If I criticize the West for being a godless society and there believe that there really is no evil or good, except when it fits their agendas to label something as evil or good, does that make what I say to be invalid and make me a bad person? I, as a Muslim French Canadian, have the right to voice my opinion and criticize the ills of my environment because I want to see it improve and prosper. It's funny you mention Russians. A large part of my family are Russians and I, as a Muslim, get along with them perfectly fine and admire their loyalty to their Christian beliefs. Muslims don't like weak self-loathing people or do you mean PEOPLE in general don't like weak self-loathing people?
In the West, if you are not a weak self-loathing person, you're most likely a racist. In the West, a white person cannot be pride of his heritage, cannot be proud of Christianity, cannot be proud of the historical achievements of his ancestors. But if a muslim or a black man is all of these things it's called empowering. A white person cannot criticise other cultures, other beliefs, accuse an entire race for historical events that took place that were detrimental to white people without being called a racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe or whatnot. And that in white majority countries.
You believe I don't like weak self-loathing people? Where did you get that from?
There's this story about a historical muslim warlord, I don't remember the name or details of this story. There was an Austrian baron or something (again, don't remember the details) who tried to make a deal with the muslim warlord to join forces against his fellow Austrian people. That warlord refused and expressed his disrespect for this traitor baron because he didn't defend his people and culture. The warlord had more respect for those Austrian leaders he met on the battlefield. I expect you'd be the same as that warlord. You definitely don't like weakness (I'm talking about weakness in self-respect and esteem). But I might've been wrong about the self-loathing part. You seem to prefer western people on these forums who dislike their own culture and heritage while bootlicking yours.
It stole from countries in the guise of them helping them and civilizing them. It invaded countries and stole from them for centuries. There are mountains of academic work on the issues and atrocities attributed to colonialism or are you not going to accept those as well?
The more I learn about colonialism the less I see it as black and white. Yes, there are certainly black pages of colonial history, but in order to make an ethical judgment we'll have to assess the individual cases. This same reasoning can be so easily turned against you. If invading and stealing from other countries is inherently evil (and I agree that it is) then we have to conclude that the first 8 centuries of Islamic expansion and conquest were inherently evil. But I'm sure this requires historical context. Colonialism, not so much.
They're a community of Jews that have their own security and police, their own schools, and own social customs. At one point they even had women and men walking on separate sides of the street so they don't come in contact with one another. No one says anything about them.
That would probably change if they started suicide bombing other people.
Workplace barriers, issues of integration (they're criticized for not "integrating" while the Jews of Stamford Hill is basically a mini Jewish nation within Britain yet they're not told anything about integration), and etc.
Yes, I think we can both agree that Jews enjoy a certain privilege in our societies and succeed at getting away with it by staying under the radar as much as they can.
If you know there are works on system racism from white culture than why are you asking me about systemic racism? If I use academic scholarly work you're not going to accept it because anyone that says anything about white culture must be wrong no matter what position they hold.
Because I'm not interested in books or theses. I'm interested in facts and arguments. Give one example of systemic racism.
They worked so hard to bring down the Ottoman Caliphate but yet they create and fund militant Islamic groups after they've thrown out the secular governments that they propped up in the first place and that doesn't seem contradictory or strange to you?
Why would it be contradictory? And which secular states did they prop up? The West wasn't behind the Assad dynasty in Syria, nor were they behind Nasser in Egypt. A lot, if not most secularist nations were formed by homegrown secular nationalists. The West generally seems to have better relationships with Islamic dictatorships like the KSA or Bahrein and Qatar.
You're talking to me about population religious percents in areas that have been invaded by foreigners and is a cluster fuck at the moment and you expect me or anyone else for that matter to believe those numbers as some kind of fact?
Well yes, because the point was that Islamisation and dechristianisation seems to be the trend following western interventions in the Middle East. What else would I use to support that fact other than religious demographics?!
The colonialists, imperialists, Bush, Trump, and a host of other Western leaders proclaim and practice/believe true Christianity. Funny how that works.
That too is completely irrelevant. The relevant question is whether there's a direct theological or doctrinal link between the religion and the behaviour of its adherents. What people, and especially violent people, claim is true Christianity or true Islam is a complete waste of time.
Did Casper the Ghost invade Iraq then? Just because Corporations don't hold any loyalty to no country doesn't mean they don't get countries to their bidding.
So if it's a teenie weenie minority of high finance bribing politicians through lobby groups to invade Iraq, why should the Western people be held accountable? The majority in the West, even the majority in the USA are non-interventionist, yet their taxes go to these military interventions they opposed, and now they're forced to pay taxes for the effects of people coming from those areas (although most do not come from those areas). So our money is taken from us to make all this crap possible and then we have to pay the bill to repair all this crap, yet we all deserve the consequences of our elite's machinations. When we address injustice committed against the Middle East we're "good boys". When we address problems in our own countries that involve immigrants we're bad. Some objectivity would be nice!
No logical human being would pack up from one region of the world where their family lives and where they have made a life for themselves unless said region had bombs being dropped on them or it being destabilized through foreign intervention whether it be through foreign policies or the installing of puppet governments. And especially not for some internet.
Who says these people are logical? A lot of them come here for genuine reasons of opportunity, or because they're fleeing oppression or persecution in their home countries. But most of them, especially Arabs and Africans, come here because of the social security net. And most politicians encourage it because that way they can appeal to a new voter group who desires more government, which then gives those politicians more power, while those politicians, pundits or people who criticise this uncontrolled immigration tsunami are tagged with the stereotypical labels.
War refugees complaining about their free internet connection seems like it's propaganda in order for the Natives to hate the refugees who are fleeing because they're being bombed by those very same people.
Of course. They're being paid to say that, right?