Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Ethnic diversity harms a country's social cohesion

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't subscribe to that tho.   Terrorism is simply using military force without state sanction under international law and the laws of armed conflict.

Terrorists are not a monolith. Mooslambs are not a monolith.  The number of actual terrorists per capita is not a lot for a billion people.

Those terrorists do not all fight on the same side.   Some of those terrorists fight on our side.

It is how  you state it on a legal level but there is a psychological proponent as well is the point. Terrorists claim with words different reasons for their behavior but it remains constant in motus operandi and planning,

Getting back to the original theme, ethnicity actually in the sense of evolving civilizations shows the less diverse a society is, the more likely it procreates outside its own immediate genetic pool.  The need of procreation causes all homo sapiens and all life forms to spread their genetic pools to avoid disease. Ironically a lot of spreading of the genetic pool came from invasion of foreign armed forces which raped people and spread the genetic pool but also reinforced the homo sapiens primal instinct of staying within the same pack to remain defended. Our fear of ethnicity can be very well traced back to our ancestors who feared invaders. Often the term invader or other such terms are now used to describe immigrants.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rue said:

It is how  you state it on a legal level but there is a psychological proponent as well is the point. Terrorists claim with words different reasons for their behavior but it remains constant in motus operandi and planning,

Getting back to the original theme, ethnicity actually in the sense of evolving civilizations shows the less diverse a society is, the more likely it procreates outside its own immediate genetic pool.  The need of procreation causes all homo sapiens and all life forms to spread their genetic pools to avoid disease. Ironically a lot of spreading of the genetic pool came from invasion of foreign armed forces which raped people and spread the genetic pool but also reinforced the homo sapiens primal instinct of staying within the same pack to remain defended. Our fear of ethnicity can be very well traced back to our ancestors who feared invaders. Often the term invader or other such terms are now used to describe immigrants.

Yeah, so what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't subscribe to that tho.   Terrorism is simply using military force without state sanction under international law and the laws of armed conflict.

Terrorists are not a monolith. Mooslambs are not a monolith.  The number of actual terrorists per capita is not a lot for a billion people.

Those terrorists do not all fight on the same side.   Some of those terrorists fight on our side.

I disagree a military force has a clear chain of command, has a rank system, in most cases wears a uniform or some identifying article such as an arm band. etc.., and carries wpns openly to be identified to all as a military force, and for the most part follows the rules of war and all the conventions.....And for the most part militaries, refrain from attacking civilian targets to make a political statement...   

Terrorist on the other hand may have a lose chain of command , wears no uniforms , or identifying articles, their main objective is to attack civilians or other soft targets, to cause terror, rarely do they engage formed military units , unless it is a suicide attack involving few numbers...they are cowards, scumbags not fit to be called anything but terrorists. They don't follow any rules of war or conventions, when committing terrorist acts, but sure as shit they want to be treated within those rules of war and conventions once captured. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I disagree a military force has a clear chain of command, has a rank system, in most cases wears a uniform or some identifying article such as an arm band. etc.., and carries wpns openly to be identified to all as a military force, and for the most part follows the rules of war and all the conventions.....And for the most part militaries, refrain from attacking civilian targets to make a political statement...   

Terrorist on the other hand may have a lose chain of command , wears no uniforms , or identifying articles, their main objective is to attack civilians or other soft targets, to cause terror, rarely do they engage formed military units , unless it is a suicide attack involving few numbers...they are cowards, scumbags not fit to be called anything but terrorists. They don't follow any rules of war or conventions, when committing terrorist acts, but sure as shit they want to be treated within those rules of war and conventions once captured.

By the spirit and letter of the law, Hezbollah are terrorists, yet  they have a strict chain of command and they wear uniforms.

By the same law, the Pershmerga are terrorists, they have a strict chain of command and they wear uniforms.

Hezbollah are Anti-Western terrorists.

The Pershmerga are Pro-Western terrorists.

The Iranian Quds Force is SF supporting Ant-Western terrorists.

CANSOFCOM is SF supporting Pro-Western terrorists.

They're all unlawful combatants, "Partisan" is just an euphemism for Friendly Terrorist.

Employing Partisans in another sovereigns territory is prohibited,  all the way back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

SF is not protected by the Hague Conventions while conducting Foreign Internal Defense.

Hence why the emphasis on SERE.   If a GB gets caught, he has no protections as Privileged Combatant, he is and will be treated as a Terrorist.

America was born of treason and terrorism and foreign interference by the French.

Hence why America takes the view that there are Our Terrorists and Their Terrorists.

Our Terrorists we call;  Special Force & Partisans.

Their Terrorists we call; Unlawful Combatants & Fanatics.

John Brown was a terrorist.   Bleeding Kansas.   Harper's Ferry.  Hung for treason.

Glorious Union.  Free the slaves.  By any means necessary.  God our vindicator.

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meeting a few prerequisite do not qualify them as a military force...The best they could be is an organized terrorist force. Such as the Taliban, Al Quada … Hezbollah has been spreading terrorism around the globe....

Peshmerga, I hardly think CSOR would declare them terrorists after spending so many years training and fighting with them... In the eyes of Canadian law they are not declared Terrorists. Now In turkey , that might be a different story, but then again when you kill off millions of Kurds they tend to hold a grudge...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

Meeting a few prerequisite do not qualify them as a military force...The best they could be is an organized terrorist force. Such as the Taliban, Al Quada … Hezbollah has been spreading terrorism around the globe....

Peshmerga, I hardly think CSOR would declare them terrorists after spending so many years training and fighting with them... In the eyes of Canadian law they are not declared Terrorists. Now In turkey , that might be a different story, but then again when you kill off millions of Kurds they tend to hold a grudge...

It's not for Canada to say who is a Unlawful Combatant or not.

America will decide who are the Enemies of Freedom.

Canada will provide a token force to the Glorious Union, render unto the Terrible Swift Sword.

CANSOFCOM works for SOCOM, SOCOM works for a Permanent Five member of the Security Council with Veto powers.

The War of Independence was the most successful terrorist operation in history.

The Emancipation Proclamation was also prohibited by the laws of armed conflict.

John Brown is the greatest of terrorist of them all, God bless him.

00315-2008-001-ac.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In both spirit and effect, the Shot Heard Round the World at Bunker HIll, was fired against the Peace of Westphalia 1648.

The Treaty of Westphalia established the Sovereign Nation State, heralding the arrival of Modernity.

By that treaty, George III and Westminster were sovereign.  International law and the laws of armed conflict.

The American revolutionaries were all traitors and terrorists by the laws of armed conflict.

They simply invoked their rights to overthrow sovereigns, in the name of their divine Creator.

That is an ongoing process, the American Information Age Revolution.

What's the Information?

Declaration of Independence.

Emancipation Proclamation.

De Oppresso Liber.

From Appomattox Court House to the Sea of Tranquility and Beyond.

berets_funeral.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is it in the end; that these Mooslambs who fight against America are doing?

They are invoking their rights to overthrow the Pax Americana in the name of their divine Creator.  They defy the will of the Hegemon.

Same thing Union said to the British Crown in 1776.

Same thing the Confederacy said to the Union in 1861.

In the War Between The States, both sides employed terrorists.

Americans call it Bushwhacking.

The Bushwhacking terrorists who fight for the Glorious Union are called Jayhawkers. 

Bleeding Kansas.  Harper's Ferry.   John Brown.

Call Sign Red Leg.

12-strong-2-1-16-18_custom-440c505922f37

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 1:33 PM, DogOnPorch said:

 

White people can be Muslims. It is not a skin colour.

It might as well be the way you denigrate them.

You're no better than the Mufti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 2:15 PM, Argus said:

This idea that you can easily dismiss vast numbers of people across the world who display absolutely normal human behaviour patterns with a sneering pejorative like 'xenophobe' is one of the major causes behind rising nationalist sentiment.

Yeah, you racists just can't rise above yourselves no matter how hard you try.  Bigotry comes to you naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It might as well be the way you denigrate them.

 

But it isn't though, no matter how much you think it might as well be.  The idea that being opposed to the excesses of a brutal religion is somehow racist is ridiculous.

Edited by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from polychromatic religious conviction - Not Blaise Pascal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

But it isn't though, no matter how much it might as well be.  The idea that being opposed to the excesses of a brutal religion is somehow racist is ridiculous.

Why do you think the religion in of itself is brutal?  They worship the same God I do,, I find them to be no more brutish than I am,  as a faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Why do you think the religion in of itself is brutal?  They worship the same God I do,, I find them to be no more brutish than I am,  as a faith.

Given the evidence, how can you possibly claim it isn't?  The God is irrelevant.  Lots of people worship the same God.  Try blaspheming her in Canada and Pakistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Given the evidence, how can you possibly claim it isn't?

Again, logic states that I am not bound to prove a negative.  You are bound to provide the evidence to back up your assertion, otherwise known as a cogent argument.

I am testifying to my experience reality, if you have some evidence to the contrary, logically supported in that it is not fallacious, feel free to present that evidence, any time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Again, logic states that I am not bound to prove a negative.  You are bound to provide the evidence to back up your assertion, otherwise known as a cogent argument.

I am testifying to my experience reality, if you have some evidence to the contrary, logically supported in that it is not fallacious, feel free to present that evidence, any time now.

Now we get back to the other night.  You're asking me to provide evidence of events that, unless you have been dead for years, you already know about.  Why would I do that? 

 

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Now we get back to the other night.  You're asking me to provide evidence of events that, unless you have been dead for years, you already know about.  Why would I do that?

You don't have to do anything.  You can leave your assertion unsupported, but then it is not an argument which alters my experienced reality.

The Mooslambs worship the same God I do, the Koran is not God, God is not a book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

You don't have to do anything.  You can leave your assertion unsupported, but then it is not an argument which alters my experienced reality.

The Mooslambs worship the same God I do, the Koran is not God, God is not a book.

Then any God is totally irrelevant.  All there is, literally, is human interpretation of the supposed word of God, provided in some text or other.  That's it.  There is nothing else whatsoever, when it comes to religion and God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Then any God is totally irrelevant.  All there is, literally, is human interpretation of the supposed word of God, provided in some text or other.  That's it.  There is nothing else whatsoever, when it comes to religion and God.

I don't find their interpretation to be anymore brutal than mine, on the aggregate, the vast majority of them seem peaceful, even docile.

I'm a White Anglo Saxon Protestant. We conquered the world in the name of the Creator by force of our arms under rule of our Germanic law.

How are we less brutish than them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't find their interpretation to be anymore brutal than mine, on the aggregate, the vast majority of them seem peaceful, even docile.

I'm a White Anglo Saxon Protestant. We conquered the world in the name of the Creator by force of our arms under rule of our Germanic law.

How are we less brutish than them?

Only you know what your attitude towards gays and women is.  Only you know what you would do to a blasphemer ot an adulterer. 

The idea that finding barbaric and primitive attitudes and actions done in the name of religion worthy of the utmost contempt and disgust somehow reflects on the peaceful, even docile majority is a cop out.  A very commonly used one too.

As for being less brutish, why would examples of brutality by one group diminish the responsibility of another.  I have disgust and contempt for Alabamanian evangelicals too.  Just not as much.  Yet.  We'll see what happens when someone has an abortion.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Only you know what your attitude towards gays and women is.  Only you know what you would do to a blasphemer ot an adulterer.

I pledge to defend and uphold anybody's right to have any attitude they please;

To the threshold of Brandenburg v Ohio under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America.

So help me God.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I pledge to defend and uphold anybody's right to have any attitude they please;

To the threshold of Brandenburg v Ohio under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America.

So help me God.

Me too.  But like I said, yours might be attitudes I find disgusting and contemptible.  Not saying you can't have them.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Me too.  But like I said, yours might be attitudes I find disgusting and contemptible.  Not saying you can't have them.

My attitude is certainly not that Mooslambs are disgusting nor contemptible by faith.

They're all God's children.  They worship the same God as me.   For the most part, I find them to be quite civilized.

Bear in mind that barbaric from the Greek barbaros simply means; non citizen.  It's no particularly egregious offense.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 I have disgust and contempt for Alabamanian evangelicals too.

You have disgust and contempt for Christians from Alabama? On what grounds?   

I find them to be amongst the nicest, friendliest most forthright upstanding people on earth.

What the heck is your problem with God fearing people from Alabama, again?

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

My attitude is certainly not that Mooslambs are disgusting nor contemptible by faith.

They're all God's children.  They worship the same God as me.   For the most part, I find them to be quite civilized.

Bear in mind that barbaric from the Greek barbaros simply means; non citizen.  It's no particularly egregious offense.

Yes, so do I.  That's no real recommendation though, as to some degree,  I've liked pretty much everyone I've ever met.

Still, such relationships do not prevent me arguing about the stunningly barbaric, (my interpretation) abhorrent and utterly reprehensible behaviour some of them indulge in in the name of their God, and also arguing against the mindmeltingly ridiculous notion that somehow, a frequent difference in pigmentation means there is a motive other than revulsion at behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

You have disgust and contempt for Christians from Alabama? On what grounds?   

I find them to be amongst the nicest, friendliest most forthright upstanding people on earth.

What the heck is your problem with God fearing people Alabama, again?

 

 

I've never met any, but I'm sure I would too.  See my last post. 

Their proposed abortion laws, restricting a woman's access to abortions and allowing for a sentence of 99 years for a provider.  I'm sure they don't all approve, but one gets tired of repeating "not all of them".  It really ought to be implied in these discussions, unless stated otherwise.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...