!

>you must be a Jew!

You're not even funny about it, like the old "JIDF detected" meme. But when it comes down to it, this is the type of dialogue that has killed off most intelligent discussion on /pol/.

Is that what you want to be?

1. but if we stop attacking them, that won't make them stop attacking us. at this point, we have no choice but to go all the way.

>>18614

I think the former causes the latter. Interventionism causes violence in the region. People go through several decades of violence, raising generations in perpetual warfare. Kids learn from adults and are conscripted by them to fight in these wars. I think it's only natural that they're violent by nature. It's all they're exposed to. If you really want to stop it, don't let the CIA fund proxy wars.

Radical Islam is just religion being used to justify violence; it's the culture that is the true problem. That's why you can have people generations deep in western culture who can peacefully practice their religion while you import some kid from the Middle East or an unstable region in Africa to Europe and he starts molesting and raping women and claiming Allah said it was okay. It's all the environment.

>>18717

>>Muslims make a caste from non-Muslim from which they exact a poll-tax.

>Not in the 20th century.

Are you sure? Omani Zanzibar practiced slavery and concubinage as late as into the 1950s. Dhimmi is not far off. The Ottomans secularised the tax in the 19th Century. Modernity is, well, modernity. Methods change.

>>A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim.

>There were similar prohibitions re Jews testifying against Christians in the Middle Ages.

Quite. And I don't care for them either. Christians are impotent. There was an Enlightenment. Christian supremacism is gone from this part of the world.

>You are going to have to give time and places if you want to make a cogent argument.

>If it's factual, then answer my challenge. Show me that Muslims only made conquests against non-Muslims.

I'm not going to prove a point I haven't made. You seem to be avoiding the question by holding Islam against a Christian standard. A religion that puts a capital punishment on apostasy, a form of expression, is not pluralistic. Conservative Muslims are not pluralistic. Islamic scholars are not pluralistic. Islamic jurists are not pluralistic. Islamic states are not pluralistic. The reason? Islam is not pluralistic. It is supremacist both in the scriptural sense and in the way it is practised by Muslims.

>>I did not argue that Islam was the cause of Islamic imperialism

>No, you just like to use the word Islam rather than digging down through these issues until you are called on it. It's mentally sloppy.

If that's your take on reality…

>>I said that imperialism is the norm in an Islamic polity

>So all Islamic governments were and are empires? Are any current Islamic governments empires?

There are no empires. We live in post-imperial, national, age. Islamists have adapted to this by advancing Islam through other means. The states which elevate Islamic law above secular law, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan and Libya, are all sponsors of islamic terror. Their wars of expansion are fought in proxy, usually between themselves.

Remember that the CIA didn't teach the Pashtuns their customs and that no colonial regime gave sponsorship to al-Wahhab (he was born in a free Emirate among salafist fellows). Muslims are ever so keen to shift the responsibility for the violence they cause onto the victims of that violence. Their aggression, their Islam, must always be a reaction to some sort of prior provocation. That what Ahmed does plays a part in what Ahmed gets is unfathomable.

>>Only a Muslim could compare Islam as-practised to American cultural fundamentalism.

>Let me point out that, as you did here:

I'll wager that I'm not wrong. The religious share habits and their habits are recognisable.

It's both. One doesn't cancel out the other, and like >>18719 said. Whatever the reasons its not going to stop until one side or the other is BTFO completely. This shit goes back a long, long time.

…does anyone seriously think that ISIS and the Paris attacks were NOT directly funded by the CIA?

>>18730

might have made sense if Obama had used the opportunity to invoke article 5 of the NATO treaty, but considering all he did was tell us to remember that most of ISIS's victims have been poor innocent muslims and we should all check our privileges and bring over as many refugees as possible.

>>18730

Why do some people find it so hard to believe that muslims do shit like this? It doesn't take alphabets to fund a handful of rifles and ammo.

Take today's headlines, replace 'Muslim' with 'Communist' and you get the 1950's headlines.

Replace it with 'Jap' and you get the 1940's headlines.

Replace it with 'Italians' and you get the 1930's headlines.

Replace it with 'Yellow Terror and you get the 1900's headlines.

Replace it with 'Anarchists' and you get the 1890's headlines.

And so on, and so on.

But now you tell me that 'Muslims' are a special case. This time it's different? How many decades, centuries, millenia of this bullshit is going to need to parade around?

This is propaganda 101. It's what I expect to see in a goddam textbook any time after the publication Machiavelli's work, "Prop up a boogeyman, divide the populace against each other."

I'm getting real sick of this shit.

>>18736

Muh poor innocent muslims, dindu nuffin

>>18737

Real constructive m8

They've been demonised because people/ Fox news people like to buy into that sort of thing for some reason

And because it offers a explanation for neo-cons / Hillary / (Jews) to not own up to the real story about the Middle East

How is that not true

>>18739

Yes its the ebil fox news, not the hundreds of years of west vs mid east conflict that has happened, you sound like babbys intro to conspiracy theory. I'm sure its fox news and the republican party that makes them stone women to death and wage war on their neighbors over minor religious differences too.

>>18741

>So you're saying Americans hate Muslims because of the fucking Crusades

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying this conflict goes back a long ways, America is an extension of the original west, and our conflict is a continuation. Look at the people from the old west that so many American leaders are related to. This is just the crusades 2.0. I'm not defending them but you are acting like most Americans are too retarded to know how fucked islam is when that isn't the case. Why is it always so black and white with you types? Just because other countries meddle in the mid east doesn't mean they aren't retarded savages at the same time.

>>18741

> Only 12% are from the ME anyway

They are pure cancer no matter where they are.

>>18742

Just for the hell of it, let us know how many Islamic terrorist attacks there were against the United States in the 1950s.

>>18742

You're the one saying Islam is 'fucked'. That seems pretty black and white to me

>>18744

Fanatic

>>18736

Are you implying that communist infiltration of the United States is 'propaganda' you sad bluepilled fuck?

>>18746

>>18747

You faggots would fit in better over at /leftypol/, islam is fucked on its own it doesn't need any help

>>18736

>Replace it with 'Jap' and you get the 1940's headlines.

>Replace it with 'Italians' and you get the 1930's headlines.

Maybe because it was relevant to what was happening

>Replace it with 'Yellow Terror and you get the 1900's headlines.

Maybe because it was relevant to what was happening

>Replace it with 'Anarchists' and you get the 1890's headlines.

You are over estimating how much people gave a fuck about anarchists

No, this time its not different. Its relevant to the time period. I'm getting real sick of naive faggots that are mad at their republican dad and project it onto their dumb fuck understanding of the way things happen.

>>18727

The 1950s is during the 20th century. Compare with:

>>(me) Muslims make a caste from non-Muslim from which they exact a poll-tax.

>(you) Not in the 20th century."

And look who's wrong yet again.

Mind you, it was French, British, Ottoman and American efforts which lead to the abolition of slavery and the wide use of cruel and unusual punishments in that part of world. From what you hear, it's almost as if the 20th century Muslims adopted western liberal norms on their own accord. It's ironic how when these disaffected Muslims choose to the revert to customs of their ancestors, the blame is left on the hands of the very same who did the most to civilise them.

>What you're doing is jumping around from the 10th century to the 20th century without making any allowance at all for changing circumstances. While you have a flag that shows you should care about things like race, you're using neoconservative talking points on an image board and acting as if you get it.

Muslim is not a race. A Muslim of any race is feeble-minded. An islamist of any race is not to be trusted.

This was my first point ITT. Islam doesn't do pluralism. I'll add that the principle cause for instability in today's Islamic world is Islam (more accurately, the indigenous cultural expressions of Islam). Justifications for terror based on blowback and interventionism do everyone a disservice. It implies that the natural response to aggression, violence or exploitation is irrationality and the use indiscriminate use of terror. It also implies that the inhabitants of these countries have no choice in how they respond to American aggression. Blaming America for ISIS is like blaming the powers at Versailles for the Holocaust. It stupid and dangerous.

My flag's attribute is "/pol/ Visitor Crashing on the Couch of /liberty/". I use it in solidarity with my home board. If the flag meant "National Socialism" or "Anti-Zionism" I wouldn't use it. I hate it when people try to excuse bad logic with ideology.

>I am pointing out that similar narrowness was seen among Christians for many centuries. Similarly, we could talk about native Muslims in Europe who pretty much kept pace with the relative decline of this type of religious fundamentalism. The Middle East itself was becoming increasingly secular over time, but that turned around by the mid-70s, largely due to vast Saudi wealth pushing Salafism.

Salafism is the norm. Liberalism the product of modernity. You're right, there has been a revolt against secularism. For many muslims, secular government has failed. Islam is their salvation, it is written. This is a cultural phenomenon.

>Sure, and I could talk about Calvin, the 30 Years War that wiped out much of the German population, the witch burnings, and every other stupid fratricidal thing that Europeans did in the name of Christianity.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not Christian. I'm not going to excuse (your) modern religious aggression because of (my) past religious aggression.

I gave those examples because they're falsely used to explain the rise modern Islamism. For what it's worth, no westerner had part in Muhammed's massacre of POWs at the battle of the Trench. No westerner compelled Muhammed to write the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, a declaration of war against the non-Islamic world. No westerner caused the Caliphs to spread Islamic law by way of warfare. No westerner have reason to Islam's destruction of Persia's and India's monastic libraries, at Nalanda and elsewhere. No westerner instigated any of Islam's countless sectarian Fitnahs, which unlike Christendom's wars of religion, began with those humans Muslims believe could do no wrong. If you want to count religious crimes against a free society, you won't win, so don't start.

>You're attempting to characterize Islam as some brutal religion, and Christianity as one of peace. Both religions are shit, and both have many similarities in their general intolerance, much like Judaism.

I don't like any religion. I especially dislike Islam because it's is the most nefarious. Before all other faiths, it is the greatest threat to life and liberty today.

Tell me again that you're not Muslism.

>>18736

Japs and Italians can't change what they are. If there were anything bad in being Italian or Japanese, you couldn't fault them for what is in their nature. Not so for Muslims.

Communists and Anarchists were, like Islamists, actually dangerous. President William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist revolutionary. In that period, the drove many countries into periods of violence, war and civil anarchy. You can't have organised cells calling for the destruction of private property and the murder of statesmen and just ignore it.

If islamists were treated half as harshly as revolutionary anarchists were in the 1890s, you might of had an argument.

Fucking leftists, mane.

>>18762

You idiot

The whole point was Italians etc. turned out okay

Seems to me Muslims don't integrate quite as quickly but they do eventually. So there's an argument that governments should some in but not all, and

>naive

Hurr durr Arabs are the devil if you don't believe me you want to fuck trees

>>18768

>The whole point was Italians etc. turned out okay

Yeah, they just brought some organised crime and ethnic block voting with them. Tell me, how does Dearborn fare these days?

>>18789

No, but they turned out okay. Italians have been overwhelmingly good don't you think?

Guy didn't mean they did nothing wrong, only that the fear was overblown and the immigrants turned out okay

>>18765

>>(me) Muslims make a caste from non-Muslim from which they exact a poll-tax.

>>(you) Not in the 20th century."

>And look who's wrong yet again.

My quote wasn't hard to follow.

>>The jizya tax was historically imposed on Jews and Christians in the Arabian peninsula, the Levant, Iraq, North Africa, Caucasus and Spain, and on Hindus in South Asia into the 19th century, but almost vanished during the 20th century.

>It also implies that the inhabitants of these countries have no choice in how they respond to American aggression. Blaming America for ISIS is like blaming the powers at Versailles for the Holocaust.

That ISIS arose because of American intervention is so well known that nobody even argues against it. Even many of the people who bore some responsibility acknowledge it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/tony-blair-is-right-without-the-iraq-war-there-would-be-no-isis

Also

>believing Jewish Holocaust claims

The debate here is a bit hard to follow, but it's nice. Goes to show how multi-faceted the issue is.

That said, I think we're all at least in agreement that while simply giving a muzzy the book because he's a muzzy is wrong, the kind of shit that went on in Rotherham and Sweden is inexcusable. I'm against legitimate discrimination and intervention in places that we have no reason to be in, but giving crooks a free pass cause they're "oppressed" is utter bullshit. As >>18616 linked, a lot of this conflict is a result of vicious cycle. But this doesn't excuse them. Not even close. Shitty conditions or not, what they did is inexcusable and they need to be brought down.

>>18808

>theguardian

>tripfag

You aren't helping your case. And archive that shit.

>>18914

As enjoyable as a power trip might be, I'd feel awful about million millions if not billions of people, not to mention the environmental damage from that would affect the entire earth.

So obviously I'd just like to be left alone So long as we get Constantinople back.

>>18916

Take it metaphorically as opposed to literally. Would you genocide the Muzzies?

>>18914

We woudnt have a problem with Muslims if they didnt keep attacking us. Then again, would they still be Muslims?

>>18863

>You aren't helping your case.

You mean the discussion that you have trouble following, as you say yourself?

>And archive that shit.

I don't think you know the reason for archiving. It was to keep irredeemable shitholes like Gawker from getting traffic boosts for inflammatory articles. It was not to archive every news article in existence that we discuss, no matter the source.

That's counter-productive. If a good or neutral news outlet produces a useful article, they should get traffic for it.

However, /pol/ does shit like this everywhere because it has become a hive mind.

So, since Belgium has anyone changed their mind?

How many Muslims need to explicitly say that they're doing this in the name of their religion before people pick up on this shit?

>>19534

How about we get out of their territory and stop bombing them first?

>>19535

>How about we

>>19542

>We've been there

>y'all stop

…who are you talking to?

>>19535

How about you fuck off our planet?