Islam is an insidious threat more dangerous than Communism

Mage

 
The Beast1 said:
Mage, sorry bud but your analysis of Christian theology is woefully incorrect.

First off, Jesus left us with two new laws that supercede the old ones. The laws you're citing in particular are superceded by this:

"Love the Lord your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your mind and with all of your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself." There is no commandment greater than these."
Mark 12:30-31

That leaves you open to use Christmas trees, eat pork, paint eggs on Easter, etc.

Wrong!
Christ did not give these laws. They are laws from the old testament:
Deuteronomy 6:5
Leviticus 19:15-18

Your pastors just blatantly lie about Christ coming up with these new laws to supercede old testament.

Jesus also said:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" Matthew 5:17

Christians only use old testament to fraudulently justify that Jesus is a messiah. They never read the old testament because then they would see that Jesus is not the messiah of old testament and that old testament is much more richer then the new one and has within itself everything of value that the new testament has too, so there is no need for the new testament.

Christianity is a Jewish based faith meant to strip the independent and masculine European pagans from their various traditions and enable large scale empire building by unifying and pacifying the population, while still allowing just enough zeal to conquer in the name of evangelisation. This is how Christianity was adopted as official faith by Constantine and how it has served the European Monarchies until Democracy took over which also started the atrophy of Christianity as liberalism took over as state religion. Everything that is truly mystical and valuable in Christianity comes from either the Jewish Torah or the European Paganism. Christianity adds nothing new just recombines. It becomes evident for everyone who studies history, Judaism and Paganism while also trying to live a virtuous spiritual life.
 

The Beast1

Peacock
Gold Member
Huh? Sorry Mage but every Christian theologian will disagree with your summary.

Jesus is the Messiah of the old testament. As you cited yourself he came to fulfill them.

Any other message to the contrary isn't Christian and is heretical.

Find a Christian theologian of notoriety with your views, there aren't any. Maybe you'll find a case of sour grapes from Jewish sources however which is what it sounds like you've been researching.

And finally, the pagans of Europe willingly gave up their pagan ways to Christian evangelists. The Byzantines and by extension Constantine didn't have any power in France, Germany, the British Isles, or Scandinavia. I don't see how Constantine's conversion has any bearing here.
 

Lunostrelki

Woodpecker
Samseau said:
Lunostrelki said:
Communism and the moral and cultural relativism it promotes is what allows Islam to get a free hand in western societies.

You've got it backwards. The cultural relativism is what promotes Communism and Islam.

With the loss of belief in the teachings of Jesus, people in the West have crowned themselves emperor of knowing what is good and evil. People think they are Gods in the West and pass judgement accordingly.

So one day they promote Communism, the next day Feminism, the next day Islam... what difference does it make to someone who does not believe in Truth? They just want to fit in and play along with whatever becomes popular.

I stand corrected. When a society loses its values, be it through the collapse of a existing order (Russia, China) or cultural degeneracy (the US, western Europe), that is when things like communism and feminism and other modern garbage can be taken seriously.
 
spokepoker said:
No, we just need to take back what was built by us (conservative thinking). Get the traitors out, get those who put their country first back in. Secession or civil war is for when things are absolutely completely fucked, it's not at that point yet, we can still restore what has been degraded.

How? You have a HUGE government and 25% that believe, in one way or another, of socialism or at least huge social welfare, if not communism. Another 20% are sympathetic to leaders that essentially endorse this type of viewpoint, if not fully, it's compatible with it in large degree.

So by what method? Military coup to actually restore the Constitution? We can't even get judges to rule according to the law, and we have presidents who actively tell the DOJ to disregard laws.

It's not at this point? Once the economy crashes even to 12k in the market or more, that'll be it. How would it "naturally" get better with at least 40% sympathetic to Bernie Sanders type ideology?
 
RexImperator said:
Islam, especially Salafist variety, is not just a religion, it is also a political system. Communism was another political system that posed a threat to Western civilization in the past. However, while it was possible to be critical of communism, because of the climate of political correctness and "multiculturalism" it is much more difficult to publicly criticise Islam, which being a religion, is thus able to shield itself behind "religious tolerance" in a way communism never could.

Give me a communist/socialist Afghanistan/Iraq/Yemen any day over the tribal, salafist wing nut ridden mess it is now.

Thanks :american::tard:
 

Ghost Tiger

Ostrich
Gold Member
Mage, why do you think that Islam is so strictly "monotheistic non-pagan"? It sounds to me like you are implying that they are "true" monotheists and that Christians have somehow "bastardized" monotheism. If that's what you are implying, then you are simply resorting to the argument tactic of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Islam is so "truly" monotheistic because it chops the fucking heads off all the God-damned pagans everywhere it finds them, not because it has some highly evolved sense of purpose. To those of you arguing with Mage over the "purity" of Christian theology, you are chasing a squirrel in this argument meant to distract you.

Christianity incorporates pagan traditions because Christians understand the value of compromise and making good deals, just like the great Christian leader of our modern era, Donald J. Trump. Islam doesn't make deals. Islam gives three options to non-Muslim "kafir" infidels (like me):

1) Convert

2) Die

3) Become a "dhimmi" slave and pay an exorbitant tax called the "jizyah"

Note that option #3 is only available to Christians and Jews.

Your dismissal of Islam's violence with your assertion that you accept that fact is a little bit silly. Islam's violence makes Christianity's paganism irrelevant. In other words, who gives a fuck if Christians are a little bit pagan when the Muslims are chopping each other's heads off in the desert and raping young girls all over Europe? Not this baptized pagan Christian. Number of fucks given = precisely zero bro.
 

dain_bramage

Woodpecker
Ghost Tiger said:
Mage, why do you think that Islam is so strictly "monotheistic non-pagan"? It sounds to me like you are implying that they are "true" monotheists and that Christians have somehow "bastardized" monotheism. If that's what you are implying, then you are simply resorting to the argument tactic of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Islam is so "truly" monotheistic because it chops the fucking heads off all the God-damned pagans everywhere it finds them, not because it has some highly evolved sense of purpose. To those of you arguing with Mage over the "purity" of Christian theology, you are chasing a squirrel in this argument meant to distract you.

Christianity incorporates pagan traditions because Christians understand the value of compromise and making good deals, just like the great Christian leader of our modern era, Donald J. Trump. Islam doesn't make deals. Islam gives three options to non-Muslim "kafir" infidels (like me):

1) Convert

2) Die

3) Become a "dhimmi" slave and pay an exorbitant tax called the "jizyah"

Note that option #3 is only available to Christians and Jews.

Your dismissal of Islam's violence with your assertion that you accept that fact is a little bit silly. Islam's violence makes Christianity's paganism irrelevant. In other words, who gives a fuck if Christians are a little bit pagan when the Muslims are chopping each other's heads off in the desert and raping young girls all over Europe? Not this baptized pagan Christian. Number of fucks given = precisely zero bro.

You basically summed up my arguments used in my classes and online conversations in a brief and easily understood manner. Thanks Ghost Tiger!

If I had to live in a community of any kind of religion it would be Mennonites and definitely not Muslims of any kind. I wouldn't mind farming as its in my background and the fact that I am related to Mennonites in the valley distantly. Christians are relatively tame. I don't hear about a Mennonite or baptist christian shooting up concerts or bars in the name of Christ. Christianity whether its pure or not has changed over the last 3 centuries. Islam in some places like Saudi Arabia still has people being beheaded and tortured for expressing different opinions. The general christian kind of annoys me but I respect some of them. I don't respect Islam.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Kid Twist said:
spokepoker said:
No, we just need to take back what was built by us (conservative thinking). Get the traitors out, get those who put their country first back in. Secession or civil war is for when things are absolutely completely fucked, it's not at that point yet, we can still restore what has been degraded.

How? You have a HUGE government and 25% that believe, in one way or another, of socialism or at least huge social welfare, if not communism. Another 20% are sympathetic to leaders that essentially endorse this type of viewpoint, if not fully, it's compatible with it in large degree.

So by what method? Military coup to actually restore the Constitution? We can't even get judges to rule according to the law, and we have presidents who actively tell the DOJ to disregard laws.

It's not at this point? Once the economy crashes even to 12k in the market or more, that'll be it. How would it "naturally" get better with at least 40% sympathetic to Bernie Sanders type ideology?

This, pretty much. There is no viable way short of genocide to just "get rid" of most of the people in Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Boston, El Paso, Columbus, San Francisco, Austin, San Jose and Philadelphia.

These are the fruits of Democracy. If 51 percent of the nation has no interest in upholding the Constitution then it inevitably becomes a dead letter. If you want your nation back then you're not going to vote your way there, and if you're not going to vote your way there then the other options are fairly self explanatory.
 

h3ltrsk3ltr

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Mage said:
Leonard D Neubache said:
Regardless, as said before, that is a far cry from going into the lands of the infidel and killing women and children in the name of God and Jesus.

Yes Christianity is inherently less violent then Islam, I am not arguing otherwise. What I was saying is that Christianity can still be rather violent, not as violent as Islam but still much more violent then most people would approve of. And the major reason contemporary Christianity is not violent at all is because contemporary Christians are not purely Christians but are also something else ideologically and culturally most of time.

Most Christians are also:
-Pagans
-Patriots or at least descendants of their country with their history
-Believers in Democracy
-Believers in Capitalism and free trade
-Have some subculture they belong to

Muslims generally don't have anything else but Islam. Islam is both a religious, political and economical system. Their country history in most cases is the same as history of Islam. Music and many other forms of self expression which could create subcultures is prohibited. They don't have anything else but Islam therefore are so violent, because no other ideology binds them to peaceful society. This is not true for all Muslims. Some Muslim countries have some national customs which split their identities and make them less violent. T

The more radical a person is the less identities and ideologies he has, other then his sole religion, that is what you can observe.

You can even observe this on liberals - stripped from any cultural and religious heritage, stripped from patriarchal traditions, from knowledge accumulated by their fathers these cultural bastards are aggressive and obnoxious people that march on Bernie rallies attacking different minded people, suing people for tweets and similar.

If a person has only one program in himself he will become a violent fanatic, be he a liberal, a Christian or a Muslim.

I think this makes a lot of sense.

I disagree that Christianity is inherently less violent, however. Until the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the neutering of the church by Luther, the Islamic world was a thriving hub of trade, innovation and progressive ideals.

The crusades, the inquisition, the interdict, feudalism...bros, the Christian world is replete with a violent history.

Since 1500, as the GDP of the west began to outstrip the east/middle east, the Arabic world and its Islamic religion was shunted into a corner. The violence we're seeing has less to do with Islam than a bunch of people put into a situation that would make anyone react violently.

Now, before you accuse me of being an SJW, I think the solution is to just quash Islam outright. While there's nothing inherently evil about it, it's a vehicle for the unrest and terrorist acts of a bunch of pissed off Muslims.

They ought to be viewed with suspicion.

They're getting the short end of the stick this millennium, shit happens.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Compare the texts. One calls for endless war with non-believers. The other does not.

There is a difference between Christianity and the historical actions of governments with a Christian majority. The ancient geo-political machinations of unelected rulers of Christian majority nations is of no relevance to what the scriptures contain.

In times gone, literacy and access to scripture was highly limited. Government and organised religion also laid a heavy hand over how the Bible was to be interpreted. That is to say, render unto Caesar, render the rest to the church and shut the fuck up.

Now, in the age of literacy and instant access to information we see the true nature of the fruits of the Bible vs the fruits of the Koran. People are not reading the words of Christ, "self radicalising" and then going out to murder 50 gays in a nightclub. People reading the words of Mohammed on the other hand are committing terrorism in the name of Allah because that is precisely what the Koran instructs them to do.

Your historical equivocations are irrelevant. Bible plus literacy equals prosperity. Koran plus literacy equals terror.
 

hydrogonian

Ostrich
Gold Member
RexImperator said:
Islam, especially Salafist variety, is not just a religion, it is also a political system. Communism was another political system that posed a threat to Western civilization in the past. However, while it was possible to be critical of communism, because of the climate of political correctness and "multiculturalism" it is much more difficult to publicly criticise Islam, which being a religion, is thus able to shield itself behind "religious tolerance" in a way communism never could.

I like the sentiment but, if I may, communism is why we have political correctness and multiculturalism. It's the software that protects Islam, and as such it trumps it as a danger.

As you can see, and perhaps increasingly perceive, the ideologies of communism are so insidious that we mostly fail to notice their origins.

Before communism, we un-apologetically kept Islam in the undeveloped nations where it belongs in quarantine. The ideological viruses developed on the foundation of Internationalist Trotskyism is what let it out of the basement.

Beyond this, crypto-communism today poses a legitimate genocidal threat within western nations. We see this with the importation of millions of third world drones, white-privilege politics, anti-police politics, anti-fa, and all of the movements associated with them that are driving the underclass to blood-lust. Communism also has an alarming 20th century precedent for mass murder of tens of millions over the Eurasian land-mass.

In contrast, Islam is too unintegrated and visible to pose much of a direct genocidal risk any time in the near future in the developed West; taken is isolation away from the rest of the communist-enabled movements. We could simply fight them. Fighting communism effectively, today, would likely take the form of a brother-on-brother civil war and even then you couldn't be sure that you had eliminated it.
 

Khan

Kingfisher
Gold Member
h3ltrsk3ltr, respectfully disagree with you:

h3ltrsk3ltr said:
I disagree that Christianity is inherently less violent, however. Until the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the neutering of the church by Luther, the Islamic world was a thriving hub of trade, innovation and progressive ideals.

Most Islamic 'innovations' were actually copied from other cultures. When it comes to cultural and technological innovations, Islam produced very little on its own. Also, it can be argued that the Golden age of Islam ended with Mongol conquests in the 13th century.

h3ltrsk3ltr said:
The crusades, the inquisition, the interdict, feudalism...bros, the Christian world is replete with a violent history.

The Crusades were a noble undertaking aimed at recapturing originally Christian lands from foreign conquerors. They were of course violent just like any other war, but this violence is on the same moral level as the violence of someone who uses force to defend his family from burglars.

h3ltrsk3ltr said:
Since 1500, as the GDP of the west began to outstrip the east/middle east, the Arabic world and its Islamic religion was shunted into a corner. The violence we're seeing has less to do with Islam than a bunch of people put into a situation that would make anyone react violently.

This is a PC myth promoted by the Left. Read the Koran, you'll find it's full of texts that promote violence and war against non-believers. You'll find nothing of the sort in the Bible, for example.

h3ltrsk3ltr said:
Now, before you accuse me of being an SJW, I think the solution is to just quash Islam outright. While there's nothing inherently evil about it, it's a vehicle for the unrest and terrorist acts of a bunch of pissed off Muslims.

They ought to be viewed with suspicion.

They're getting the short end of the stick this millennium, shit happens.

Agree. Islam should be contained, or else we're all fucked.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
hydrogonian said:
...
I like the sentiment but, if I may, communism is why we have political correctness and multiculturalism. It's the software that protects Islam, and as such it trumps it as a danger.
...

The cultural Marxism we suffer under in the West is not in the service of Communism. It is simply the utter rejection of everything that our nations were founded on, to be replaced with a vague and undefinable concept of "social justice".

Islam is gaining strength because nature abhors a vacuum, and a lack of cultural identity is a vacuum into which a raw, unsympathetic, unapologetic force like Islam will inevitably be drawn.

What we are entering into is not communism. Marxist methods for destroying capitalism are being used, yes, but not in the service of creating a communist society. What the elites have planned is something else entirely.
 

hydrogonian

Ostrich
Gold Member
Leonard D Neubache said:
The cultural Marxism we suffer under in the West is not in the service of Communism. It is simply the utter rejection of everything that our nations were founded on, to be replaced with a vague and undefinable concept of "social justice".

In my opinion, it serves communism precisely.

If I may, you have to stop seeing communism as an economic movement. It wasn't and isn't, except secondarily. It didn't and doesn't need socialist economic policy or class war to thrive, though that would likely be its final resting state in all scenarios. But for its primary goal, which is in the social sphere, socialist economic policy may serve as a tool but it is not required.

Communism, as opposed to economic socialism, is the ideology of the individual.

That is, it is the ideology of removing all social ties that produce political power that might challenge a hostile foreign ruling elite.

That's its primary goal.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors, or entirely secondary.

In essence, it is 'anti-nationalism'. It is a weapon for this purpose of destroying any type of political potency for anyone but a hostile elite, and not an actual political ideology unto itself except when promoting a politically null class war as its false front.

Valid political ideologies produce political power. Communism's only goal is to remove political power. It's fake interest in the well-being of the proletariat doesn't lead to any actual, meaningful political power for the proletariat. When you understand how real political power is always incubated, that is through meaningful and inter-generational social bonds, this becomes clear.

It's operation in destroying bonds instead of cultivating meaningful bonds is how you can identity if for what it is: a political weapon (wielded by a nationalist hostile elite) and not a legitimate political movement.

Ties of culture, family, and religion are removed in communism. That's its primary goal.

Inserting a false cohesion of economic 'brotherhood' is only a psychological placeholder for those aforementioned eradicated ties. It's merely to say 'here's a consolation prize after we destroy your sociopolitical bonds'. What they don't tell you is that the consolation prize, the so-called class unity of the international proletariat, is a political and social dead end for the proletariat. It will never produce any real political power as, among other aspects, the elite can readily manipulate this bond with a stroke of the pen when creating or restricting money or jobs.

The class war is a military and legal blunt instrument, and psychological placeholder, so that people do not again revert to more politically meaningful bonds as they are always want to do out of the natural or eventual recognition that those bonds are what create a political competitive advantage for resources. And also the recognition that these bonds produce a more meaningful, loving, and lower stress environment for them.

The institutionalized class war allows the elite to militarily or legally use force to suppress those more effective bonds.

Class unity was never and is not the goal in itself as its propagandists lead you to believe. If the above mentioned actual sociopolitical ties can be eradicated via another false front of a system (ie: a capitalist system, with a cultural Marxist and social justice political environment, wherein sociopolitical ties are destroyed), then the goal of communism has nevertheless been accomplished and the people live in a de facto communist state.

Is a Nationalistic democracy (ie: modern Israel) a communism or proto-communism? Why or why not?

Is an Internationalist social democracy (ie: the United States) a communism or proto-communism? Why or why not?

These are different types of nations with vastly different social environments and vastly differing degrees of political self-determination for their respective peoples. Yet, they are billed as essentially the same type of nations with similar-enough economic systems. How can that be? The difference is that one is a national / national socialist state and the other is a proto-comminust / communist state. Both in essence; in all but name.

The above description of the nature of political power is the hidden understanding of politics and communism. It's what they know.

Islam is gaining strength because nature abhors a vacuum, and a lack of cultural identity is a vacuum into which a raw, unsympathetic, unapologetic force like Islam will inevitably be drawn.

Islam is gaining strength because it is allowed to occupy USA and European geographical space, and it is protected from suppression by internationalist Trotskyists who will name every resistance to it 'racist', and deprive those who complain of jobs, until their primary enemies within those spaces are either completely subdued by it or destroyed. Then they will reign in Islam unless they are expecting it to be the ultimate lower class submission system going forward. That is also a possibility.

Islam is a drone army. It poses no actual threat except the threat that the Trotskyist elites allow it to pose. If we were given license, we could beat it back fairly easily with a combination of force and deportation, but mostly variously defunding it and destroying its supply lines.

The 'lack of cultural identity' has always been an expressed communist aim.

What we are entering into is not communism. Marxist methods for destroying capitalism are being used, yes, but not in the service of creating a communist society. What the elites have planned is something else entirely.

Well, agree to disagree. I'm not sure what you see in your tea leaves, but most influencers on the legitimate (non-Neocon) Right have traditionally seen the above pattern in theirs.
 

h3ltrsk3ltr

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Leonard D Neubache said:
Compare the texts. One calls for endless war with non-believers. The other does not.

There is a difference between Christianity and the historical actions of governments with a Christian majority. The ancient geo-political machinations of unelected rulers of Christian majority nations is of no relevance to what the scriptures contain.

In times gone, literacy and access to scripture was highly limited. Government and organised religion also laid a heavy hand over how the Bible was to be interpreted. That is to say, render unto Caesar, render the rest to the church and shut the fuck up.

Now, in the age of literacy and instant access to information we see the true nature of the fruits of the Bible vs the fruits of the Koran. People are not reading the words of Christ, "self radicalising" and then going out to murder 50 gays in a nightclub. People reading the words of Mohammed on the other hand are committing terrorism in the name of Allah because that is precisely what the Koran instructs them to do.

Your historical equivocations are irrelevant. Bible plus literacy equals prosperity. Koran plus literacy equals terror.

I love you guys but...ya'll are damn crazy!

Neubache, how are the behaviors of a group irrelevant from the group itself??

The Koran plus literacy gave us the Ottomans, I don't see how that's a sum that equals terror. Maybe they haven't cranked out any ground breaking innovations in a while but you wouldn't either if you lived in the middle east after WWI.

The Bible is fucking violent. The old testament is story after story of people hacking each other to death and don't tell me "that's not applicable because it's the old testament" because both have been taught in Sunday school since 313AD.

Personally, I'd love to attend a "soldiers for jebus!" church.

Another reason why Christianity is more insidious a threat than Islam is that it isn't honest. When it was needed to keep order, Constantine used it for that. Torquemada used it to keep the peasants in line. Luther used it to break ties from an oppressive elite. The Pilgrims used it to get settlers for the Americas.

In the 19th century, Christianity sparked the birth of "morality" as a social construct that I believe signaled the doom of masculinity albeit a long way off.

Since then the RNC has used it for votes. Fox has used it for viewership. Switchfoot has used it to sell CDs, the media has used it for jokes and now SJWs are using it to bash on straight, conservative men.


So why is Christianity the theology for the good dudes and Islam the pathology of the bad dudes? They're all just dudes being used by some other dudes disguised as another dude!!




@ Hydronian. The GDP disparity (and subsequent reversion since around 1978) isn't some PC bullshit I made up brah, nor is it a helpful SJW talking point. It illustrates the negative affects of feminism and female consumerism on a world power quite nicely.

No offence to any of you, it's some interesting conversating.
 

Khan

Kingfisher
Gold Member
h3ltrsk3ltr said:
The Bible is fucking violent. The old testament is story after story of people hacking each other to death and don't tell me "that's not applicable because it's the old testament" because both have been taught in Sunday school since 313AD.

I agree, no one here is denying that the Bible is violent. But in your post lies the answer to where you're wrong. You're equating stories and anecdotes of other people hacking and stoning each other to death, with explicit commands given by God to hack and stone everyone else to death. That's the difference between the Bible and the Koran.
 
h3ltrsk3ltr said:
The Bible is fucking violent. The old testament is story after story of people hacking each other to death and don't tell me "that's not applicable because it's the old testament" because both have been taught in Sunday school since 313AD.

Another reason why Christianity is more insidious a threat than Islam is that it isn't honest.

The Old Testament is about God vs. the "other Gods". Anyone with cursory understanding of it realizes this. Battles were specific and commands were specific because of this fact. God gave up his own people to slavery and war losses when they ceased to be in covenant with him (rebel). That's how the world worked, BACK THEN.

Islam doesn't teach, nor has it ever, such a temporal and specific understanding of events. From the beginning, because it is an expansionist warring religion, it has always taught that it is above all others and it (quranic teachings) is immutable and unchangeable in "heaven" for all people, at all times. That's why you must follow the islamic prophet, his actions and examples and thus Shari'a.

---

Christianity is a threat?

What world are you living in? That's just weird. Look around. Islam is based on its founder, who was demon possessed, warring, polygamous, obsessed with worldly things and conquering, etc.

Jesus Christ is precisely the opposite. Literally in every way.
 

hydrogonian

Ostrich
Gold Member
h3ltrsk3ltr said:
@ Hydronian. The GDP disparity (and subsequent reversion since around 1978) isn't some PC bullshit I made up brah, nor is it a helpful SJW talking point. It illustrates the negative affects of feminism and female consumerism on a world power quite nicely.

No offence to any of you, it's some interesting conversating.

I had to go and find your post that you were referring to, as I wasn't sure as to what you were speaking about. My post was more or less a specific response to another member.

However, having found your GDP post, I'll only comment that, while I acknowledge what you said about eliminating Islam, your general sentiment seems to be somewhat apologetic for them. I don't hold this against you, as empathy is is positive human trait in general.

However, this is the reality as far as I'm concerned:

Islam is a apocalyptic religion that believes subduing other populaces and in world conquest. Whether or not its mostly Arabic, Dravidian, Southeast Asian, and African believers are smart enough to acknowledge this and either divest themselves from it or acknowledge their culpability in its inherent violence through their support is beside the point. They are culpable and it is what I said it is. Though, I put the ultimate blame with the leaders and those who have always violently enforced Islam as a belief system.

One side always has its narrative. You cite a general sway of GDP output as justification. I don't find this to be credible reasoning for international terrorism. I'm unsure on what basis we are to have expected the GDP of the Near East to be anything above and beyond that of its petroleum production. It's never been able to be much else after the Arabs eradicated the original civilizations of Mesopotamia. Europe has never owed it economic parity. Its GDP issues, where they exist, are their own. Same with Africa. Same with everywhere else.
 
Top