patrick.net

curious2 says

marcus says

How does someone "dislike" that ?

It's yet more of your NAMALT non-argument.

NAMALT? What color pill do you have to take to go Muslims Going Their Own Way?

Two Irishmen walk out of a bar.

Dan8267 says

Then explains this. For 1800 years, Christians raped, pillaged, committed genocide, tortured, and killed the unbelievers by burning them at the stake

Where does the new testament tell Christians to do that?

Onvacation says

Where does the new testament tell Christians to do that?

It doesn't, which proves the point that the teachings don't matter. The New Testament is, however, pro-slavery, thus proving that it is morally bankrupt.

Furthermore, Judaism has been nonviolent during the entire existence of Christianity. All the rape, pillage, genocide, torture, and murders were committed by Christians, not Jews. Yet, the Old Testament is the Jewish testament. So the touchy-feely hippie shit of the New Testament doesn't matter for jack diddly shit.

Case proved. The teachings of the Bible don't mean shit. It's all about faith. The more faith people have, the more evil they are. Faith in what is irrelevant.

Dan8267 says

you really should be comparing the two family of religions at the same point in their development. So you should be comparing Islam today with Christianity in 1470. Both come out completely barbaric.

That sounds like an argument for extending President Trump's travel ban to all Muslims for the next 300 years.

curious2 says

That sounds like an argument for extending President Trump's travel ban to all Muslims for the next 300 years.

My position on that ban has always been...
1. It's Unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment protections of religion.
2. Therefore we should repeal the First Amendment protections of religion.

My position is entirely self-consistent. In contrast, people who oppose such protections for Islam but demand them for Christianity are, by definition, hypocrites. At the heart of every hypocrisy is a contradiction.

Dan8267 says

My position on that ban has always been...
1. It's Unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment protections of religion.
2. Therefore we should repeal the First Amendment protections of religion.

Assertion 1 (your premise) is false per SCOTUS. If SCOTUS reverses itself and endorses your premise, then that will become a powerful argument for 2 (your conclusion). Meanwhile, your premise being false implies nothing about your conclusion.

curious2 says

Assertion 1 (your premise) is false per SCOTUS.

Sometimes the Supreme Court is just wrong. The Supreme Court could say raping people to death doesn't violate the Fifth Amendment, and that would be in effect the law, but that does not make it the truth.

I'm not concerned with what the corrupt -- and yes, it is corrupt -- Supreme Court says is Unconstitutional as much as I'm concerned with what actually is Unconstitutional. I'm talking from an engineering, not political or legal, perspective. If we abandon hypocrisy and simply maintain complete honesty, then we would have to say the travel ban is Unconstitutional precisely because it targets Islam. That is the entire intention. That intention, as well as the effect of the ban, most certainly is an attack on Islam.

Now continuing with honesty, we both agree that attacking Islam is a good thing. This premise contradicts the premise that attacks on religions should not be allowed. Therefore, to avoid hypocrisy we must reject the intent of the First Amendment to protect religions. This part of the First Amendment is clearly wrong, and we're force to face that fact by the war with Islam.

The founding fathers experienced a time when different Christian religions were murdering each other with impunity, especially in England with the Catholics and Anglicans. The founding fathers foolishly thought the solution was for all religions to coexist. It is not. The solution is for no religion to exist. The founding fathers made a mistake. They made many mistakes. This is clearly one of them.

The protection of religions and religious beliefs, elevating them above any other belief, action, or association, is a mistake. There are two ways to correct that mistake. Either become completely hypocritical and selectively enforce those protections while blatantly violating them other times or revoke those protections. The former approach invites both corruption and great atrocities. The later requires abandoning a delusion that never served any good.

The fact is that, by definition, freedom of religion requires freedom to commit Jihad religion that demands Jihad.

Why should religion be the one evil with privileges? Why should religion have a higher priority than law and human rights? Why should there be any special protections for religion? And why must we endure such hypocrisy about which religions and which religious practices get these privileges?

rando says

Medical care is expensive partly because people don't know what it costs and don't shop around.

Also, it would allow transparency and competition. People would start asking questions like "If the Operator only makes $45k/year, the machine is paid off, it uses only X/Watts on average, how the FUCK could you charge $2000 per scan?"... "If you're paying the cleaner $10/hr with no benefits... and lysol isn't expensive esp if brought in institutional quantities... how can you charge $200/day for cleaning a room?" Questions that Porsche-driving Hospital Admins and Insurance Companies (who benefit from higher prices because it justifies them raising premiums) executives don't wanted asked.

Only those who seek to exploit the consumer support obscurantism in pricing.//

My favorite of all: If the Insurers got smacked so hard under Obamacare, and are barely operating, why do they hold their annual Meetings in Hawaii and Palm Springs instead of Alberqueque or Milwaukee?

Dan8267 says

bob2356 says

rando says

Lots of people die from things other than cancer. So by your logic, cancer is not bad.

by your logic cancer kills people so everything that kills people is cancer.

Clearly Patrick did not say anything remotely close to this. Patrick has states that Islam is bad, not that Islam is the only thing bad.

Where Patrick goes wrong is in thinking that Islam is somehow inherently different than other religions, particularly Christianity.

No, that is exactly what he is saying. Patrick believes since a very small percentage of islam is batshit crazy wanting to kill people then it means all of islam is batshit crazy wanting to kill people.

bob2356 says

Patrick believes since a very small percentage of islam is batshit crazy wanting to kill people then it means all of islam is batshit crazy wanting to kill people.

I sincerely doubt that Patrick thinks only a "very small percentage" of Muslims want to wage war. That's your assessment, not his.

Dan8267 says

bob2356 says

Patrick believes since a very small percentage of islam is batshit crazy wanting to kill people then it means all of islam is batshit crazy wanting to kill people.

I sincerely doubt that Patrick thinks only a "very small percentage" of Muslims want to wage war. That's your assessment, not his.

Let me reword this. The word since wasn't clear obviously.
Patrick believes all muslims are batshit crazy wanting to kill people despite the fact that only a very very small percentage ( an inconvenient fact the dogma regurgitating xenophobics like patrick aren't willing to engage their brains to think about) of muslims are batshit crazy wanting to kill people.

Which is exactly like believing all deaths are cancer because some people die of cancer.

All of which leads me to wonder if there is some type of grander plan (not necessarily coordinated, just a push in the general direction) by the oil, military/industrial, security etc. complex. Like the war on drugs there is a lot of money to be made convincing the population (apparently very successfully based on patnet comments) there is a dire threat that needs pretty much unlimited government money thrown at it for an unlimited amount of time without ever improving the situation.

Dan8267 says

Case proved. The teachings of the Bible don't mean shit. It's all about faith. The more faith people have, the more evil they are. Faith in what is irrelevant.

You have proved nothing.

bob2356 says

Patrick believes all muslims are batshit crazy wanting to kill people despite

I sincerely doubt that Patrick thinks all Muslims want to kill people. How about you ask him directly? I suspect his response will be that a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, of Muslims support Jihad even if they do not participate in it themselves kind of like how the majority of the American South supported the KKK by not turning them into the police and not convicting them while on juries even though most weren't KKK members themselves.

bob2356 says

despite the fact that only a very very small percentage

This is the problem with your argument. It's purely subjective, not factual. What exactly is a very, very small percentage? 3%?

If 3% of planes crashed, would the public consider this a very, very small percentage? I think not. If 3% of popcorn kernels didn't pop, would this be a very small percentage? Most people would say yes.

Neither you nor Patrick want to get pinned down to a percentage of Muslims who support Jihad because it opens you up to being disproved. But this also means that you could even agree on the facts and still argue about the wording of those facts. It's a non-argument.

What is undeniable is that the lower limit on the number of supporters of Jihad in the world is in the tens of millions. It might be in the hundreds of millions depending on the threshold of support that you measure. What is also undeniable is that those who support Jihad do so because of religion, by definition. No matter how you slice it, this is a terrible, terrible effect of religion. What is so good as to outweigh even this one evil consequence of religion? Unless there's something damn good to counterbalance the evils of religion, the world should simply stop tolerating religion altogether.

Dan8267 says

I'm talking from an engineering, not political or legal, perspective.

Dan, respectfully, even from an engineering perspective, you overlook a founding difference between Christianity and Islam. Islam was designed, fabricated, and refined by the charlatan Mohamed and his Arab followers for the express purpose of killing and subjugating as many people as possible. Equating Christianity and Islam is like equating a kitchen knife and an AK-47: either can be used to kill people, but only one was designed, built, and optimized for that purpose.

You mention the first amendment in isolation, but you misread it. Islam says to kill you, but that does not give Muslims a first amendment right to kill you. Consider the Second Amendment for comparison, which says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That does not mean everyone can walk around bearing nuclear arms, nor even a fully automatic AK-47. You ignore the Constitutional role of judgment. It's as if you looked at a sophisticated machine, took out all the parts you didn't immediately understand, and then expected it to work better. Even most engineers would not make that mistake.

The first amendment does not give non-resident aliens a Constitutional right to wage hijrah against the USA, nor even to cross our borders, even if their religion commands them to wage holy war against us. To the contrary, the Constitution authorizes the President to defend the republic. Nothing prohibits the President from banning inbound travel and immigration by people who advocate a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our government, especially when its adherents have murdered thousands of Americans in the name of that doctrine, even if that doctrine commands a religion in addition to everyting else.

bob2356 says

dogma regurgitating xenophobics

It's interesting to watch those in deep denial about Islam slide into cognitive dissonance. They fail to read, and instead they hallucinate straw men, and then (in Bob's case) imagine paranoid conspiracies. They fail utterly to analyze what Islam says and does across the Islamic world including from the MENA to Pakistan. Instead, they re-imagine Churchill and Patton (for example) as "xenophobics".

That's almost as funny as when Bob called me an insurance salesman.

BTW, for an actual insurance salesman, consider the Mujahideen and Taliban supporting dad of Omar Mateen, financed by CIA in the 1980s, imported to America where he raised a jihadi son as per Islam, supporting now the Taliban on YouTube (financed by GOOG). A former Acting DCI said openly on PBS that America should finance jihadis to kill Russians in Syria as in Afghanistan. President Trump has reportedly ended that program, in which the US had been spending up to $1bn/yr, but the Saudis and Turks can continue financing the same Islamic carnage. That conspiracy happens in plain sight, is widely reported, but Bob cannot even see it. He remains so slavishly devoted to defending the dead charlatan Mohamed's hateful fraud that he imagines the conspiracy must be somewhere else. Hint: Islam itself was designed, fabricated, and refined by the charlatan Mohamed and his followers to conquer and subjugate as many people as possible. That was a seriously problematic conspiracy, but Petrodollar hypnosis and dementia accelerated by the effects of opiate and opioid drugs seems to prevent Bob from seeing it.

Dan8267 says

What is undeniable is that the lower limit on the number of supporters of Jihad in the world is in the tens of millions.

Dan8267 says

This is the problem with your argument. It's purely subjective, not factual

Well thanks for clearing that up. So 10 million believers (thanks for all the supporting documentation on that number, I''m impressed by your detailed research on the subject. It's certainly undeniable) in jihad is 1.6% of muslims. I would call that a small percentage. Want to also document at least equally as well how many of those believers actually go out and do something about jihad?

Dan8267 says

American South supported the KKK by not turning them into the police and not convicting them while on juries even though most weren't KKK members themselves.

So you are saying the majority of the american south were (what does patrick call it?) excessively violent and should have been barred from moving to the north because their churches taught them blacks were inferior? Same exact argument.

Dan8267 says

I sincerely doubt that Patrick thinks all Muslims want to kill people. How about you ask him directly? I suspect his response will be that a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, of Muslims support Jihad even if they do not participate in it themselves

Thank you Dan, it's nice for someone to state the reasonable and correct interpretation of my remarks, instead of exaggerating and creating straw men to knock down.

bob2356 says

Patrick believes all muslims are batshit crazy wanting to kill people

Bob, you're wrong.

Where did I ever say "all Muslims"?

I simply said that the Koran commands Muslims to subjugate or murder non-Muslims, and that the more devout a Muslim is, the more he necessarily agrees with those commands.

ThreeBays says

So Trump supporters are like Jihadis you say?

Yes, to some degree. They don't want to murder anyone, and in fact are clearly much more tolerant of others' viewpoints than Hillary supporters, but some of the mechanism is the same. Deep dissatisfaction with the present, hope in a glorious future (MAGA or the Caliphate), and someone who will tell them how to get there.

A lot of it is just basic human psychology. Read the book! It's pretty short.

Looking at empirical data, consider the comparison between Freedom House country scores and Muslim population. If a country has allowed itself to become more than 20% Muslim, you can predict with 95% certainty that country is no longer free:

Muslims less than 20% of the population, 62% free
Muslims more than 20% of the population, 5% free

That dramatic disparity reflects what I call the Weimar threshold: when Nazis got to be more than 20% of the German population, they achieved critical mass and took over. The combination of vigilante violence, plus outnumbering and permeating the police and military and government, proved too powerful to resist. You can say that not all Nazis were personally committing violence, but that does not change the outcome: when 20% support such a repressive doctrine that commands believers to kill disbelievers, you are 95% certain to lose your freedom and maybe your life.

As Milo and others have observed, the "left" have abandoned and betrayed liberalism by embracing Islam. Many are too idealistic and naïve to see how easily and thoroughly their preferred institutions and candidates were corrupted by Petrodollar baksheesh. Remember the Islamic murders of cartoonists, and the mass riots across the Muslim world in favor of the murderers and against the cartoonists. If you believe in freedom, then you must oppose Islam including especially hijrah.

curious2 says

Looking at empirical data, consider the comparison between Freedom House country scores and Muslim population: if a country has allowed itself to become more than 20% Muslim, you can predict with 95% certainty that country is no longer free:

Muslims less than 20% of the population, 62% free

Muslims more than 20% of the population, 5% free

Thanks, I really appreciate research to back up opinions! It helps put debates on more solid footing.

It's likely that if and when the U.S becomes an absolute dictatorship, fundamentalist numbers would go way up and the government would use religion in ways that it doesn't use it now.

And sure, having a large fundamentalist population probably makes us more vulnerable to a dictatorship just as having a lot of nationalistic and xenophobic tendencies in the population and emanating from a right wing media does. There are many ways to manipulate the masses.

We need a daddy figure to protect us from the evil Muslims and Mexicans. Amiright ?

curious2 says

Islam says to kill you, but that does not give Muslims a first amendment right to kill you.

Yes, but that doesn't make the travel ban in compliance with freedom of religion. After all there are millions of Muslims who don't want to kill you, even if they are in the minority.

curious2 says

The first amendment does not give non-resident aliens a Constitutional right to wage hijrah against the USA

No, it doesn't. But it does forbid the government from banning people from the country because of their religion, which is exactly what the travel ban does. It's a very thin veil.

bob2356 says

Well thanks for clearing that up. So 10 million believers (thanks for all the supporting documentation on that number,

It is easily tens of millions of Muslims that support Jihad. That's a damn conservative estimate.

bob2356 says

1.6% of muslims. I would call that a small percentage.

Most people would not call 1.6% small when life in on the line. If 1.6% of plane flights crashed killing everyone on board, would you ever fly?
bob2356 says

So you are saying the majority of the american south were (what does patrick call it?) excessively violent and should have been barred from moving to the north because their churches taught them blacks were inferior? Same exact argument.

I am in favor of banning Christianity. Yes, it is the same argument. Religions cause evil, and they have zero up side. If the government can ban drugs that make people crazy, then it should ban religion for the same damn reason.

rando says

I simply said that the Koran commands Muslims to subjugate or murder non-Muslims, and that the more devout a Muslim is, the more he necessarily agrees with those commands.

Precisely. Faith is what makes people do evil and irrational things.

Dan8267 says

it does forbid the government from

No, it does not. Please read what the Constitution says, rather than relying on the false proclamations of paid advocates who lost unanimously at SCOTUS. You can certainly find paid advocates claiming what you wrote, but they had zero precedents, zero support in the Constitution itself, and zero votes at SCOTUS. It reminds me of the paid rapefugee advocates who claimed that no rapefugees had become terrorists, when TL/2Scoops and I found at least five who had been convicted, plus another who was killed while committing a terrorist attack. Advocates of hijrah lie (including Islamic taqiya) and mislead people into becoming useful idiots. Please, don't be an idiot, useful or otherwise.

marcus says

rando says

Do you find it objectionable?

I don't know Patick. Is it that you really don't have any idea what my point of view is ?

Of course the fundamentalists are bad, the radical terrorist types that use it as an excuse for violence are evil.

I just don't believe that returning hate for hate is the answer, especially if it is returned to the generalized majority for the crimes of a tiny minority. Hasn't history proven this ? Maybe there was a logical reason for Jesus suggesting that we should turn the other cheek. Maybe it's basically game theory.

Why do I have to explain this again. You know. You're not stupid. I believe that growing the moderate part of Islam may in the long run be more important than we can possibly imagine (versus walling them off until they learn ?) This happens by bringing Muslims in to the west

I am not sure if Patrick knows this but his POV is very much in line with the goals of ISIS. The reason those fuckers blow up shit in Paris etc. is to provoke an anti-muslim backlash. ISIS is a master manipulator and the goal of the spectacular attacks is to create F.U.D., to get western people and governments to make rash choices and make life uncomfortable for the moderate muslims who choose to live among us. The hope is to polarize moderate western muslims so they must choose sides and (as ISIS hopes) realize that westerners are the enemy. Like much of Patnet, ISIS lives in a world of black and white and wants to eliminate the greyzone for moderate Muslims who are living in the West and feel like they can make a life for themselves here.

Thus, while it may not be intentional, by constantly pointing out the truth about islam, Patrick is indeed demoralizing the moderate muslims who intrinsically know all these things about their mid east counterparts. Constantly pointing out the truth does not make them feel welcome, and ISIS hopes this will cause them to come home to the middle east and create the all out culture war ISIS wants. I am not sure what the answer is to the problem, but I am sure that doing anything that would make ISIS happy is not it.

somecrappynumber says

I am not sure what the answer is to the problem, but I am sure that doing anything that would make [ISIL/Daesh] happy is not it.

You seem to suffer from the too common fallacy that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, when in reality it can be an even worse enemy.

The difference between Islamic State and supposedly "moderate" Muslims (e.g. KSA) comes down to timing. ISIL/Daesh are true believers who imagine they have an omnipotent deity on their side and thus they want to fight right now. KSA prefer to spread Islam and develop a stronger position, then take over at a time when they have greater advantage. The House of Saud conquered Mecca and Medina less than a century ago, and on present trend Islam will very likely conquer France and Belgium less than a century from now. Spreading Islam plays into the Saudi strategy, and you can be sure that is not a good solution for the west. To the contrary, as Nassim Taleb wrote, "The west is currently in the process of committing suicide" by importing Islam.

Like it or not, confronting, denouncing, and containing Islam are the least bad options for the west. Whether ISIL/Daesh are happy about that or not is irrelevant. If you want them to be unhappy, then carpet their territory with Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Make it absolutely impossible for them to maintain the Islamic bubble that prohibits blasphemy. Whatever you do, don't be fooled by the veil that "moderate" sponsors of Islamic terror and conquest use to hide their intentions until they can stick a knife in your back. The west should treat Islam much the same way the west treated communism; in fact, Islam is worse than communism, so it warrants a higher priority and a consistently clear message.

curious2 says

somecrappynumber says

I am sure that doing anything that would make [ISIL/Daesh] happy is not it.

You seem to suffer from the too common fallacy that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, when in reality it can be an even worse enemy.

Yeah - I thought about that - fair enough.

Incidentally - you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes a "moderate" muslim. When I think of a moderate, I think of the guys I work with who say they are Muslim, but when we hang out and drink beer while watching the NFL call the Quran more "guildlines" than anything. Or the girl who has a prayer rug and does pray 5 times a day, but has a particular affinity for bacon and jokingly says that Muhammad wants her to spread pork to her people" In short they are more like the "catholics" who think the Vatican's stance on concoms is lunacy, or the "Mormon" who introduced me to the vices of alcohol, tobacco and pornography in my youth. All would be ostracized by the orthodoxy - but the contradictions between what their orthodox faith says they should do versus how they are - no matter the religion are fairly common to me.

curious2 says

Like it or not, confronting, denouncing, and containing Islam are the least bad options for the west

Maybe - but if Patrick is as committed to the truth as he says, he should also be ready to accept the truth that his views are very much in line with ISIS.

somecrappynumber says

you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes a "moderate" muslim. When I think of a moderate, I think of the guys I work with....

They are not a representative sample of Muslims generally. In most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims demand Sharia. As Islam metastasizes through a society, it takes over and kills everything else: most countries that have more than 20% Muslims, have more than 90% Muslims. As John Walker pointed out citing Freedom House ratings of 200 countries and territories around the world:

Muslims less than 20% of the population, 62% free
Muslims more than 20% of the population, 5% free

That dramatic disparity reflects what I consider the Weimar threshold: when the Nazis got to be more than 20% of the population, they achieved critical mass and took over. The combination of vigilante violence, plus outnumbering and permeating the police and military and government, proved too powerful to resist.

Pim Fortuyn had a similar insight, before he was murdered for criticizing Islam and campaigning against further Muslim immigration. (Theo Van Gogh made a film about him, and was then murdered by a Muslim for blasphemy.) As Fortuyn had said, he had a lot of support from voters who had immigrated from Muslim countries; he explained the reason was very simple: those people had immigrated to get away from Islamic rule, and had to compete for jobs with subsequent migrants who wanted to spread Islam. As Hillary Clinton acknowledged, lethal terrorism "is clearly rooted in Islamic thinking," and she used that as an argument for mass surveillance and further empowering her Saudi clients, whom she called "moderate" despite her own e-mails saying "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." The bottom line for target countries is as 2Scoops and others have described: labor competition driving down wages, more mistrust and strife, more surveillance, widening gap in power (including in the form of revenue) between elite and everyone else, less liberty and prosperity for most people.

somecrappynumber says

I think of the guys I work with who say they are Muslim, but when we hang out and drink beer while watching the NFL call the Quran more "guildlines" than anything. Or the girl who has a prayer rug and does pray 5 times a day, but has a particular affinity for bacon and jokingly says that Muhammad wants her to spread pork to her people"

I quoted just part of the comment on the other thread, here's the whole shebang:

"What happens to countries that Muslims occupy? As long as the Islamism following population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness: United States Muslim 1.0% Australia Muslim 1.5% Canada Muslim 1.9% China Muslim 1%-2% Italy Muslim 1.5% Norway Muslim 1.8% At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs: Denmark Muslim 2% Germany Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom Muslim 2.7% Spain Muslim 4% Thailand Muslim 4.6% From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves along with threats for failure to comply. (United States ). France Muslim 8% Philippines Muslim 5% Sweden Muslim 5% Switzerland Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago Muslim 5.8% At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule them under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam Mohammed cartoons). Guyana Muslim 10% India Muslim 13.4% Israel Muslim 16% Kenya Muslim 10% Russia Muslim 10-15% After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia Muslim 32.8% At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia Muslim 40% Chad Muslim 53.1% Lebanon Muslim 59.7%"

P N Dr Lo R says

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia Muslim 40% Chad Muslim 53.1% Lebanon Muslim 59.7%"

Totally ridiculous. Bosnia was a purely ethnic war, not religious. and it's been over since 1995. What widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare are going on? Bosnia/Herzegovina is a big tourism area for christ sakes. Lebanon started the civil war with christian groups fighting each other then spreading to every group in the country. Specifically the christian Maronite fighting the christian Palestinians and it's been over since 1990. It's anecdotal but my cousins Lebanese christian wife says the country is fine now. Her family all lives there and she goes back every year so I would think she knows. Chad is in constant warfare with Sudan sponsored rebels. Chad is 60% muslim with a muslim government, Sudan is 97% muslim so this is a pure land and power grab not a religious conflict.

Is the rest of the quote any more accurate? I doubt it.

bob2356 says

Bosnia was a purely ethnic war, not religious

Hahahahahahahaha. That's why so many Wahabi Fighters were there, yes? Bosnians and Albanians only burned down Orthodox Churches for ethnic reasons, eh?

bob2356 says

Lebanon started the civil war with christian groups fighting each other

Whoohoohoohoohoo. Hahahahahahahaha.

curious2 says

The bottom line for target countries is as 2Scoops and others have described: labor competition driving down wages, more mistrust and strife, more surveillance, widening gap in power (including in the form of revenue) between elite and everyone else, less liberty and prosperity for most people.

Just to amplify, I think in Europe the desperate fight by wealthy landlords to prevent a drop/flattening of housing costs in the face of an aging (downsizing) and shrinking demographic. Protecting rental income, is a big factor in Elite support of mass immigration. Also why they prefer big family Muslims over other groups, esp. Eastern Europeans who have few kids.

bob2356 says

Bosnia was a purely ethnic war, not religious.

No, just the opposite, a purely religious war, not ethnic. Bosnians are basically indistinguishable ethnically from their Serbo-Croatian neighbors, and are simply the local people who converted under Turkish pressure:

Following its conquest by the Ottoman Empire in the mid-15th century, Bosnia experienced a rapid and extensive conversion of the local population to Islam, and by the early 1600s roughly two thirds of Bosnians were Muslim.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Also why they prefer big family Muslims over other groups, esp. Eastern Europeans who have few kids.

rando says

No, just the opposite, a purely religious war, not ethnic. Bosnians are basically indistinguishable ethnically from their Serbo-Croatian neighbors

Bosnia was a religious war, but it started as a war between Croats (Catholics) and Serbs (Orthodox). In some way, Bosnians were victims of a war started by others and suffered much more heavily than anyone else. I believe Bosnian leadership were the "moderates" in Yugoslavian collective presidency. Furthermore, Bosnians are about as much Muslims these days as Germans are Lutherans - in name only. In culture and behavior (including fertility rate) they are indistinguishable from their East and South European neighbors. I know a lot of them as I was in former Yugoslavia in 1989-1991 for several extended periods of time. They booze as much as Serbs, women do not cover their bodies (I saw very few wearing headscarves, and many more in dresses that do not fully cover their asses - much more revealing than in US). Seems that 50 years of communism has cured Bosnians of ills of Islam.

https://knoema.com/atlas/Bosnia-and-Herzegovina/topics/Demographics/Fertility/Net-reproduction-rate

rando says

No, just the opposite, a purely religious war, not ethnic. Bosnians are basically indistinguishable ethnically from their Serbo-Croatian neighbors, and are simply the local people who converted under Turkish pressure:

Yep. Bosnians are also perceived as Slav Traitors for the Turks and against fellow Slavs.

Forgotten is the war between Croats and Bosnians. This is because the Media demonized the Slavs, as the real EU head, Germany, has always loved Croatia; the Gulf States and Turkey loved Bosnia, Serbia was isolated as Russia was too weak to protect it, so it became the whipping boy from a lack of wealthy or powerful allies.

drBu says
Seems that 50 years of communism has cured Bosnians of ills of Islam.

To a degree, just like Communism cured most "lowland" Chechens of Islam. However, many young people in Bosnia, like the "Highland" "Mountain" Chechen, have re-embraced an extreme version of Islam. There are quite a few Bosnian Fighters in ISIS and other groups who have become worldwide Jihad volunteers, and many Bosnians from around Europe have joined ISIS, like the two dumb Bosnian Gals living in Austria.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

However, many young people in Bosnia, like the "Highland" "Mountain" Chechen, have re-embraced an extreme version of Islam. There are quite a few Bosnian Fighters in ISIS and other groups who have become worldwide Jihad volunteers, and many Bosnians from around Europe have joined ISIS, like the two dumb Bosnian Gals living in Austria.

True, and to a very large extent their embrace of Islam goes back to the civil war. The only ones who really helped them initially were Islamists who got entrenched there - so we can say that Serbian/Croatian aggression is the cause of radical Islam in Bosnia. Without the war there would be nearly no Islam in Bosnia. It is quite similar with Chechens as well - their first president was a Soviet army general who was married to a Russian woman and fought against Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. After Russians killed him, each new Chechen President was more and more Islamic and misery of war made Chechen population more and more Islamic. Carpetbombings, killings, war misery, and Saudi-financed propaganda made Chechens into Islamic fanatics. They have not completely succeeded with Bosnians yet.

Edit: and this is a fairly typical Bosnian fashion I remember from my visits there in late 80's: https://www.rooshvforum.com/attachment.php?aid=11612

Does not look too Islamic to me as it is not clear if she is wearing a short dress or a slightly enlarged belt :)