|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Mar 15, 2019 4:28:29 GMT
The Christchurch mosque shootings occurred on 15 March 2019 at 13:40 NZDT (00:40 UTC) when multiple people were shot at the Al Noor and Linwood mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The perpetrator of one of the attacks is described as 28-year old Australia-born Brenton Tarrant, though it is reported that there are more shooters involved. Eyewitnesses reported several people have been killed although this is yet to be confirmed by the police while estimates range from nine to twenty-seven killed. There were also reports of a bomb being found in a crashed car on Strickland Street. This is the first mass shooting in New Zealand since the 1990 Aramoana massacre. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Mar 18, 2019 6:55:59 GMT
While I obviously do not condone this action, this is a direct result of globalist politicians pushing unfettered third-world immigration against the wishes of their own constituents. People everywhere are sick of so many immigrants and refugees that are changing their nations and yet their elected officials are not listening. This is the result of politicians not listening to their citizens. This a result of forced multiculturalism between two cultures that are incompatible. You mean liberal degeneracy and Islam? So this guy was defending liberal degeneracy from Islam? You couldn't possibly mean traditional European culture because that is dead dead dead. While I think whites have a right to preserve their race, I truly feel sorry for white nationalists because they are so stupid. Islam is not the enemy. Varg at least has the brains to see this: I talked about white nationalism at my mosque yesterday. They have no problem with white nationalism. They would welcome white nationalists in Islam as long as they don't consider whites superior, just different. They have no problem with whites who want preserve their race and want to live separately. In fact they mentioned that there are several Muslim tribes in the Arab world that do just that, avoiding intermarriage and keeping their own land. Sane white nationalists should realize that the only way to avoid liberal degeneracy is through religion, so they should pick one. Christianity is a horrible choice, a failed cucked religion. Only the Anabaptists have morals but they are pacifists, so they are doomed. The only two real options are Varg's paganism and Islam. I think a White Muslim movement would do well. I agree with most of what you said. Liberal policies are a part of why many Muslims have strong negative feelings towards the west. Many Muslims as well as Nationalists, Traditionalists, and Identitarians see the same problems with progressive liberalism and the effect it has on modern society. There are white supremacists who see themselves as some sort of a master race who are superior in every area. These people actually don’t represent most of the Nationalist/Identitarian movement. Most of whom just acknowledge the differences between the races and believe on a general group scale there are strengths and weaknesses of certain groups. It’s not about superiority, but race and culture matter. The white race is our own, and it is something we want to protect. I agree about Christianity being a terrible religion for whites. I dislike that it tries to dogmatically make absolute pacifism a way of life. If Jesus himself was in command in the battles of the Crusades every single solider would have been chopped down in a matter of minutes. Of course history has shown Christian individuals will stray from Pacifism. I believe if whites are to follow a religion we should follow the religion of our ancestors which is Paganism. I really like this quote “We have been Europeans for thirty or forty thousand years. For about ninety-seven percent of that time, we followed a religion other than Christianity. There is no proof that Christianity was anything more than a passing phase.” ~ Stephen A. McNallen-Asatru: A Native European Spirituality Europeans had and still have, our own lore and stories. There is a reason many of us have a hard time relating to these biblical stories of desert Semites. These stories of arid deserts, containing foreign names. These stories are not meant for Europeans but rather meant for the Semitic individuals. It’s foreign to us and it’s why a lot of us have a hard time relating to it. We have our own mythology and stories. Things such as Druidism, Hellenism, Odinism and Asatru. Germanics, Celts, Slavs, Mediterraneans, and so on all had Pagan sets of religions. Christianity was stunt to subvert the entire European population to abandon their native faiths. While I personally consider my self Agnostic, I do subscribe to Paganism for spiritual purposes. It gives a sense of spirituality based on nature, culture, and ancestry. Many people who subscribe to Paganism believe the gods can be used as metaphors and guides to things. When you are able to create a bridge between faith/spirituality and your cultural/racial identity it’s a very positive thing.
|
|
anaxagoras
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Likes: 13
Meta-Ethnicity: Sith Lord
Ethnicity: African-American
Country: United States
Region: California
Location: Los Angeles
Ancestry: African
Taxonomy: Homo Sapien
Y-DNA: Don't know
mtDNA: Don't know
Politics: Progressive/Liberal
Religion: Agonistic-Theist
Relationship Status: Single
Hero: Genghis Khan
Age: 36
Philosophy: Kalam
|
Post by anaxagoras on Mar 18, 2019 10:32:57 GMT
Genghis Khan went from a slave to unifying all of Mongolia. I call him my hero because he is an infamous individual that influenced the world in such a way that the "scourge of God's" military genius is still used even in today's age.
|
|
anaxagoras
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Likes: 13
Meta-Ethnicity: Sith Lord
Ethnicity: African-American
Country: United States
Region: California
Location: Los Angeles
Ancestry: African
Taxonomy: Homo Sapien
Y-DNA: Don't know
mtDNA: Don't know
Politics: Progressive/Liberal
Religion: Agonistic-Theist
Relationship Status: Single
Hero: Genghis Khan
Age: 36
Philosophy: Kalam
|
Post by anaxagoras on Mar 18, 2019 11:42:45 GMT
Most of you guys are between the ages of 22-26 years old. you called me an "anti-white" liberal because I do not believe in that bullshit post you just wrote nor am I going to let some of you fear monger? I've been in enough academic debates alone to know majority of you arguing these points are very young minded and ill prepared to debate. For example you AmericanCharm posted stats with no source where I can verify. It let's me know in a debate you're not prepared to substantiate your claim. These are things you learn in college. You learn to post sources so it can be checked. I'm not going to sit here and debate that long ass book of yours. If it was worth debating you I would take the time but it's not. I think it's only 3 people in this thread who are that young. Lucky them. Ok
|
|
anaxagoras
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Likes: 13
Meta-Ethnicity: Sith Lord
Ethnicity: African-American
Country: United States
Region: California
Location: Los Angeles
Ancestry: African
Taxonomy: Homo Sapien
Y-DNA: Don't know
mtDNA: Don't know
Politics: Progressive/Liberal
Religion: Agonistic-Theist
Relationship Status: Single
Hero: Genghis Khan
Age: 36
Philosophy: Kalam
|
Post by anaxagoras on Mar 18, 2019 12:50:12 GMT
Seeing that you've misinterpreted the Muslim faith with the intent to demonize I think I'll continue to correct your ignorance. So I'll explain the above verses in their appropriate manner.
Starting with Surah 9:36
"Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him].
Background
"After the conquest of Makkah, while the Muslims were busy with their lives in path of God, praying, fasting and doing charity work the Hawazin and Thaqif tribe assembled an army to attack the Muslims. With news reaching the Prophet (p) of their plans, Prophet Muhammed and his people prepared to engage them."
According to Tafseer Ibn Kathir (1301 – 1373 AD):
“(and fight against the idolators collectively), all of you, (as they fight against you collectively.), all of them,(But know that Allah is with those who have Taqwa), and know that initiating battle during the Sacred Months is forbidden. Allah said in other Ayat,(O you who believe! Violate not the sanctity of the symbols of Allah, nor of the sacred month.) ﴿5:2﴾, (The Sacred Month is for the Sacred Month, and for the prohibited things, there is the law of equality (Qisas). Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him) ﴿2:194﴾, and, (Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill the idolators…) ﴿9:5﴾. As for Allah’s statement, (And fight against the idolators collectively as they fight against you collectively), it includes permission for the believers to fight the idolators in the Sacred Month, if the idolators initiate hostilities therein."
Source:https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/05/05/quran-936-battle-of-hunayn/
Surah 2:216
"Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not."
Meaning of the verse according to Al-Ghazali:
“Our natural disposition and tendency favor peace, harmony, and stability among relatives, neighbors, and friends. However, while condoning and encouraging these tendencies, the Qur’an also says: “…Much as you dislike it, fighting has been prescribed for you. But you may despise something that is good for you, and you may love something that is bad for you. God knows, but you do not …” [2:216] . Peace is to be welcomed when rights are protected and beliefs are respected; but if peace means abject surrender and subjugation, it cannot be easily defended on moral or realistic grounds. This delicate balance is well presented in the verse: “…They ask you wether fighting is permitted during the sacred month. Say, ‘fighting in it is a grave matter’ …” [2:217], meaning it is not permitted. However, what should be done if aggression is perpetrated, terrorizing peaceful communities and jeopardizing their rights of worship and belief? Should not aggression be repelled, in order to protect one’s rights? The verse continues: “….but to deny God and debar people from His path and prevent them from worshiping in the Holy Mosque, and to drive its inhabitants away, is far more grave in the sight of God…”
Source:https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/08/16/2216-fighting-is-enjoined-on-you/
Surah 4:89
"They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."
Meaning of Surah 4:89
"The above verse is used and manipulated by critics to show that Muslims are allowed to wage war against disbelievers. However, reading the verse that proceeds after, verse 4:90, states the following,
4:90 'Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.'
It is evident reading the verse in its contextual context that the passage does not encourage indiscriminate violence against disbelievers, just because of their faith. Verse 4:90 tells Muslims that if the disbelievers moved away and ceased hostilities against the Muslims, that they, the disbelievers be left alone."
Source:https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/09/26/quran-489-seize-them-and-kill-them-wherever-you-find-them/
As you can see, these verses in their context was talking about military defense when being engaged by those who disregard the beliefs of the Muslims during those times.
Wrong. the "lesser jihad" according to most scholars do mean a military reaction based on an instigated engagement by force, and that could come from anyone. It does not designate an enemy as Christian, or Jew, or anyone. For example, if you forced me out of my home against my will just to occupy my house I have every right to forcefully retake my house and whatever is mine. A "lesser Jihad" is not me going to some random house to take their home because their eyes are blue as opposed to mine being brown. According to one source: "This is a very twisted concept of Jihad via Western propagation albeit it is true from a linguistic point of view," (Source:https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad#Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad_Concept).
In addition, regarding the lesser jihad, one article states:
"Muslim scholars, however, write that Islam teaches it is unholy to start war although some wars are inevitable and justifiable."
In regards to military campaigns when one invokes Jihad:
"Abdul-Moti Bayoumi, of the Islamic Research Center at Cairo’s al-Azhar University, mainstream Islam’s top seat of learning, says for jihad to be legal, it must fulfill several conditions.
Among them: a Muslim should not provoke the aggression; a Muslim should only fight the one who fights him; and children, women, and the elderly should be spared."
Source:http://www.apologeticsindex.org/6549-jihad-holy-war
Another Islamophobic tactic. According to an article:
"No other authentic hadith has been cited as much as this in accusing Islam of being a religion of violence that spread by the sword. This hadith has caused much confusion among Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
The article further continues while conceding that this verse has seemingly contradicted two points in the Qur'an:
"The Four Imams are agreed that the text of the hadith is general yet it carries a specific meaning, i.e. that although the words present an open address, the meaning is intended for a specific group of people and not the general population. The intended meaning is that it addresses the disbelievers among the Quraysh who showed open hostility towards the Apostle and invested all efforts and energies to fight and try to eradicate his religion, i.e. Islam. For this reason, he was ordered to fight them in defence of the religion and its followers. The hadith is not intended as a command to the Prophet to fight all nations until they believe.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah that the hadith should not be taken to mean that the Prophet was commanded to fight all the servants of Allah to force them into his religion. Rather, the hadith is a deceleration of war on all those who sought to kill the Prophet and put an end to his message. The hadith is a statement on the extent to which the Prophet must continue to fight those who fight him, which is until this enter into Islam or stop their aggression against Muslims."
Source:http://www.oic-cdpu.org/en/topic/?tID=78
Clearly you haven't studied Islam and are using cherry-picked verses to construct a confirmation bias. Nice try though.
|
|
Sonny
Full Member
Posts: 248
Likes: 84
Ancestry: European
Religion: Christian
|
Post by Sonny on Mar 20, 2019 8:00:41 GMT
But that is a misnomer. One, during Muhammad's time Islam was not spread by the sword. Many battles that were fought were due to the pursuit of the polytheist tribe in Medina that pursued Muhammad and Muslims who migrated from Mecca to Medina. Now, after his death of course there were political wars that many Muslim dynasties had that indeed were seen as expanding the cause but that is another discussion for another thread. Islam historically, was no more violent than Christianity and Judaism. Christians killed, and continue to kill many innocents in the name of religion and other reasons. Salem Witch Trials, Slavery, King Leopold II, all used religion as a tool to cause harm to other human beings, what say you about that? These fears you're listing are the same fears that right-wing nationalists promote, it is a common talking point. Yes, Islam was spread by the sword. Islam is responsible for more deaths through war than any other religion or ideology of any kind, on this planet:
|
|
Sonny
Full Member
Posts: 248
Likes: 84
Ancestry: European
Religion: Christian
|
Post by Sonny on Mar 20, 2019 8:43:21 GMT
What Jihad is notJihad is not a violent concept. Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims. Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam. Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications." Source:http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9 You are delusional. The 1400 year history of Islam is full of genocides, rapes, pillaging and enslavement of anyone that rejected that violent death cult. Mohammed himself was a disgusting warmongering pedophile and a rapist who is directly responsible for killing hundreds: "Ibn Ishaq Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off." "Tafsir Ibn Kathir Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized. " "Ibn Ishaq Then the apostle sent for Sa'd bin Zayd al-Ansari brother of bin Abdul-Ashhal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." 99% of all religiously motivated killing in the middle-east is done by none other than Muslims themselves. Non muslim minorities such as the Christians and the Yazidis are especially targeted because they are seen as kaffirs and second class citizens despite the Muslims have a more backwards, primitive and savage culture. The predator drones and the missiles target those violent muslims to keep them from killing others. From a western perspective, saving lives of the innocent is considered a good thing. But the muslims don't see it that way since they're generally on the receiving ends of those bombs, and also because their concept of right and wrong is so different (they are practicing the 7th century morals of their war mongering, genocidal, rapist prophet mohammed).
|
|
ajay0
Full Member
Posts: 162
Likes: 79
|
Post by ajay0 on Mar 20, 2019 15:57:04 GMT
I think monitoring internet content and its regulation is also important. Just as paedophilia content is removed, similarly all religious, ultranationalist and racial extremist propaganda espousing violence ought to be removed as well.
Most of these terrorists get their inspiration from such unregulated stuff in the net.
|
|
PISTON1246
Full Member
Posts: 361
Likes: 90
Ethnicity: I HAVE ANCESTORS OF DIFFERENT SKIN COLOR AND EYE COLOR AND I MET SOME OF THEM WHILE THEY WERE STILL LIVING
Politics: REGISTERED VOTER
Religion: ISLAM
|
Post by PISTON1246 on Mar 20, 2019 18:20:08 GMT
MAYBE THIS IS THE SAME ATTACK I HEARD ABOUT IN THE MOSQUE I WENT TO LAST WEEK.
MAYBE AS I REREAD SURAT 2 I WILL COME ACROSS A VERSE THAT SAYS TO KILL THE ENEMY THAT COMES TO FIGHT YOU AT THE MOSQUE.
IT IS NOT MY PLAN TO DO NOTHING IF SOMEONE CAME TO ATTACK MY MOSQUE AND MY FELLOW MUSLIMS.
I HAVE NOT READ THE ENTIRE QURAN I HAVE WITH ME NOW. I AM ON SURAT 18 GOING TO 19. IF IT READS LIKE SOME OTHER QURANS I HAVE READ BEFORE I WILL SEE IT SAYING IN THERE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO LEAVE YOUR ARMS AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE MOSQUE OR SOMEWHERE. I THINK YOU ARE NOT FORBIDDEN BY ALLAH TO BRING WEAPONS TO THE MOSQUE.
I READ THAT WHEN IN BATTLE A PARTY IS TO GUARD THE OTHER PARTY WHILE THEY PRAY AND PARTIES SWITCH TO ALLOW THOSE WHO WERE ON GUARD TO PREY AT THE PRAYER TIME.
|
|
Sonny
Full Member
Posts: 248
Likes: 84
Ancestry: European
Religion: Christian
|
Post by Sonny on Mar 20, 2019 22:23:53 GMT
The term "Islamophobia" is a word used to silence critics of Islam. But a fear of Islam is completely rational. Muslims have been murdering and enslaving innocent people for 1400 years. They worship a paedophile, rapist, mass murdering psychopath called Muhammed who lived in the deserts of Arabia in 6th century AD. Muslim ambition is world dominance and conquest of all non-Muslim lands. Having red their disgusting "holy" book (Quran) and Muhammed's biography, a fear of Islam is warranted and is a sign of rationality and clear-mindedness.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Mar 21, 2019 22:49:56 GMT
They worship a paedophile, rapist, mass murdering psychopath called Muhammed AmericanCharm why did you like this nonsense? If you don't want to support Islam, fine, but don't "like" lies. On another note, this is a good summary of the final result of this shooting:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 23:08:30 GMT
Could anyone answer one simple question, why were there no bullet shots on the wall? If someone carried out the scene of an arcade game there would be blood all over the walls.
There have been multiple false flags. The biggest one that was of 9/11
Most of the news spread my the mainstream are outright fake and we are simply the puppets.
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Mar 21, 2019 23:14:32 GMT
They worship a paedophile, rapist, mass murdering psychopath called Muhammed AmericanCharm why did you like this nonsense? If you don't want to support Islam, fine, but don't "like" lies. On another note, this is a good summary of the final result of this shooting: I especially liked where he mentioned “The term "Islamophobia" is a word used to silence critics of Islam”. As I strongly agree, just like people throw the words racist, anti-Semite, and xenophobe around as a social shaming tactic, they do it with Islamophobe. I can’t count how many times people who express nothing more than Folkish or Indentitarian views including myself are called racist, and to a lesser degree Islamophobic or xenophobic. Even when it comes to criticism of Israel, I’ve seen people who criticize Israel and they get labeled anti-Semitic. Where as I think a clear distinction should be made between being critical of Jews and being critical of Israel. Someone who hates Jews is an anti-Semite, some who criticizes Israel or even dislikes Israel on the other hand is not necessarily anti-Semitic. I don’t like these labels that are so easily handed out by PC people, or even anti-white blacks who think they can project their blatant anti-white opinions onto you and then try to label you as a racist simply because you want to protect your people, culture, and homelands.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Mar 21, 2019 23:22:55 GMT
I especially liked where he mentioned “The term "Islamophobia" is a word used to silence critics of Islam”. As I strongly agree, just like people throw the words racist, anti-Semite, and xenophobe around as a social shaming tactic, they do it with Islamophobe. I can’t count how many times people who express nothing more than Folkish or Indentitarian views including myself are called racist, and to a lesser degree Islamophobic or xenophobic. Even when it comes to criticism of Israel, I’ve seen people who criticize Israel and they get labeled anti-Semitic. Where as I think a clear distinction should be made between being critical of Jews and being critical of Israel. Someone who hates Jews is an anti-Semite, some who criticizes Israel or even dislikes Israel on the other hand is not necessarily anti-Semitic. I don’t like these labels that are so easily handed out by PC people, or even anti-white blacks who think they can project their blatant anti-white opinions onto you and then try to label you as a racist simply because you want to protect your people, culture, and homelands. I agree with this, but this was only the first sentence of what he wrote. The rest is nonsense, so I don't think the post deserves a "like". I mean that post really is islamophobic so why identify with it?
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Mar 21, 2019 23:48:29 GMT
I especially liked where he mentioned “The term "Islamophobia" is a word used to silence critics of Islam”. As I strongly agree, just like people throw the words racist, anti-Semite, and xenophobe around as a social shaming tactic, they do it with Islamophobe. I can’t count how many times people who express nothing more than Folkish or Indentitarian views including myself are called racist, and to a lesser degree Islamophobic or xenophobic. Even when it comes to criticism of Israel, I’ve seen people who criticize Israel and they get labeled anti-Semitic. Where as I think a clear distinction should be made between being critical of Jews and being critical of Israel. Someone who hates Jews is an anti-Semite, some who criticizes Israel or even dislikes Israel on the other hand is not necessarily anti-Semitic. I don’t like these labels that are so easily handed out by PC people, or even anti-white blacks who think they can project their blatant anti-white opinions onto you and then try to label you as a racist simply because you want to protect your people, culture, and homelands. I agree with this, but this was only the first sentence of what he wrote. The rest is nonsense, so I don't think the post deserves a "like". I mean that post really is islamophobic so why identify with it? Beyond that point I agree a fear of Islam is rational. Although I would probably change the wording from fear to wariness. As I don’t fear anybody, or any group although I am aware of the dangers certain people pose or could pose. There are particular elements of Islam and other religions as well that I am uncomfortable with. A society must not conflate the necessary criticism of ideas with bigotry, ignorance, hate and social phobia.
|
|
Sonny
Full Member
Posts: 248
Likes: 84
Ancestry: European
Religion: Christian
|
Post by Sonny on Mar 22, 2019 1:23:46 GMT
I especially liked where he mentioned “The term "Islamophobia" is a word used to silence critics of Islam”. As I strongly agree, just like people throw the words racist, anti-Semite, and xenophobe around as a social shaming tactic, they do it with Islamophobe. I can’t count how many times people who express nothing more than Folkish or Indentitarian views including myself are called racist, and to a lesser degree Islamophobic or xenophobic. Even when it comes to criticism of Israel, I’ve seen people who criticize Israel and they get labeled anti-Semitic. Where as I think a clear distinction should be made between being critical of Jews and being critical of Israel. Someone who hates Jews is an anti-Semite, some who criticizes Israel or even dislikes Israel on the other hand is not necessarily anti-Semitic. I don’t like these labels that are so easily handed out by PC people, or even anti-white blacks who think they can project their blatant anti-white opinions onto you and then try to label you as a racist simply because you want to protect your people, culture, and homelands. I agree with this, but this was only the first sentence of what he wrote. The rest is nonsense, so I don't think the post deserves a "like". I mean that post really is islamophobic so why identify with it? You know what really be funny is if you were to use sockpuppet accounts, arguing with yourself to make it seem like you were winning using appeals to authority and ad populum fallacies.
|
|