Page 1 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

petitesouris
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 371

12 Mar 2013, 11:15 pm

This confirms everything I have been suspecting about the dishonesty of so called "nationalists" and so called "anti jihadists". If only I had completely followed "intuition" (for lack of a better word).

The article is quite accurate about "the left" (so to speak) being falsely perceived as alligned with islamism only because of skepticism about the intentions and effectiveness of the foreign policies of the U.S. and countries complying with them for selfish reasons. It is important to note that progressives and islamists oppose these policies for entirely different reasons.

The far right and advocates of western interventionism define radicalism and extremism only in terms of how hostile it is to the blurrily defined "priorities" of the U.S. and it's collaborator the EU, not in terms of how much suffering it creates, the intentions of the extremists, or even national security and preserving order.

This is why the U.S. supported terrorist "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan against "the communists". As everyone should know, these "rebels" have been veritable savages and have not been any less dangerous to world peace and national security than Iran, especially in light of what is happening in Pakistan, which owns a frightening stash of nuclear weapons. In an effort to conceal this historical fact, certain advocates of western intervention have tried to make it seem like only their political adversaries were responsible for the increase in terrorism.

One should try to think in more abstract terms than political divisions that are intentionally intensified so people fight only the branches of extremism and its selfish collaborators instead of all unsavory and dangerous movements. Politicians responsible for foreign and domestic policies appeasing islamists and their "will to power" ideology have done so mostly for mercenary and geopolitical reasons. It does not make sense to argue that collaboration with islamism and other extremisms is motivated by either "progressive" or "conservative" positions because anyone remotely involved in this or even considering this has no principles. Or if they have any values at all, they care more about finding pretexts for militarism and sadism than about the causes they supposedly stand for.

There should not be any more illusions about any politician or media being innocent in terms of not collaborrating with islamism and other fascist movements. I never trusted them, yet this insidious alliance between the most extreme elements of "the right" and salafists has been a suspicion I ignored because both the European and English speaking media on "the right" have made it seem that only "the leftists" sympathized with radical islam (to conceal far right admiration for violent and twisted ideologies), while the pro-EU "leftists" have capitulated to certain individuals who despise anything remotely resembling "communism" and take advantage of anyone who is naive and depraved enough to view islamists as "freedom fighters". Meanwhile the EU has done nothing about the rise of neonazi political movements.

I wonder whether this politician admires nazism considering the most virulent branch of islam, salafism, contains aspects of nazi ideology. Those who created it helped the nazis against the British army and Jewish settlers in what is referred to as "the middle east" during World War Two. The founders of salafism were "inspired" by this poison.

I do not know what our future looks like. The worsening conditions in "Europe" force me to question everything. Maybe this leads to nihilism or maybe we just need to renew our priorities and judgements on a fresh slate. At this rate, social and religious views do not matter as much as the difference between decent people and those who are trying to needlessly divide our societies and promote sadistic and militarist ideologies.



Last edited by petitesouris on 14 Mar 2013, 8:59 pm, edited 26 times in total.

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

13 Mar 2013, 12:05 am

Dantac wrote:
It worries me when ANY kind of religion-following person (practicing not just believing in one) is in office.

Thats why im so glad Romney didn't win... and that Santorum didn't make it to the ballot.

What would you think of a western politician who regularly wore a ring with the shahadda (sp?) embossed on it?


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Mar 2013, 12:23 am

John_Browning wrote:
Dantac wrote:
It worries me when ANY kind of religion-following person (practicing not just believing in one) is in office.

Thats why im so glad Romney didn't win... and that Santorum didn't make it to the ballot.

What would you think of a western politician who regularly wore a ring with the shahadda (sp?) embossed on it?


Shahadda? What dat?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

13 Mar 2013, 3:10 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Dantac wrote:
It worries me when ANY kind of religion-following person (practicing not just believing in one) is in office.

Thats why im so glad Romney didn't win... and that Santorum didn't make it to the ballot.

What would you think of a western politician who regularly wore a ring with the shahadda (sp?) embossed on it?


Shahadda? What dat?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The public proclamation statement of one's faith in Islam.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Mar 2013, 4:09 am

John_Browning wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Dantac wrote:
It worries me when ANY kind of religion-following person (practicing not just believing in one) is in office.

Thats why im so glad Romney didn't win... and that Santorum didn't make it to the ballot.

What would you think of a western politician who regularly wore a ring with the shahadda (sp?) embossed on it?


Shahadda? What dat?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The public proclamation statement of one's faith in Islam.


Thank you for that info.
As for would I like having a politician walking around with such a ring - the answer to that is, it really depends on what kind of Islam we're talking about.
If this hypothetical politician had converted to the more intolerant form of Islam, I would most assuredly feel some apprehension. But on the other hand, if we're talking about someone like Congressman Keith Ellison, who had converted to a more moderate form of American Islam while in college, and has since gone on to standing for tolerance in American society, then I have no problem.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Mar 2013, 1:25 pm

It's a good thing different regressive dominionist sects seem to hate each other more than they hate human progress. During the Inquisition the Catholic Church killed as many people belonging to "heretical" Christian sects as they did Jews, Muslims, or Pagans. Today Sunni and Shiite Muslims manage to kill each other more than they kill secular infidels. If all the world's backwards fundamentalists and racists teamed up against all the sane human beings things would be very dark. Luckily they don't have any practical sense and are unwilling to choose their battles more wisely. Divided they choke.



petitesouris
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 371

13 Mar 2013, 11:37 pm

Despite agreeing with most posts on here about unsettling similarities between certain far right individuals and islamists, I do not think all euroskeptics and nationalists should be demonized or labelled as far right. There are reasons why some people have voted for them, even if they were only chosen because they were the "least worse".

An increasing percentage of euroskeptic voters who try to stay informed about issues that have become or are becoming worrysome think they can no longer trust "left wing" leaders to make the correct decisions. Neither could they trust leaders on "the right" who only care about the EU, the atlantic alliance, and other alliances that erode the freedom of sovereign countries to resist certain forms of globalization and act responsibly and ethically towards other countries against injustices. Choosing different leaders may not solve this entirely, yet staying in the EU will only push us further into an abyss and we must become adequately self sufficient in order to resist.

Since immigration and other issues mostly concerning only domestic policies have already been discussed extensively, those unfamiliar with euroskeptic movements in countries such as France and the U.K., should note that euroskepticism is also motivated by opposition to certain foreign policies initiated or condoned by the EU which are unethical or a threat to national security. The complicity of the EU in careless decisions in "the middle east" or what is referred to as "Eastern Europe" makes it completely undeserving of the peace prize.

(to be continued once I have time)



Last edited by petitesouris on 16 Mar 2013, 1:34 am, edited 8 times in total.

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

14 Mar 2013, 12:19 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Shahadda? What dat?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The public proclamation statement of one's faith in Islam.


Thank you for that info.
As for would I like having a politician walking around with such a ring - the answer to that is, it really depends on what kind of Islam we're talking about.
If this hypothetical politician had converted to the more intolerant form of Islam, I would most assuredly feel some apprehension. But on the other hand, if we're talking about someone like Congressman Keith Ellison, who had converted to a more moderate form of American Islam while in college, and has since gone on to standing for tolerance in American society, then I have no problem.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

What if such a politician was known to keep militant friends?


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud