Islamists behead Frenchman in Grenoble

[TravelerKai]

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The destruction of the Ottomon Empire was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Everything in that region has gone in reverse thanks to it.

I'm also starting to think as if Islamists want European countries to start loading Muslims into concentration camps so they can declare nonstop holy war.

Interesting point there. There is an amazingly deep context that could deserve a thread in the Deep subform if it could be discussed intelligently.

The Caliphate(s) (like ISIS) precede even the Ottoman Empire, but what always kept them in check were semi-secular/multi-religious governments in those regions. The original "assassin" come from these fanatical murderers.

Interestingly enough, Saddam's Iraq could have been that new Ottoman Empire had they been allowed to "grow as an empire". From my own Historian's point of view and having the luxury to look back at that, one could make compelling argument that his overthrow might be even more disastrous than the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Time will tell, but it's interesting.

You could also look at the non religious Iranian governments too, but they did not have the empire like ambition to control that much territory in the region like Saddam's Iraq did.

 

[DjembaDjemba]

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The destruction of the Ottomon Empire was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Everything in that region has gone in reverse thanks to it.

I'm also starting to think as if Islamists want European countries to start loading Muslims into concentration camps so they can declare nonstop holy war.

Interesting point there. There is an amazingly deep context that could deserve a thread in the Deep subform if it could be discussed intelligently.

The Caliphate(s) (like ISIS) precede even the Ottoman Empire, but what always kept them in check were semi-secular/multi-religious governments in those regions. The original "assassin" come from these fanatical murderers.

Interestingly enough, Saddam's Iraq could have been that new Ottoman Empire had they been allowed to "grow as an empire". From my own Historian's point of view and having the luxury to look back at that, one could make compelling argument that his overthrow might be even more disastrous than the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Time will tell, but it's interesting.

You could also look at the non religious Iranian governments too, but they did not have the empire like ambition to control that much territory in the region like Saddam's Iraq did.

The Ottoman Empire kept an uneasy peace in the whole middle east for 500 years. They had no business governing European countries (Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Greece, Macedonia) however. Although I would say EE lucked out for the fact that the Ottomans were small "i" islamist and not overly concerned about wholesale conversion of Europeans to Islam.

There are more parallels between the Ottomans and Iran's style of governance.

A little off topic but how people forget that when Europeans were covered up head to toe and obsessing about sexual purity, the Ottoman Middle East had belly dancing, harems, whore houses, shisha bars, and was sexually more liberal than much of Europe. Then around the 1950s things started to go very wrong across the whole region.

 

[Snowplow]

 

[Comte De St. Germain]

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The destruction of the Ottomon Empire was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Everything in that region has gone in reverse thanks to it.

Kindly explain, or post a link to where you have discussed this. I'm just coming back from two countries in EE that were under Ottoman rule (Bulgaria and Romania), and I think the local population would disagree with your assertion here, to put it lightly.

The only "disaster" I can think of caused by the fall of the Ottomans was paving the way for the expansion of Russia and the ensuing fall of communism.

I've mentioned it once in passing last there was an Islamic thread and no one gave a response so I couldn't elaborate. I can't remember the exact thread title, but I'll type up an argument anyways.

First of all, I wholeheartedly agree Romania and Bulgaria should not have been a part of the Ottomon Empire, and both were free by WWI right before the collapse. Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the complex military alliance that would later cause WWI was one of the factors maintaining the status quo as well as as allowing for the slow but steady reforms in both Russia as well as the Ottomon Empire happening before the war. Expansion into certain countries was nearly impossible without all out war as what would later happen.

Fact of the matter is that autocratic and increasingly secular Ottomon Rulers(whom partook in their own fair share of degeneracy) were autocratic rulers whom prevented minority sects(like the later formed Wahhabis) in check to maintain their power by both promoting a unified Islamic ideal coupled with the forced status quo. It prevented Ottomon expansion and kept the country somewhat prosperous and orderly. All whom spoke up at the time and tried to change the status quo were silenced ala the early stages of Turkey. This is why Turkey is a much more "secular" nation today putting that term loosely.

With the Ottomon Empire gone, the Allied Powers literally divided its remnants into random geographical countries with at times opposing minorities that wanted to kill each other, but previously could not under the Ottomons. This is why dictatorships arose to keep those countries stable eventually. So now that those dictatorships fell apart the impetus for their destruction, Wabbbiest non-secular/traditional Islam, could have its own way. They started following their holy book to the letter today, and so we have the issues today.

Countries like Lebanon, Egypt Turkey, etc at one point or still do have good nightlife scenes with alcohol having questionable legality allowing for its sale. Lebanese people are some of the heaviest drinkers I know. So without forced authoritarian secularism the problems of that region become manifest. As it's harder to do so without a regime such at the Ottomons that had both political legitimacy and precedent as rulers.

Is this a joke? The rape of SE Europe and Ottoman colonial policies in the Balkans are the main reason that the region is such a turbulent shithole when compared to the rest of Europe.

Population shifting, redrawing the borders, creating new ethnicities out of thin air by converting them to Islam, depopulating Christian territories. The Ottomans were a disaster for the Balkans and the PRIMARY reason that SE Europe never got to experience the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc. with the rest of Europe. Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Romanians had their land stolen from them, occupied, and raped for centuries, they had every right to secede from the dying Ottoman Empire.

As for the Ottomans having some sort of political legitimacy, after they lost in Vienna in 1683, they started a rapid decline. By 1800, the Ottomans were shadow of their former selves and they did NOT have either the means nor the will to enforce any kind of empire.

Did you read my argument on Romania/Bulgaria? I said they had no business in Christian countries and right before WWI they were not in charge of a lot of these population centers. My focus is on Pre-WWI Ottomon Empire(right before the fall) not throughout its history. I would also like to state that the Empire was headed towards Constitutional Monarchy before the war as a lot of of politicians especially those responsible for modern day Turkey were bringing up resistance.

Yes it was going towards rapid decline, but it still had potential for reform and its existence could have resulted in a more peaceful Middle East even if it fell. Possibly from new countries forming around culture groups.

 

[Galahad]

We have enough of your feminist and free market saving... :-/

 

[N°6]

You can't make it up.

USA
All white men are potential racist gun men so let's ban the flag that some white men identify with and push gun control.

France
Islam is a religion of peace and multiculturalism is a great idea and if you disagree then you are using multicultural rapes and murders for your own racist agenda.

 

[TheWastelander]

You can't make it up.

USA
All white men are potential racist gun men so let's ban the flag that some white men identify with and push gun control.

France
Islam is a religion of peace and multiculturalism is a great idea and if you disagree then you are using multicultural rapes and murders for your own racist agenda.

Someone posted this in one of the threads yesterday:

 

[Samseau]

Islam has always been a backwards belief system, promoting death and degeneracy. They've never had any business governing any lands, and anything they've touched has crumbled into ashes.

Egypt under Roman rule? The wealthiest country in the world. Today? The poorest. Syria and Lebanon used to be extremely rich 100 years ago, today with encroaching Islam they are poor and dangerous.

Today Islam returns to tradition by raping and enslaving non-Muslim girls so they can fuel their bloodlust and conquest:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-ISIS-jihadis-treat-sick-reward-savagery.html

A group of captured Yazidi and Christian women are chained together and marched to a sickening sex slave market where they are sold to become wives for Islamic State fighters

Islam has always been this way, and the only defense people can come up with is a few Islamic scholars who were eccentric enough to preserve a few Roman books while the great majority of Muslims were only interested in slavery and conquest.

Even the most biased of articles on Islam, such as the one on Wikipedia cannot leave a reader with anything but disgust and horror at this culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam

Islam is promoted today for the same reason homosexuality is promoted: our elites want more degeneracy so they can keep total control. And few things are more degenerate than Islam.

 

[kaotic]

Someone posted this in one of the threads yesterday:

^^^This, sorry sweetie but you can't have it both ways, it's all or nothing. Not picking and choosing.

 

[lowhead360]

delete

 

[TheWastelander]

The questions that are rarely asked in regards to Muslim immigrants in Europe:

- Why are certain European countries letting these people in?
- Would Europeans be welcome in these immigrants' home countries and societies the way they are in theirs?
- What gives the multiculturalists the right to dictate that the majority is bad and that they're immoral if they do not admit these people?

 

[Comte De St. Germain]

Kindly explain, or post a link to where you have discussed this. I'm just coming back from two countries in EE that were under Ottoman rule (Bulgaria and Romania), and I think the local population would disagree with your assertion here, to put it lightly.

The only "disaster" I can think of caused by the fall of the Ottomans was paving the way for the expansion of Russia and the ensuing fall of communism.

I've mentioned it once in passing last there was an Islamic thread and no one gave a response so I couldn't elaborate. I can't remember the exact thread title, but I'll type up an argument anyways.

First of all, I wholeheartedly agree Romania and Bulgaria should not have been a part of the Ottomon Empire, and both were free by WWI right before the collapse. Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the complex military alliance that would later cause WWI was one of the factors maintaining the status quo as well as as allowing for the slow but steady reforms in both Russia as well as the Ottomon Empire happening before the war. Expansion into certain countries was nearly impossible without all out war as what would later happen.

Fact of the matter is that autocratic and increasingly secular Ottomon Rulers(whom partook in their own fair share of degeneracy) were autocratic rulers whom prevented minority sects(like the later formed Wahhabis) in check to maintain their power by both promoting a unified Islamic ideal coupled with the forced status quo. It prevented Ottomon expansion and kept the country somewhat prosperous and orderly. All whom spoke up at the time and tried to change the status quo were silenced ala the early stages of Turkey. This is why Turkey is a much more "secular" nation today putting that term loosely.

With the Ottomon Empire gone, the Allied Powers literally divided its remnants into random geographical countries with at times opposing minorities that wanted to kill each other, but previously could not under the Ottomons. This is why dictatorships arose to keep those countries stable eventually. So now that those dictatorships fell apart the impetus for their destruction, Wabbbiest non-secular/traditional Islam, could have its own way. They started following their holy book to the letter today, and so we have the issues today.

Countries like Lebanon, Egypt Turkey, etc at one point or still do have good nightlife scenes with alcohol having questionable legality allowing for its sale. Lebanese people are some of the heaviest drinkers I know. So without forced authoritarian secularism the problems of that region become manifest. As it's harder to do so without a regime such at the Ottomons that had both political legitimacy and precedent as rulers.

Is this a joke? The rape of SE Europe and Ottoman colonial policies in the Balkans are the main reason that the region is such a turbulent shithole when compared to the rest of Europe.

Population shifting, redrawing the borders, creating new ethnicities out of thin air by converting them to Islam, depopulating Christian territories. The Ottomans were a disaster for the Balkans and the PRIMARY reason that SE Europe never got to experience the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc. with the rest of Europe. Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Romanians had their land stolen from them, occupied, and raped for centuries, they had every right to secede from the dying Ottoman Empire.

As for the Ottomans having some sort of political legitimacy, after they lost in Vienna in 1683, they started a rapid decline. By 1800, the Ottomans were shadow of their former selves and they did NOT have either the means nor the will to enforce any kind of empire.

Did you read my argument on Romania/Bulgaria? I said they had no business in Christian countries and right before WWI they were not in charge of a lot of these population centers. My focus is on Pre-WWI Ottomon Empire(right before the fall) not throughout its history. I would also like to state that the Empire was headed towards Constitutional Monarchy before the war as a lot of of politicians especially those responsible for modern day Turkey were bringing up resistance.

Yes it was going towards rapid decline, but it still had potential for reform and its existence could have resulted in a more peaceful Middle East even if it fell. Possibly from new countries forming around culture groups.

First of, Pre-WWI Ottoman Empire still controlled many areas that weren't rightfully theirs/ethnically Turkish outside of the Middle East (Smyrna was still majority Greek, Armenia, Azerbaijan, parts of Georgia etc). All of these places deserved independence and had little desire to remain a part of a dying Empire that stripped them of their sovereignty for centuries.

Secondly, the Ottomans could not have in any conceivable way shape or form held onto the Middle East even if it did become a Constitutional Monarchy. The PEOPLE living in the Middle East are Arabic and have a completely different language, culture, and customs than the dominant Ottoman group the Turks. The Arabs rose in revolt against the Ottomans during WWI because they wanted (and deserved) self-determination and independence. Any reforms would have done little to quell the popular desire of Ottoman Arabs for independence. The fact of the matter is that imperialism, Ottoman and later Western, is responsible for a lot, if not most, of the problems we see in the Middle East.

You have a point there with your criticism in the first point so I'll give you that. On your second point Ottomons had at that point almost entirely adapted Arab culture as well as spoke Arabic along with their native Turkish(something that is recommended by all Muslims to read the Quran) just as much as the Romans had adapted Greek culture in a sense minus the required language.

I would also like to point out that the Ottomons had the same religious authority as a Caliphate so to rebel unless there was due cause due to weak rulers would have been impossible both due to the religious authority as well as the large standing army that would have quelled it in a heartbeat. If anything if the Empire had stabilized there would have been no rebellion, but due to Ottomon weakness the House of Saud quickly retook the Arabian Peninsula in the ensuing struggle.

You also quickly forget the House of Saud's fanatical religious leanings, and so it would have been much preferable to have the Ottomons in charge rather than the House of Saud as the ensuing restrictions would have dramatically changed life in that area under threat of harder reprisal under Saudi Rulers.

 

[Galahad]

The questions that are rarely asked in regards to Muslim immigrants in Europe:

- Why are certain European countries letting these people in?
- Would Europeans be welcome in these immigrants' home countries and societies the way they are in theirs?
- What gives the multiculturalists the right to dictate that the majority is bad and that they're immoral if they do not admit these people?

[attachment=26929]


For example for Germany they did come as guest worker - cheap worker for a booming industry. After the stop they still could bring in their family members. Also german society did not care much to integrate them. In other countries they come because of colonies. There the same, they are all send to some areas with no support and care. The problems did start with the 2nd and 3th generation that is kind of lost and turned into fanatics, not integrate into society and so on.

An other reason they try to escape the strict and fanatic situation in those places. And there again, the 2nd and 3th generation did not see it like the parents.

 

[Comte De St. Germain]

Islam has always been a backwards belief system, promoting death and degeneracy. They've never had any business governing any lands, and anything they've touched has crumbled into ashes.

Egypt under Roman rule? The wealthiest country in the world. Today? The poorest. Syria and Lebanon used to be extremely rich 100 years ago, today with encroaching Islam they are poor and dangerous.

Today Islam returns to tradition by raping and enslaving non-Muslim girls so they can fuel their bloodlust and conquest:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-ISIS-jihadis-treat-sick-reward-savagery.html

A group of captured Yazidi and Christian women are chained together and marched to a sickening sex slave market where they are sold to become wives for Islamic State fighters

Islam has always been this way, and the only defense people can come up with is a few Islamic scholars who were eccentric enough to preserve a few Roman books while the great majority of Muslims were only interested in slavery and conquest.

Even the most biased of articles on Islam, such as the one on Wikipedia cannot leave a reader with anything but disgust and horror at this culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam

Islam is promoted today for the same reason homosexuality is promoted: our elites want more degeneracy so they can keep total control. And few things are more degenerate than Islam.

I concede the Ottomon/Islamic slave trade(which had largely been shutdown due to European Imperialism and power at this point) was problematic but again due to Strong Western Power.

My main issue with your argument here is that Syria and Lebanon 100 years ago WERE MUSLIM. It's like you're completely ignoring the entire history of the region. Damascus was the seat of the Abbasid Caliphate for fuck's sake, and Lebanon was long part of that same territory as well.

I would also like to point out that Egypt was actually a rich country for several centuries until recently. For one they even pushed back Napoleon himself when he landed. The Egyptian Campaign was the one of the worst campaigns he ever led after his Russian one.

You are also pushing a blanket claim that only religion is the cause of the failure of that entire region. The problem with Islam is that it has too many wayward and at times violent sects. This is why there's a constant need for a Saladin character of sorts. A strongman that unites the region under his rule. Without one there's constant bloodshed.

The entire Middle East in my opinion is in drastic need for forced modernization like Mid 20th Century Iran. It's actually kind of funny because the entire Iranian Elite is almost indistinguishable from Western countries. Want proof?

https://instagram.com/therichkidsoftehran/

 

[Comte De St. Germain]

Some hot Iranian girls in Tehran for your viewing pleasure, and of course WB.

 

[almohajem]

There is a lot of confusion in this thread. I live in the country where 37 people were killed today.

If you have no fear from death, a weapon, and can sneak to some very crowded place with that weapon; you can kill dozens of people in a short time.

Almost everyone can have access to 2 (weapon) and 3 (sneaking). Fear from death is universal and almost unbeatable. It's innate and so strong. Few people have 1 in the west, and so they can't relate.

On a related news, someone killed dozens and suicided in the west. He has no ideology/religion. But when you are suicidal, killing dozens is as closer as it gets.

These youth are not suicidal. But they are not afraid from the death. The Islam brain-washing is so strong that they no longer have fear from death. This is why on another thread I warned that all muslims can be dangerous. They are too attached that convincing them about an idea can turn them into terrorists overnight.

This is Islam strength too. This is probably why ISIS is the fastest growing nation/population/community in the world history. They are already controlling lands with 10 million people. A feat no previous (al qaeda, shabeb...) group has achieved.

 

[almohajem]

If you are worried about ISIS, look no further than Syria. It's well-known and propagated that Syria is the Arab world hope at the moment.

If Syria defeats ISIS, they'll be gone forever. They are already defeated in Egypt and Tunisia. If ISIS defeats Syria, a whole other scenario will emerge. Iraq, and Liban are probably their first target and will be at their mercy. Followed by Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria. They are already too strong in Morocco too and have political power there.

I'll then need to fly as far as Hong Kong or Australia.

 

[Eskhander]

David Cameron has sternly weighed in.
"Those who do this do it in the name of a sick and twisted ideology."

They sure do Cameron but I doubt we're thinking of the same thing.

 

[Comte De St. Germain]

The questions that are rarely asked in regards to Muslim immigrants in Europe:

- Why are certain European countries letting these people in?
- Would Europeans be welcome in these immigrants' home countries and societies the way they are in theirs?
- What gives the multiculturalists the right to dictate that the majority is bad and that they're immoral if they do not admit these people?

The problem with multiculturalists as that they believe that the only thing coming in with these guys are there hookah lounges, food, and another outstanding citizen. They aren't wrong with those that choose to integrate(I would say about 25% of the Islamic youth grow distant from their parentage to either more moderate leanings or full on party mode due to disillusionment myself included from my father's side of the family).

The issue is that the remaining 75% tend to cling to their culture group as a form of group think due to fear of reprisal from parents for blending in with their host country's culture(partying, drinking, etc). These guys are the ones turning incel shut-ins playing video games or religious fetishists(ala the Westboro Baptist Church).

I think the only foreign Middle Eastern group that blends in are Persians(Iranians) for some reason. Though breaking into their social circle is a bitch and the reason I haven't gotten my Persian flag .

I'm honestly for limitations on immigration in that regard because those that have immigrated will be forced to make friends and identify with the host country more due to fear of social exclusion. Heavy screening should be done to limit immigration from those regions for this very reason. The problem is that it's slightly past the time to do that as there's sizable portions of the population in these countries.

The only way to solve this(and I hate to say it as it errs close to the inhumane) is forced deportation of radical elements or those that associate more so with their origin culture. Stuff like France's ban on the Burkha and similar religious clothing just like how Middle Eastern countries force women to wear that type of clothing would be optimal to even do this in a nonthreatening way. Sure let them in, but barring their cultural norms would keep the unruly elements out so there's forced integration.

 

[Eskhander]

The questions that are rarely asked in regards to Muslim immigrants in Europe:

- Why are certain European countries letting these people in?
- Would Europeans be welcome in these immigrants' home countries and societies the way they are in theirs?
- What gives the multiculturalists the right to dictate that the majority is bad and that they're immoral if they do not admit these people?

This is the secret. I've said much of this to European friends and their minds have actually changed on the immigration issue.
Point out all the violations of the social contract that routinely occur, that these countries see no moral reason to have open borders, that no other advanced countries (japan, south korea) see any reason to, and finally that Europe is seen as racist for ever restricting immigration.

Altruistic Punishment is the way out. Europeans are too altruistic for their own good, but altruistic societies tend to punish people who don't reciprocate.