Immigration and multiculturalism news
- Thread starter Aldarion
- Start date
DarthOne
☦️
They’re going to create a generation of sociopaths at this rate because people will be so numb to everything.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
And these are the people claiming immigrants are doing the same?
Holy accusation in a mirror, Batman!
DarthOne
☦️
DC Police capture man accused of setting over 30 fires around Capitol Hill neighborhood
justthenews.com
DC Police capture man accused of setting over 30 fires around Capitol Hill neighborhood
The suspect has been identified as 50-year-old Mohammad Al-Rashidi, who allegedly set approximately 35 fires over the course of two months.
justthenews.com
mrttao
Well-known member
> Mohammad Al-RashidiDC Police capture man accused of setting over 30 fires around Capitol Hill neighborhood
DC Police capture man accused of setting over 30 fires around Capitol Hill neighborhood
The suspect has been identified as 50-year-old Mohammad Al-Rashidi, who allegedly set approximately 35 fires over the course of two months.
That is the most muslim name I have heard to date
Nah, there's Mohammed Al-Muhammed, too.
Islamic book of baby names only has a few entries, after all.
mrttao
Well-known member
Al in arabic names means "the".Nah, there's Mohammed Al-Muhammed, too.
Islamic book of baby names only has a few entries, after all.
"Al-Muhammed" is not a thing.
You can have "Mohammed bin Mohammed"
. . .
The level of historical ignorance and wrongness here is palatable.
Firstly, Muslim terrorism was an active and ongoing concern in the 18th century. Specifically North African Islamic Warlords whom preyed on European ships in the Mediterranean and who'd been a problem going back tot he Middle Ages. They were such a problem that England regularly paid a TRIBUTE to them to prevent them from attacking British ships, and even that wasn't a full guarantee.
And the US was CERTAINLY aware of them, because one of those Warlords was, in fact, one of the first foreign countries to recognize the United States' independence, and while that led to generally good relations with Morocco, the other Barbary Pirate Kingdoms didn't have such good relations, and as soon as the ink was dry on the Treaty of Paris began targeting US flagged ships since they were no longer protected by the British tribute.
You know what this led to? While the US did initially pay the tribute, long term it was untenable, and so President Jefferson passed the Naval Act of 1798, the creation of the famous American Frigates like USS Constitution, and the US' first major overseas operation being an operation to enact regime change against Muslim Terrorist Kingdoms.
To say that the Founders and Framers did not know and understand the dangers of the Muslim world is utter ignorance of history. Fighting Islamic Terrorism is such a major part of the US' military history that it features all across things, from being the origin of the Navy, to being part of the USMC's hymn in the opening lines: "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..."
No, they knew, it's just that immigration from the Muslim world to anywhere else was basically not a thing, so they never really considered it as something that was going to be an issue. After all, what right minded government would allow the immigration of PIRATES and TERRORISTS into their country?
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
So is your definition of terrorism "any act of violence against civilians"?
Largo
Well-known member
That the US took operations against a Muslim polity in the 1800s is not proof that the Founders "did not know and understand the dangers of the Muslim world." Or are we to suppose that the British are still a terrible threat to us as well, given that we dealt with similar issues with them too during that time period?
Largo, you have things ass backwards. The person I quoted claimed that the US Founders and Framers did not understand the dangers the Muslim world represented nor that they had any direct understanding of the history and threats. The fact that it was Founders and Framers who set up and fought the Barbary Wars IS direct evidence contravening that claim.
When it is for the explicit purpose of pursuing political and religious goals, as it was for the Barbary Pirates (collection of tribute and subjugation of foreign nations), then yes, it fits the definition of "terrorism". Despite their name, the Barbary "Pirates" were not actually "Pirates", they were Privateers and explicitly agents of their respective minor Kingdoms who were then also agents of the Ottoman Empire. The Barbary Corsairs were the Hezbollah and Houthi of their day, and served much the same purpose as what the Houthi have been doing.
Largo
Well-known member
And my point (apologies for the typo) is that fighting the Barbary Wars is not direct evidence of this. The Founder fought wars against the British and French during this time period, but they didnt view the British as some existential threat to their civilization.
there was actually quite a long period of time where the US had every right to be worried about the British Empire and the French. Both of them had navys that could cross the ocean and F us up. And during the civil war the French had a proxy state in mexico who we had every reason to worry about.
The world wars were the things that firmly knocked out both France and the UKs ability to project power to north america and be a threat. From there it was basically a dominace fight between Russia in the US with Russia in its element while america dealt with the cold war in the most retarded way possible.
With us some how coming out the winner because it turns out communism is truly the most retarded of systems. Now Russia is pretty much emolating itself and they firmly know that they F'ed up any chance of being the great power and are pissy about that.
Biggest threats are now China who's in an ugly transition period and the middle east who will either win big or will get absolutely wreaked because their in the middle of the map and insist on pissing off all of the civilizations around them.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
In terms of geopolitical dominance, the middle east's oil-based wealth ensures that whoever is on top will pay attention to them, but they don't have the resources to be on top themselves. (Money goes a long way in sufficient quantities, but there are forms of power it doesn't translate well into.)
DarthOne
☦️
All the more reason to increase oil production in the West and pursuing nuclear power and other non-solar or ‘green but not really’ means of power. The less money that goes to the Mohammedans the better.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
In that case every single country of that era is a terrorist country, because you'd have to be either really naive or really brainwashed to think destroying civilian populations wasn't considered "typical" back in that era.
Don't be careless with words. Terrorism has a definite meaning, and killing civilians isn't it.
And at any rate, they weren't enslaving Christians for political goals, it was just business.
Your understanding of the history of Islam and the motives of the Barbary States is severely lacking. It wasn't just business, it was very much to pursue the power and spread of Islam. Islam has long used terrorism both large and small scale in it's spread since its inceptions. Islamic political terror killings is where we get the very term "assassin" for goodness sake. I'm honestly not sure why you are so set on denying that these historical events fit the definition of terrorism, as the actions of the Barbary States WAS in fact irregular for the time. Privateering by other countries was strictly limited to wartimes, and generally didn't involve the taking of slaves.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
At which point any violent actions which are justified by religious motives, even if they're obviously for profit, are religious terrorism. Which brings us back to square one.
Terrorism has a specific meaning, don't dilute it. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist because he used terror tactics, like attacking prominent civilian installations, for the strategic purpose of using fear to fulfill his goals. The KKK were terrorists because they used terror tactics, like lynchings and burning crosses, to fulfill their political goals. The Japanese Red Army and PLO used terror tactics to attack Israel.
But despite sharing the same political goals (promoting Islam, White Nationalism, and anti-Zionism respectively), you can't call the old Caliphates, the Confederacy, or Egyptian Arab Republic terrorists. That's because they aren't, they were legitimate states going about their business using legitimate military means.
Eh, the Christian Mediterranean powers only stopped taking slaves when galleys were phased out. The European powers lacked the eunuch and sex slave markets so profitable in the Islamic world, so captured muslim slaves mainly went to the galleys.
And saying privateering was strictly limited to wartime is highly questionable, except in the meaningless sense of near permanent war between religions and sub-religions. The Portuguese for instance were not directly involved in the European wars against the Ottoman Empire, but readily attacked Ottoman shipping in the Indian Ocean when they first made it around the Horn. And of course, the famous bouts of English/Dutch privateering against Catholic shipping were often the cause of declarations of war. Like, you can consider the 80 Years War to not really be a continuous war, but the Dutch were certainly privateering through the whole of it and beyond. And if you do consider it a single war and thus "only privateering during wartime", well that statement becomes quite meaningless when it's literally generations of privateering.
There's little difference between the nautical actions of Christian and Muslim powers in the 15th and 16th centuries and even the 17th century, except as mentioned for lack of sex slavery and attendant industries among Christians, and of course the Muslims mainly having the upper hand through most of the period. Only in the 18th and 19th centuries can the Barbary states be considered irregular, and that's from the Christians changing, the Barbary states behaved exactly the same as they did before.