i can paste here what i wrote in this thread 4 days ago not even mentioning terrorism there (have you ever read about judaistic terrorism?)

ok, so, copy -> paste

mein kampf is strongly boring book i was not able to read all. i cant understand why jews - those dilligent hardworking people, which never impose their religion to others - was considered as threat. in fact is quite difficult to convert to judaism even if one wants to.

do something good for yourself and give you few smacks to wake up :)

Yes. I am sure about that.
We have a law about minimum wage (8,50€/hour) but many are still paid less.

The situation atm looks grim....but my guess is that in 1 - 2 years its hell on earth.
Because than most of the people will realize that they are at the bottom of the social and economic population
without chance (legal) for improvement.
Again the past is the prove of this. Look at the immigrant people...some are 3rd generation but still not integrated.
In my mind I see a situation similar to France with suburbs out of control.
Well, only time will tell.

I am not one to be cheering on when the hypocrites hops the band-wagon and tries to grab the reins.

I prefer the of consistent principle to be in reins - more consistent, more true, something that one can argue with, not just blow about in the wind.

The French republic - or any of Belgium actually, may be more self-conscious due to African colonialisation that was very brutal, unproductive, and cruel. I think almost all French, or Belgians, currently living would condemn the colonial past.

And even if not, they still know the difference between forced and voluntary relations, and shall condemn the forced ones.

Or how do you explain the Charlie Hebdo sardonic, black humour cartoon about what happened in Köln - and the backlash against it?


PS. Sartre based on what I know of him would be an atheist. Bernard de Clairvaux maybe? :-)

I hope Ander Breivik knows he's a muslim now.

There were more anarchist/communist terrosists than everything else y'know?

(Sarcasm.)
Only muslims can be terrorists. Everyone else is a freedom fighter, rebel or a member of a resistance.

This is one reason why extreme right wing groups can operate without much media attention.

you are really moron if you mean your ridiculous wannabe "argument" seriously. i waited which simpleton lower himself so low to take out such nonsense and compare solitary nutter like breivik with widely spread dangerous systemic defect like islam itself, indoctrinated in every muslim, when every muslim can start to take koran word for word.

congratulations, you've won

edit: if you are still not able to catch it - terrorism is activity of some group of morons with any collective interest

i dont know any extreme right terrorism not counting lonely planning ang acting breivik but ifyou compare terrorism because of islam and because of something else so you can see only local separatism problems otherwise, not very actual today anyway.
but islam concerns whole world.

I'm arguing for organised terrorism here. The extreme right wing aren't only lonely activists.

Now the level, size and complexity of the organisation is another matter. I agree that for what I know the biggest terrorism groups seems to be islamic. Unless I'm missing something right in my face (I tend to do that sometimes.).

No, he has not. Humans excel in one thing above all other species and that is to differentiate and to categorize, we as a western culture had found a way through discussion and taking different viewpoints into account to come to a conclusion - democracy.

I do not know what happened in the last years but a political standpoint was measured on a scale, not absolutes. Now it is just you're a Nazi or you are left radical. There is no more rational discussion with a back and forth, without weighing, without convincing, without taking into account another viewpoint, there are only absolutes. We have lost the middle way. What has Hitler to do with what happened, what has Breivik to do wiith it.

Fact is, it has happened and no one died, but that doesn't matter, never in German history have a thousand men met up in one city with the aim to harass(by our standards) women in several groups of 10-30 people(you may correct me on that). And do not come with the Holocaust or another shit that happened like Stalin, Mao or the Khmer or whatever, try to differentiate and categorize. I am sick of HItler that, Hitler this. This is not about exterminating a religion, this is about problems that arise when different cultures meet each other.

The question is not if problems exist or not, the question is do we want to sacrifice part of our culture and moral values to accommodate a diametral culture heavily influenced by religion in the hope that both will meet eventually on middle ground.

And in my opinion that is a tough bet, when you put religion against rationality. We ourselves needed several hundred years for that.

So you say, but there is Joachim Gauck as your Bundespredisent.

I tell you - at least up in the north, your European neighbours are envious, because this man is admirable, and if we could, we would have him.

My German is quite poor, but post the Paris attack, I went to hear how Gauck might console me. I wanted to hear it.

Naivetée - une résource rare, et trop souvant vicieuse,

Jesus, whom I admire, was a proto communist. Jean Calvin, whom I admire, was the proto economist.

What binds Jesus Crist and Jean Calvin together is the idea that an economic system is there to serve the human participants, us.

Meanwhile, communism and neo-liberalism have more in common than the latter would admit - purely materialistic wold view.

Like this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground

I don't really want to argue, but your argument that every terrorist is a muslim is complete bullshit. There has been several terrorist organisations (even in the last few years) that didn't have an islamist background.

That doesn't mean that the most dangerous ones are not islamist, but you really should lear to differentiate if you want to be taken serious in a discussion.

You read my post? What has Gauck to do with this? He has been a Pastor, yes. Your point being?

I am curious, the most derided slur in this thread appeared to be when one person called someone else a "nazi". Is this only because of the historical context? Because removed of any historical context, any connotations (negative OR positive), isn't the desire or "goal" of many here similar enough to make a comparison to nazism?
Quoted from wikipedia, so yeah, not ironclad proof or anything, but still: Again, I don't know of any of the historical context or any cultural connotations of some of the words used there, but isn't this what (and again, absolutely without any negative or positive connotations implied) people are propagating here?

Remove all the proper nouns, focus less on the racial aspect (although it still seems very strong in this case as well) in favour of the cultural aspect, replace judaism with islam as the "outsider culture", replace quotes from the Talmud to quotes from the Quran as the "proof" and frame it within the context of multiculturalism being a failure, all cultures are not equal, and isn't it a reasonably good descriptor?

I suppose if one were to take it in the sense that it is an accusation of "You are (like the historical) nazis!" then it is probably not a nice thing to say, but as an approximation of the ideology, is it so wholly wrong?