Split Thread Islamic takeover

[Abooga]

And repeating the right wing's propaganda isn't?

To quote Zaphod Beeblebrox, "Put your analyst on danger money baby, now."

Denying reality and letting the extreme right to be the only ones pointing out the obvious is dangerous. I don´t know what´s so hard to grasp about this...

 

[Abooga]

Really?

You know this is alt right propaganda.

Most of the attacks attributed to Islamists are simple criminal acts. Muslims are by far the most common victims.

Anti-Islam pogroms carried out by Christians still occur.

Ethnic cleansing of Muslim communities in the Central African Republic

We uncover truth and hold the powerful to account. Take action, donate and join the Amnesty movement to protect human rights.

www.amnesty.org.uk

https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/2021%20Muslims%20in%20Africa%20Factsheet.pdf

There is a great deal of anti-Muslim violence in India (mostly by Hindus), also in Sri Lanka.

Religious extremists are dangerous. Yes, we know that. Which is why most europeans (where religious extremism was practically eradicated) are against letting a new wave of extremists immigrate.

 

[Abooga]

You can think of it in terms of hacking. Western democracies are especially vulnerable to some forms of attacks. Corruption means that politicians can be bought (or threatened with compromat). If the population is angry and you keep lying to them they will have mistrust for media. If you have potentially problematic high immigration and mainstream parties ignore it, it´s easy for someone else to come and fill the niche. (here in Spain we now have a new leftist anti-immigration party to fill the obvious niche, for example).

These vulnerabilities can be hacked. Russia, China, Iran, Israel, whoever wants to exert influence can exploit these vulnerabilities. If you have the breeding ground for unrest it´s reasonable to expect they will exploit it. Just like we don´t get angry at, and often even reward the hacker who detects these vulnerabilities, I beg you not to get angry at me for pointing out the vulnerabilities that the right wing exploits in Europe. Would you get angry at me for pointing out that the corruption of politicians enables the rise of populist right wingers? Like it happened with Trump? Well, now that I think of it many of you ideological blindered posters probably will. No sense of self criticism whatsoever...

 

[Planigale]

Why should I deny a boring strawman? I´m arguing for secularism and against religious extremism and you say I´m like the inquisition? Why should I bother engaging with someone who either has no reading comprehension or is just dishonest? Either way, nothing positive can come out of talking with you.

Yes it is not as if there have been any problems with secularist organisations like fascists or communists killing large numbers of people and targetting members of religious organisations. As I understand it both fascism and communism are 'western / European' ideologies that have been exported around the world. I'm sure you will enjoy moving to a firmly secular state like North Korea, with no worry about Islamicism or waves of economic migrants.

 

[Planigale]

Religious extremists are dangerous. Yes, we know that. Which is why most europeans (where religious extremism was practically eradicated) are against letting a new wave of extremists immigrate.

I think you'll find most are economic migrants and not particularly religious. The countries with the largest numbers of Muslim migrants are Muslim majority countries. Per capita Iran had the largest refugee population in the world. Turkey took many refugees that fled Iraq and Syria as a result of ISIS.

 

[Abooga]

Yes it is not as if there have been any problems with secularist organisations like fascists or communists killing large numbers of people and targetting members of religious organisations. As I understand it both fascism and communism are 'western / European' ideologies that have been exported around the world. I'm sure you will enjoy moving to a firmly secular state like North Korea, with no worry about Islamicism or waves of economic migrants.

I would argue that those, while being secular in name, are not secular in practice, and don´t follow humanist ideals and don´t respect Human Rights. In North Korea they changed the name of the King for President, but the same type of practices persisted. He´s a king in all practical respects. And so on.

I´m not saying secularism is itself in isolation the solution to all problems, but I do think it´s one of the necessary ingredients.

 

[Abooga]

I think you'll find most are economic migrants and not particularly religious. The countries with the largest numbers of Muslim migrants are Muslim majority countries. Per capita Iran had the largest refugee population in the world. Turkey took many refugees that fled Iraq and Syria as a result of ISIS.

There are two types of muslims, those who are dangerous extremists, and those who are mortally afraid of them. At least that´s the case in places with a sufficiently high presence of muslims.

 

[Mojo]

Denying reality and letting the extreme right to be the only ones pointing out the obvious is dangerous. I don´t know what´s so hard to grasp about this...

Religious extremists are dangerous. Yes, we know that. Which is why most europeans (where religious extremism was practically eradicated) are against letting a new wave of extremists immigrate.

You can think of it in terms of hacking. Western democracies are especially vulnerable to some forms of attacks. Corruption means that politicians can be bought (or threatened with compromat). If the population is angry and you keep lying to them they will have mistrust for media. If you have potentially problematic high immigration and mainstream parties ignore it, it´s easy for someone else to come and fill the niche. (here in Spain we now have a new leftist anti-immigration party to fill the obvious niche, for example).

These vulnerabilities can be hacked. Russia, China, Iran, Israel, whoever wants to exert influence can exploit these vulnerabilities. If you have the breeding ground for unrest it´s reasonable to expect they will exploit it. Just like we don´t get angry at, and often even reward the hacker who detects these vulnerabilities, I beg you not to get angry at me for pointing out the vulnerabilities that the right wing exploits in Europe. Would you get angry at me for pointing out that the corruption of politicians enables the rise of populist right wingers? Like it happened with Trump? Well, now that I think of it many of you ideological blindered posters probably will. No sense of self criticism whatsoever...

Is there a functional difference between the right wing parroting their propaganda and someone who claims not to be right wing parroting the same propaganda?

 

[Helen]

I think we should deport all men. It would vastly reduce violence and crime. And extremism. And vandalism. And hooliganism. And reckless driving.

I know, some of you are perfectly acceptable, if you like that kind of thing, but still; think of the advantages! And you just never know if one of you people are harbouring muderous impulses.

 

[Trausti]

I think we should deport all men. It would vastly reduce violence and crime. And extremism. And vandalism. And hooliganism. And reckless driving.

I know, some of you are perfectly acceptable, if you like that kind of thing, but still; think of the advantages! And you just never know if one of you people are harbouring muderous impulses.

If we look at the total of fatal car accidents, most are caused by sober drivers. Drunk drivers cause far fewer fatal car accidents. Something to keep in mind when presented the option of a ride home with a sober driver or with a drunk driver.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Steve]

I think we should deport all men. It would vastly reduce violence and crime. And extremism. And vandalism. And hooliganism. And reckless driving.

I know, some of you are perfectly acceptable, if you like that kind of thing, but still; think of the advantages! And you just never know if one of you people are harbouring muderous impulses.

If Canada deported us I think I might head for Sweden.

 

[Helen]

If Canada deported us I think I might head for Sweden.

Likewise, but the other way around.

 

[Abooga]

Is there a functional difference between the right wing parroting their propaganda and someone who claims not to be right wing parroting the same propaganda?

Yes, there is an obvious difference. I´ve explained it more than once. Not being able to understand it makes you look a bit foolish IMO.

The difference is that propaganda can be based on real things. The more real and obvious these things are, the more effective the propaganda will be. It really isn´t that hard.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You do see the obvious flaw, right?

 

[Abooga]

I think we should deport all men. It would vastly reduce violence and crime. And extremism. And vandalism. And hooliganism. And reckless driving.

I know, some of you are perfectly acceptable, if you like that kind of thing, but still; think of the advantages! And you just never know if one of you people are harbouring muderous impulses.

I don´t see any problems with the logic in this post. Not sure what the point is, though.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, there is an obvious difference.

It's the difference between someone shouting, "WAAA! We're being taken over by Muslims", and someone shouting, "WAAA! We're being taken over by Muslims!"

 

[Mojo]

The difference is that propaganda can be based on real things. The more real and obvious these things are, the more effective the propaganda will be. It really isn´t that hard.

Yes, propagandists always claim that their propaganda is true.

A racist is a racist, even if they claim to be racist for ethical reasons.

 

[Abooga]

It's the difference between someone shouting, "WAAA! We're being taken over by Muslims", and someone shouting, "WAAA! We're being taken over by Muslims!"

Your point only makes sense if we´re not being taken over by Muslims or we have absolutely no reason to worry about they immigrating into our countries in large numbers. If it were pure propaganda without any base on reality. But there is. Several examples have been provided to illustrate this point. Freedom of expression is already being coerced in Europe, you can´t express negative opinions about Islam without putting yourself in danger. Ask Theo Van Gogh. Oh, you can´t, can you? Remember why?

 

[arthwollipot]

The more real and obvious these things are, the more effective the propaganda will be.

While this can be true in some cases, it is also true that the louder and all-pervasive and oft-repeated the propaganda is, the more effective it will be, regardless of whether it is true or not.