On Tuesday a German national injured two teenagers with a knife on a moving train in Austria. Should we ban Germans from coming to America?
No. The knives are the probkem. Ban the knives.
There are crazy people from all walks of life & they're everywhere, all over the world. They do not need to be affiliated with a country, religion, ethnicity, social class etc... to do horrible things to others. I read an article earlier today about a mother & her boyfriend who were arrested for torturing her 4 year daughter. The torture was very physical, emotional, & mental ... To the point where the 4 yr old told the police & social services that her name was "Idiot" because that's what her mother & the mother's live in boyfriend called her. The 4 yr old did not know her real name!!!! I'm having a hard time with this one.
Pretty lame example.
I agree. He's reaching.
This user is currently being ignored
Words hurt. 😢
I know you want to get a rise out of me, but it's clearly the Conservatives who are hung up on the meaningless. Why don't you go back to complaining about lapel pens and stage decorations again?
There's nothing to argue. They can chant "death to America" all they want, it's no different than the Right Wing sedition that you preach on here. In the end, it's just a lot of hot air.
Yep. Buried my head right in that First Amendment.
Last time I check Germans were chopping of American heads!
Last I checked! The freed Americans held by the Iranians said they were tortured.
Last I check germans were accepting the group that could have raped children, crucified kids, burned people alive, drowned them all in the name of Mohamed.
The article said "mentally disturbed". I'd be for screening people who are mentally disturbed before they enter the United States, especially with those who have a mental illness called "Islam".
Many of the Muslims who have committed violence have had a history of mental instability (Tunisian truck driver, axe wielding German teen) but you choose to ignore that fact when it applies to Muslims, yet when it applies to a right wing extremist, you choose to emphasize the point.
Can you spell hypocrisy?
Is there proof he was a right winger? Also, with the ways things are going in Germany, acts of Nationalism are justified in that manner. If you fling shit at your neighbors don't be surprised when he flings it back.
I was right, there's no evidence this was an act of Nationalism.
"acts of Nationalism are justified in that manner"
There is NO justification for these acts of violence
Well we can debate on that all day, but I have other things to do.
The fact is the stabber wasn't a Nationalist so your argument is invalid.
And yet you continue to make assaults of Muslims that commit acts of violence, even when they have no connection to jihadist or Islam groups, and their motives are unrelated to their religion or ethnicity. But again, keep your double standard
And it's currently under investigation
Well no, the Quran gives justifies all of this, all desert religions are hell bent on world conversion. That being said, it's not a double standard. Muslims are the agressors, Nationalists are the defenders. The Warsaw uprising, and Sepoy Mutiny were examples of Nationalists over throwing those who harm their country. That's what I support.
"the Quran gives justifies"
The bible was also used as justification for colonialism, as nationalists from Europe used their "whites man burden" and justification for dominating different ethnic groups, including Muslim nations (but I thought it was white nationalists that was the defenders and Muslims that were the attackers, but history shows the other way around). Ohh I'm sorry, this logic doesn't apply, as for you it only applies to Muslims, and it could NEVER apply to white nationalists. Double standard, double standard
You're using a strawman now. I oppose colonization. Why else do you think I said the Sepoy Mutiny was justified? Also, you're forgetting that Turkey occupied the Balkans, and the Arab slave trades enslaved over a million Europeans. Saying that Europeans were the only agressors is historically inaccurate. As for Christianity, like I said, all desert religions are hell bent on conversion, the only difference is their prophets, and the current followers now. Christians don't spread by the sword currently, Muslims do spread by the sword currently. Until Islam has a reformation I won't support it.
"Saying that Europeans were the only agressors is historically inaccurate"
And you accuse ME of strawman, show me where I had states that. But they are history's biggest aggressor, as Muslims traded with Africans and East Asians, while Europeans colonized all of them
"the only difference is their prophets, and the current followers"
Muslims have the same prophets as Jews and Christians, they just added one
Your last statement is too ignorant to adress, that being said, what does Europeans being the main agressors historically have to do with them not being in the position of the defenders now?
Also you stated History shows it the other way around, when clearly history shows you're full of shit.
"Christians don't spread by the sword currently, Muslims do spread by the sword currently."
1. This is because of liberals. Who were able to push reform in Europe to make Christianity more tolerable. Without liberals, Christians wouldn't be very different than Muslims
2. JIHADIST GROUPS spread through thr sword, not Muslims as a whole or even Muslim governments. Name a single Muslim nation which is at war with another nation in an attempt to convert
"they wage war to kill people who believe in a different invisible boogeyman than them."
Name a single Muslim nation which has waged war against another non Muslim nation with religion as being to primary motive
"Israel and Palestine."
- that has to do with land and territory
"Iraqi Civil War (After US withdrawal) "
- IS is not a country
"Iraqi Civil War (Where Saddam Gassed the Kurds)"
- Kurds are also Muslim, and saddam persecuted them due to their ethnicity and their rebellion against Iraq. Not religious reasons as both sides are muslim
"Mogadishu- relates to terrorist groups within the country, not the government
"Somalia"- not the Somalia government, but it's the juhadisr groups that the government is fighting against
"Serbia"- actually, the orthodox Christians were the aggressors for ethnic cleansing against the Muslim Bosnians. And relates more to nationalism
I hope you realize Serbia woks directly against your claim as it was Christians slaughtering Muslims
And also that Mogadishu is in Somalia
"If you look throughout recent history EVERY Muslim conflict has boiled down to religion"
False, there are some jihadist groups which make up about .000001% of the entire Muslim population, who mainly target other Muslims, but you fail to name a single Muslim country which waged war in the name of religion, instead you look at the extremist groups to be a representation, while not only do they make a microscopic portion of the Muslim community, but also target the Muslim community.
"Fact, MUSLIMS kill people for not being Muslim. "
False, the biggest victim of Muslim terrorism is other Muslims
"When was the last time a Christian killed someone for not being Christian"
Serbia and mynamar(Buddhist killing Muslims)
I'm still waiting for you to name a Muslim country which waged a war relating to religion??
That was your accusation, now back it up.
I don't think any country has waged a holy war since the 1900s. Although, in Saudi Arabia there strick law system is based off of religion. As for Serbia, Muslims were killing there too. Do you know of the KLA? Also, maybe Classical liberals had an impact on calming down Christianity. The modern liberalism we have now hasn't. The protestant reformation also had a major impact.
Nemacyst, when you state
"Because Muslims don't wage war to Convert, they wage war to kill people who believe in a different invisible boogeyman "
Be sure to back up that claim with facts (like an actual war). Yes some Muslim countries have bad human right violations, and if it wasn't for liberals creating enlightenment, conservative Christians would be the same way. But again, when you make a statement, be sure to include facts
The KLA was a Kosovo nationalist group for Kosovo independence, NOT a jihadist group. And the Protestant reformation didn't solve anything, Except add another branch of Christianity that persecuted and started wars. After the "reformation", wars of religions continued as well as persecution of non believers. Secularism didn't start until the 18th century, with liberals pushing for freedom, tolerance of others and acceptance of different religions and ideas. Again, liberals are to thank for creating secularism
But a lot of them were Muslim, and tried to kill ethnic Serbian Christians. By that logic, I can say they were as Muslim as the Serbs were Christian.
The protestant reformation led to reforms in the Catholic Church as well, you do realize this? Also, stop crediting your brand of liberalism as the one that encouraged secularism. It was classical liberals.
Classical Liberals =/= Modern Liberals
Modern Liberals currently would have looked at the invasion of Muslim forces into Europe during the Crusades and said "not all Muslims" "Only a tiny minority are trying to take the Balkans, Southern Italy, and Spain" "Islam is really the religion of peace, even though their prophet raided caravans and killed people" Also, haven't Sunnia and Shia groups been fighting in the Middle East for ages? When's the last time Catholics tried to gun down protestants in the streets?
"But a lot of them were Muslim, and tried to kill ethnic Serbian Christians"
If you know basic history, it was the Serbians slaughtering Muslim Bosnians through genocide in an attempt of "ethnic cleansing". You're also accusing a nationalist group which sought for Kosovo independence for killing from religion, which is just silly and displays ignorance of what the organization is. And modern liberals mantain the same principles of classical liberals, being freedom, tolerance, and secularism, all qualities liberals today value (while "freedom" has been perverted by the right wing to fit only their own rhetoric)
"The protestant reformation led to reforms in the Catholic Church as well"
It led to minor reforms within the Catholic Church but religious persecutions, intolerance and religious wars were still relevant even after the reformation, which didn't end until the enlightenment.
And I also hope you know that the Arabic empire was far more tolerant than the Christian Europeans. Many Jews fled to the arbabic empire after being persecuted by Christians and it wasn't until the Ottoman Empire fell, and colonialism started that pushed back the advancement of the region. Neither religion are free from sin, but you keep your double standard, having a different set of rules for Christianity than Islam, and not realizing that the reason Christian nations are so tolerant (secular) are because of the principles of liberalism
And no, modern liberals wouldn't tolerate invasion as there is no justification whatsoever for taking of land through violence (but you disagree with the Nazis, again, a different set of rules). There is no tolerance for violence, and there's no reason to call a certain religion inferior or naturally violent, especially when it's based off of two religion (Christianity and Judaism) which aren't deemed as such (even through the scriptures of judiaism and Christianity are even more violent)
"Islam arose in the early seventh century C.E. in the settled desert community of Mecca (in present-day Saudi Arabia). It developed from both the Judeo-Christian tradition and the cultural values of the nomadic Bedouin tribes of Arabia."
So you criticize a religion without knowing anything about it. All three are monotheistic religions derived from abrahamic philosophy, yet this goes far beyond your head as you would rather should "ISLAM IS EVIL" than to actually learn about it, and you continue to bash a religion you have 0 knowledge of.
I'm not sure what drugs he's on, but his perspective of History is nothing but revisionism. The Muslim empires weren't tolerant. They literally forced Christians and Jews to pay a tax to practice their religion or else you got the sword. They slaughtered any pagans, and if you were a Christian city in the Middle East they would sack it and raze it to the ground. They weren't even close to a "tolerant and progressive empire". The Ottomans also kept child slaves and brainwashed them into being fighting warriors. Also, the Ottomans had a huge role in the Arab slave trades where millions of people were sold into slavery. As for Serbia, the Serbian death rate from allied bombing is just as much as the Albanian death rate from Serbians. The Clinton Administration lied about the official numbers at first and I believe now less than a couple thousand Albanians deaths were caused by Serbians.
Also, before you spout "Muh Christianity was oppressive" I already know this, but I'm not shilling for any of the desert religions unlike you are.
Read the works of Classical Liberals, they're not similar to the works of modern liberals. In fact most enlightenment thinkers were Monarchists. If anything they'd be closer to the Libertarian party than the Democratic one.
Islam although has a different prophet and denies that Jesus is the son of god, there's a huge difference in those lines of thinking.
"The Muslim empires weren't tolerant. They literally forced Christians and Jews to pay a tax to practice their religion or else you got the sword"
Very false, they did have to pay a tax, but again, Jews were fleeing TOO Islam because they were simply being slaughtered by the Christians. A small tax is far more preferable than being outright killed or denied rights or forced into ghettos (as Jews were in Europe). But other than the tax they enjoyed equal rights. And while you say you don't defend Christianity, you treat it with a different set of rules than Islam. While Christians also had a slave trade (which the bible justified), you don't attack Christians for doing that, instead you only attack Islam. This shows you play with a different set of rules for one religion than another. I don't care if you don't care for either, but you can't just apply one set of rules for one, and an entirely different set for another.
False, Muslims Recognize Jesus. Like nemacyst, you're attacking a religion without having any knowledge about it.
"In fact most enlightenment thinkers were Monarchists. If anything they'd be closer to the Libertarian party than the Democratic one"
1. SOME(Hobbes) were monarchist, but most strived for democracy
2. Many were monarchists because they wanted to avoid civil war/ monarchy was all they knew and felt as it was stable
3. Libertarians and monarchy have 0 relation to one another
"The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak ("Bosnian Muslim") men and boys, as well as the mass expulsion of another 25,000–30,000 Bosniak civilians, in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, committed by units of the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić"
And the allied bombings were justified, as they were preventing a war and stopping Serbia from ethnic cleansing. Bosnian slaughtering would be much high had it not been for the allies
Do you have any understanding of the religion? They recognize that Jesus existed, that dosen't mean they recognize him as the son of god, or the true prophet, nor do they follow his teachings. As for the tolerance it was in certain areas at certain times, agian stop trying to paint it all the same. In Christian Spain and in Muslim Spain the Jewish populations were welcomed then persecuted. Jews have been kicked out of hundreds of places by all different groups of people and religions.
As for the Enlightenment thinkers I hate to paint them all as the same. Not some, but a lot liked Monarchy including Voltaire. However, the enlightened thinkers in the United States are closest to Libertarians not Democrats. That's what I was reffering to.
(Remember) when the angels said, “O Mary, God gives you good news of a word from Him (God), whose name is the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, revered in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (to God). He will speak to the people from his cradle and as a man, and he is of the righteous.” She said, “My Lord, how can I have a child when no mortal has touched me?” He said, “So (it will be). God creates what He wills. If He decrees a thing, He says to it only, ‘Be!’ and it is.” (Quran, 3:45-47)
Again, wrong. They recognize him as the messiah.
And false, Jews were kicked out of Christian Spain, but lived along side the moors in Muslim Spain(who were also kicked out by the Christians) and when the Jews were kicked out, they moved to the Arabic empire, which was far more tolerant of Jews than the Europeans
The events in Serbia are very long to explain, and right now I have more important things to do. Although, I'll leave you with this article to research the situation more: www.antiwar.com/justin/j082100.html
"However, the enlightened thinkers in the United States are closest to Libertarians not Democrats"
Both democrats and libertarians are socially liberal, in what way are enlightenment thinkers economically conservative??
Let me awnser one thing at a time. First, the ways Muslims and Christians view Jesus is very different. Like I said, they recognize the guy, but not in the same context that Christians do. Their mindsets are very different. The prophets they follow are extremely different. Jesus would never raise a sword and kill someone. Muhammad raided Caravans, killed people, and kept war slaves. Muslims believe that Mohammed is the more moral person.
Enlightenment thinkers in the United States were for very limited goverment, gun rights, and wouldn't tolerate the supression of speech currently for political correctness.
Last thing, then I'm going to be gone for 8 hours, and will reply to you later.
Jews have been expelled from 109 locations in the Middle East, Europe, and Northern Africa. I don't believe the act is exclusive to Christianity.
"Enlightenment thinkers in the United States were for very limited goverment, gun rights, and wouldn't tolerate the supression of speech currently for political correctness."
1. You just states they were monarchist, meaning large, uncontrolled government, and while they were, this was at a time when the world was living on farms
2. As for gun rights, this was when there was only muskets.
3. Nam a single democratic politician in favor of taking away someone's Liberty for PC. PC is a non issue and unless people are sending you to jail as a result of speech, you still have free speech
"Jews have been expelled from 109 locations in the Middle East, Europe, and Northern Africa. I don't believe the act is exclusive to Christianity."
I never said Muslims were completely tolerant, but they were far more tolerant and progressive as Jews flocked to the Middle East to escape persecuting and denial of rights
"the ways Muslims and Christians view Jesus is very different. Like I said, they recognize the guy, but not in the same context that Christians do."
1. Muslims view him as a phophet and Recognize the virgin birth
2. Jews view Jesus in far less of a way
3. How they view Jesus shouldn't even portray the merits of Islam, as this seems like a non issue. They see him as a prophet as that's enough to show the connection between Islam and Christianity
"Jesus would never raise a sword and kill someone. Muhammad raided Caravans, killed people, and kept war slaves"
As did holy roman emperors (charlamagine) and popes. Again the Christians did the same thing but you choose to give them a different set of rules
For the Enlightenment thinkers:
1. The European ones were Monarchists, that's why especially made sure to clarify I was referring to the American Enlightenment thinkers (Although Hamilton supported Monarchy)
2. The founding fathers made sure to clarify that they meant arms from any future time period. The people have a right to bear (any) arms, not just muskets.
3. In New York city you'll be arrested for on purposely getting someone's gender wrong. Criminalizing someone who dosen't recognize 32 genders is going too far.
Also, what Charlemagne did wasn't what Jesus would have done, there's the major difference. However, these violent acts that are committed in the name of Islam is what Muhammed would have done.
As for Christians and Muslims, I never said didn't have similar origins, my point was that their perspectives and prophets are different.
We should build a wall
Yeah let's ban those fucking Nazis!
But seriously, no. Of course not.
Poor poll question 👎🏾👎🏾👎🏾💩
Hey, if I don't get anyone to complain about my polls, it's probably not a good poll.
No but if it escalates, spreads and continues similar to Islamic extremists than yes.
You mean like it had in the 30s and 40s and a level far beyond IS
being German isn't a violent ideology
Which is why he was a German "national". And if you don't think that's a Boone t ideology, you don't know your history
o I c, I thought he meant German in nationality.
Still, being German isn't a violent ideology in itself.. And i doubt German nationalists would target the US.
You doubt German nationals would target the US?? Again, have you even heard of the Nazis?
The Nazis only got in the war with the U.S. because they had to, Japan declared war on them, and being a part of the same faction there was no way Germany could avoid war with the U.S. That being said, by all means the last thing Hitler would want is the U.S. joining the war.
"The Nazis only got in the war with the U.S. because they had to"
The Nazis declared war on the US, while the US was debating getting involved in the war, instead of trying to maintain peace, the Nazis simply declared war, and there were even German u boats near US coasts. You say that radical Islam is ravaging Europe, when just a few decades ago, it was right wing nationalist, at a level far beyond any jihadist group could do.
Like I said, by treaty not by choice the Germans had to join. With Roosevelt in power I highly doubt we would have avoided war with Germany. Are you forgetting that we were secretly supplying Churchill with planes and arms? Hitler even tried twice to make peace with England, it failed. I highly doubt that getting into a war with the U.S. was that he was looking forward to.
"Hitler even tried twice to make peace with England"
He did, then he took Czechoslovakia and Poland. Which is why any attempt as peace would have been bad
He wanted Danzig, and the Sudetenland which had a majority German Ethnic population at the time. Also, if Churchill really cared about Poland he should have logically declared war on the Soviet Union as well. You know the other nation in the 40s that killed more people than the Nazis and allies combined...
"He wanted Danzig, and the Sudetenland which had a majority German Ethnic population at the time"
So you're justifying taking land because Germans happened to be living there!? By that logic, in a few more decades, Latin America should have the right to annex the US. No taking of land is justified, stop creating a double standard for minorities and right wing extremists
You do realize just 10 years prior that land belonged to Germany right? It's not like he just opened his borders, let them mass immigrate, and then randomly declared it German.
It doesn't matter. Much of the US was once part of Mexico, but again, your double standard doesn't allow you to apply that same logic to groups other than right wing extremists.
And again, there is 0 justification for acts of violence or from taking territory which is no longer yours
Parts if this land belonged to Mexico about 150 years ago, not 10. Huge difference. By your logic it was perfectly justified for England to take half of Africa because a treaty said it belonged to them.
"By your logic it was perfectly justified for England to take half of Africa because a treaty said it belonged to them."
Scamming a country out of their resources (encouraged by the bible and white mans burden") is very different than having to give up territory as a result of starting a world war.
"Parts if this land belonged to Mexico about 150 years ago, not 10"
Nope, there's no statute of limitations on unclaimed territory. The land will always be "once mexicos" and the German land will always be "once Germans". But taking it through force and aggression is never justified
Everyone here could probably tell that there's a huge difference from what belonged to a nation ten years ago, and a 150 years ago. Also, it dosen't matter if a that nation started a world war (which wasn't really all of Germany's fault in WW1) as long has the land is annexed under a treaty, then following your logic it's justified.
"Also, it dosen't matter if a that nation started a world war"
Actually it does, when you start a war, and then lose and surrenders, the terms of the treaty, however harsh, and your fault. And again, what's the statute of limitations? Can you violently take over a land that was once yours if you lost it a year ago, or ten years, or a hundred years? You're placing way too much emphasize on the time span and not acknowledging your double standard.
It sounds like you missed the whole point here. Why would German nationalists target us?
He believes Nazis still have a grudge on us.
Also, history and the spoils goes to the winner (The most powerful) not who did or didn't start the war. So England taking Africa is justified under your logic since they has the manpower and piece of paper saying it's theres. Speaking of double standards, you're support of Isreal is hypocritical since they're taking land that belonged to them thousands of years ago.
Knifeman injures two on Austria train - www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37094417