If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

Just pointing out that it's hypocritical of him to start moaning about namecalling after all of this shit. I'll probably reply more seriously at some point.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Is that the only word in my last several posts you're going to reply to?

lmao. Sounds like one of his signature moves.

I have him on my ignore list, for good this time. He's all yours now

 

[CiG]

Jesus what a bitch.

 

[Dak]

Different crime rates differ per country partially because of differences in reporting and partially because of differences in record keeping.

 

[rms]

It's no coincidence that the Middle East became radicalized shortly after the CIA began waging wars over oil and anti-communism

are we just going to ignore centuries of history in the region that spreads into Africa and Western Europe? Modern Middle East reasons for hating the West isnt too hard to find, but Islam has not historically been peaceful

What does colonialism/expansionism and the slave trade have to do with Islamic terrorism?

That's pretty much the case afaik. Islamic nations were gradually becoming Westernized until after WW2.

Northern Africa was more pissed off at European/Christian colonial rule at the time afaik.

its that islam was radicalized in africa and the middle east for a long damn time

Is your point just to say that fundamentalist Islam operated in Northern Africa and the Middle East? Then duh

My point is that the general direction of Islam in the first half of the 20th century was moving in the opposite direction of radicalization.

muslim nations have had power vacuums since the fall of the ottoman empire in ww1 and nothing but stabilization is going to de-radicalize any nation

Why are you bitching?

do you see how the argument has moved because you have no idea what you're talking about?

You claim Islam was not radicalized until the 1950s and the meddling of the West.

I counter this by saying fuck no it wasn't and it's spread to Africa and Southern Europe proves that Islam was radicalized for political gain. Instead of understanding why or how Islamic nations were radicals or radicalized during the 15-19th centuries, you say "what does the slave trade/colonialism have to do with Islamic terror?" -- As if Islamic terror is only via planes and suicide bombs and just so I don't have to read your shitty reply, like Christian terrorism is only some shitty Crusade with Swords. This is how the terror was manifested in two specific time periods, not how terrorism is defined.

Literally no majority of Islamic nations becoming Westernized in the early 20th century. You try and use that stupid image of Pakistan or Egypt showing the difference of women's clothing as if that's some sort of historical primary source worthy of writing a book on.

The underlying question is "Were nations, in Africa and the Middle East, that follow Islam radicalized before the 20th century?" The answer is undeniably yes. You are acting as if the question is "Were the nations, in Africa and the Middle East, that follow Islam radicalized because of Islam or because of Western influence? And how does that compare to Christianity"

If you're going to talk about a religion and its problems, then you need to look at a greater context and see how other religions compare.

do you see how no one asked the question/put forth the claim you are trying to prove? you're posting like a moron

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That's because you're struggling with basic grammar, something which I previously tried to help you with. Radical Islam existed before the 1950s, it always has and always will exist, but Islam was further radicalized in direct response to Western actions. If practicing slavery makes one an adherent to religious radicalism, then the United States was a radical Christian nation until the end of the Civil War. It's stupid to conflate something primarily economic (slavery) with religious extremism.

In the first half of the 20th century, you had Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia, and others all adopt varying forms of constitutional government with reduced religious influence (Turkey and Indonesia being outright secular). How is that not a trend away from radicalization? Again, if you have evidence of Muslim nations becoming more radical in the absence of Western influence, please provide it.

 

[rms]

It's no coincidence that the Middle East became radicalized shortly after the CIA began waging wars over oil and anti-communism

it always has and always will exist, but Islam was further radicalized in direct response to Western actions.

at least read your own posts and realize you spoke incorrectly before saying i did or can't comprehend basic grammar, ya doofus

If practicing slavery makes one an adherent to religious radicalism, then the United States was a radical Christian nation until the end of the Civil War.

what does christianity have to do with your original claim!?! jesus christ

If practicing slavery makes one an adherent to religious radicalism, then the United States was a radical Christian nation until the end of the Civil War. It's stupid to conflate something primarily economic (slavery) with religious extremism.

yeah, social and economic problems should never be conflated with radical tendencies that manifest in violent actions

Africa existed before there was the atlantic slave trade, i'm not really sure you understand this. I don't know why you are speaking on African/middle eastern history as if you know anything about it, it's coming off that you do not.

Again, if you have evidence of Muslim nations becoming more radical in the absence of Western influence, please provide it.

who the fuck do you think spread Islam to Africa, Southern Europe and as far east as it goes? Do you understand that Islam was stronger as a regional religion than Christianity for an extended period of time?!

How is that not a trend away from radicalization?

My point is that the general direction of Islam in the first half of the 20th century was moving in the opposite direction of radicalization

OK man, i'm done here. you're not even following your own words, when you stay consistent then maybe i'll continue.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How was I wrong? "Radicalization" refers to trends. I'm also referring to two different things, Islam (a religion) and the Middle East (a geographical region) in those posts. Nothing I said was contradictory.

Again, if you're going to make an argument that X causes Y, you need to have proper controls and see how Z relates to Y. Slavery is not a feature unique to Islam. The fact that any mention of Christianity gets you incredibly butthurt tells me you're a religious person incapable of separating their emotional biases in order to engage in reasonable discussion.

Arab conquest during their heyday is not the same thing as religious fundamentalism. The Arabs were violent and expansionist, but after that fell and new Muslim nations were left in their wake, many did not share the same passion for war. If you have to go back hundreds of years, you have to consider that Christianity was hardly any different around the same time period (cue tears and butthurt).

 

[rms]

i cannot believe you are this dumb. i had no idea TB had two accounts

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

lmao @ you accusing anyone else here of being dumb when you simply cant even put together what you read. You're the biggest nitwit on this forum ... by a good wide margin too if i might add.

just face the facts. Burber Boy crushed/killed/destroyed you.

 

[CiG]

I thought I was the biggest nitwit on this forum? I suppose his rankings change depending on who he's triggered by in the moment.

@HamburgerBoy Indonesia is entirely secular? I think that's a bit of a stretch. Just one of many examples:

The MPR approved changes to the Constitution that mandated that the Government increase "faith and piety" in education. This decision, seen as a compromise to satisfy Islamist parties, set the scene for a controversial education bill signed into law in July 2003.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

i cannot believe you are this dumb. i had no idea TB had two accounts

Great argument faggot.

I thought I was the biggest nitwit on this forum? I suppose his rankings change depending on who he's triggered by in the moment.

@HamburgerBoy Indonesia is entirely secular? I think that's a bit of a stretch. Just one of many examples:

"Entirely", probably not, but they have a constitutional government that by and large lets religious minorities do their own thing. Owing to relative independence from the West, they've been able to gradually modernize on their own terms. Without any details on the law you've mentioned it's hard to say how significant that is; the United States currently has many states which have tried for years to force religious teaching in public schools, that doesn't mean we're not a secular nation.

 

[CiG]

Yes but if those kinds of laws are successful in America (as they are in Indonesia) could we still call America a secular nation?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... you've clearly hit him with the kill shot and chased him away already. No need to keep pounding on the poor little guy.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes but if those kinds of laws are successful in America (as they are in Indonesia) could we still call America a secular nation?

Nearly so to the point that to say otherwise would be getting into pointless semantics.

 

[CiG]

Nearly so to the point that to say otherwise would be getting into pointless semantics.

I disagree. Secularism means, in a free society, that people have the freedom to try to implement religious laws, but the system is so that they won't succeed. Indonesia clearly do not fit this description. Also it is well known that Christians and atheists are marginalised in Indonesia.

 

[Einherjar86]

Secularism means, in a free society, that people have the freedom to try to implement religious laws, but the system is so that they won't succeed.

This is peculiar, no? If it's a free society, then its governmental organization can't foreclose certain political measures--because that wouldn't be a free society. Free societies are, paradoxically, infinitely perfectible and infinitely corruptible. If a society is unyieldingly secular, then certain freedoms are structurally restricted, such as the freedom to institute religious law; and maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

 

[CiG]

I would consider restrictions on religious power (eg separation of church and state) to be freedom, because it doesn't stop religious people from practicing but it also ensures that non-religious/alternate faiths aren't governed by other people's religion.

 

[Satanstoenail]

So we've got female silhouettes on walk/don't walk signals in the city to reduce 'unconscious bias'



http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...ian-crossing/8330560?pfmredir=sm&sf60551860=1

 

[CiG]