Percentage of Muslims and the influence on society. Watch

Diaz89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#141
Report 9 years ago
#141
(Original post by Delta Usafa)
Right, isolationist America was really striving for world power!

In the end, it doesn't matter what the motivation was. Japan got what it deserved. And it attacked us first. And what do nuclear weapons have to do with anything? We would have won the war and been a power in the Pacific regardless of whether we used them.

And who gives a crap? Japan is one country that we "stuck our nose in" that happens to be thriving today.

Oh and lastly, you're the king of taking threads off-topic.
Are you blind? I said to you up to that point American was thankfully isolationist but we call see what it is today. Try acquainting yourself with your country's Imperialist history

And again no, Japan never attacked you first, you provoked it and as far as I can remember, Japan fully warned the US that it will carry out Pearl Harbor...
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#142
Report 9 years ago
#142
(Original post by Diaz89)
And again no, Japan never attacked you first, you provoked it and as far as I can remember, Japan fully warned the US that it will carry out Pearl Harbor...
That was the intent of various officers involved in the attack but not the intent of the Japanese foreign ministry who were considerably less honourable. The US did not provoke the pacific war insofar as China was their established ally and Japan was brutally raping China.
0
reply
near_comatose
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#143
Report 9 years ago
#143
(Original post by roots)
I agree that people have gone over the top in the past but i can voice my opposition, can i not?

Holy Christ! I didn't even say it was wrong to think what you had written! Of course anyone can voice their opinion, nobody has said otherwise. But I hardly think it's good conduct to start riots in a country for you because someone has mocked an evidently imaginary figure to voice an opinion.

I think muslims voice their opinion quite openly and often here, and anywhere in Europe. They build mosques all over the show here (I think there was even a church demolished to make way for a mosque to be built?), preach their insidious hatred in the streets of London and wear their head scarves in schools. Can you imagine the outrage if a mosque were to be demolished so that a church could be built in, say Turkey? It would be 'dis-respecting the culture and beliefs of the country' and even if it were done here, it wouldn't be politically correct, but if muslims segregate themselves here and criticise the way we live our lives, our freedoms - it's enriching our culture, it's diversifying our culture!

pff
0
reply
Diaz89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#144
Report 9 years ago
#144
(Original post by Bagration)
No, it wasn't Burma (Japan desired to control Burma because it was the method by which allied support crept into China after Japan took all of China's ports) it was actually Malaya and British Borneo (and the DEI and the USA, obviously) that Japan desired to control. Anyway the reason the USA and Britain embargo'd Japan was because Japan was being blatantly imperialistic and because it was a threat to them, both perfectly good reasons to do so.
The Burma road was a supply rout for the Allies but I remmeber that the Burmese sided with Japan at first which then the British sent the Chindits to disrupt that rout?

Yet Britain wasn't imperialist?
reply
roots
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#145
Report 9 years ago
#145
(Original post by Renal)
So when I hear of a young woman being stoned to death by muslims, in a muslim ******** at the request of a muslim court using muslim laws all publicly approved by the imam, I'm the one at fault for thinking that it's a problem with Islam?
The punishment for adultery is death for a Muslim man or woman, if it has been proved.

How can it be proved, if 4 witnesses saw the act clearly with their own eyes. You tell me a situation where 4 witnesses will see that. On top of that they cannot be intoxicated at the time of the event.

People acting hastily and making accusations is wrong. Peopel nowadays think of it as a great act when in fact it is something which a person should be very sad about.

The purpose of the punishment for adultery is not because it'd be fun to kill people. It's a deterrant. One that works very well.

Even if a person does commit adultery, he or she is not likely to be stoned. If the rules are being followed then this punishment would hardly ever occur. Hardlly! And society remains healthy. Widespread adultery ruins societies.

In the past, people have voluntarily confessed while knowing the punishment. They would have to confess four seperate times! That was the strength of Islam in peoples hearts.

Reported by many companions that Ma'iz went before Muhammad in the Mosque and said, "I have committed adultery, please purify me." (In another report, Muhammad asked Ma'iz that the reports he heard about him are correct or not[5]) Muhammad turned his face away from him and said "Woe to you, go back and pray to Allah for forgiveness." But the boy again came in front of Muhammad and repeated his desire for purification. The act was repeated three times, until Abu Bakr, sitting close by, told the Ma'iz to leave, as the fourth repetition of the plea would get him stoned. But the man persisted. Muhammad then turned to him and said "you might have kissed or caressed her or you might have looked at her with lust (and so assumed that you committed Zina)". Ma'iz replied in the negative. Allah's Apostle said "did you lie in bed with her?" Ma'iz replied in the affirmative. He then asked, "did you have sexual intercourse?" Ma'iz replied in the affirmative. Then Muhammad got quite uncomfortable, and asked "Did your male organ disappear in the female part?" Ma'iz replied in the affirmative. He then asked, once more, whether Ma'iz knew what Zina means. Ma'iz replied "yes, I have committed the same act a husband commits with his wife." Muhammad asked if he was married, and he replied "yes". Muhammad asked if he took any wine, and Ma'iz again replied in the negative. Muhammad then sent for an inquiry from the neighbors of Ma'iz, whether or not Ma'iz suffered from insanity. The replies all came in the negative. Muhammad then said, "had you kept it a secret, it would have been better for you." Muhammad then ordered Ma'iz to be stoned to death. During the stoning, Ma'iz cried out, "O people, take me back to the Holy Prophet, the people of my clan deluded me." When this was reported to Muhammad, he replied "Why did you not let him off, he might have repented, and Allah may have accepted it."
0
reply
Delta Usafa
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#146
Report 9 years ago
#146
Errr. The Ethiopians did the overthrowing there. A few American special forces teams tagged along to receive intelligence about Al Qaeda. Not to mention, the operation was supported by the British Navy. Dunno if you knew that.

(Original post by Diaz89)
Are you blind? I said to you up to that point American was thankfully isolationist but we call see what it is today. Try acquainting yourself with your country's Imperialist history

And again no, Japan never attacked you first, you provoked it and as far as I can remember, Japan fully warned the US that it will carry out Pearl Harbor...
Oh yeah, we're the bad guys obviously because we "provoked" Japan. How dare we cut off support to the Japanese when we started to realize that their reign of terror in China was a bad thing! They had every right to rape and pillage that country and then bomb us for not supporting them!
0
reply
Diaz89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#147
Report 9 years ago
#147
(Original post by Bagration)
That was the intent of various officers involved in the attack but not the intent of the Japanese foreign ministry who were considerably less honourable. The US did not provoke the pacific war insofar as China was their established ally and Japan was brutally raping China.
Admiral Robert A. Theobald, has argued that various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force America into war via the "back door. This is particularly true considering that there was no support in the US for helping the Europeans let alone get involved in any war.

China was already brutally raping and murdering themselves, though I totally do not condone this, Japan saw their internal strife as an excuse to recoup on their resources.
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#148
Report 9 years ago
#148
(Original post by Diaz89)
The Burma road was a supply rout for the Allies but I remmeber that the Burmese sided with Japan at first which then the British sent the Chindits to disrupt that rout?
Burma was part of the British Raj and was invaded by Japan in 1942 after Siam (Thailand) sided with Japan. In 1943/44 Britain began to take back Burma, and the Chindits were Commonwealth troops involved with that. There were some Burmese in the Imperial Japanese Army in the fighting in Burma, but Burma was barely a country at the time, let alone an independent one which could have sided with Japan.

(Original post by Diaz89)
Yet Britain wasn't imperialist?
While Britain may have been imperialist, she was hardly the type of imperialist that Japan was, and at any rate still embargo'd Japan not because she was imperialist but more because she was a direct threat to Britain and because she was committing war crimes in China. Most economic sanctions from the Anglosphere came after Japan occupied French Indochina which was considered the last step.


(Original post by Diaz89)
Admiral Robert A. Theobald, has argued that various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force America into war via the "back door. This is particularly true considering that there was no support in the US for helping the Europeans let alone get involved in any war.

China was already brutally raping and murdering themselves, though I totally do not condone this, Japan saw their internal strife as an excuse to recoup on their resources.
Possibly, but I don't think that's totally true.

Also regardless of the reason Japan invaded China they still did so and still committed horrific atrocities there.
0
reply
Dante786
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#149
Report 9 years ago
#149
Genocide of the Christian European Colonialism

The American continent

From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus set foot on the Americas to the 1890 massacre of Sioux at Wounded Knee by the United States militia, the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere may have declined, by as many as 100 million. In Brazil alone the indigenous population has declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 3 million to some 300,000 (1997).Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons. This population debate has often had ideological underpinnings. Robert Royal writes that "estimates of pre-Columbian population figures have become heavily politicized with scholars who are particularly critical of Europe and/or Western civilization often favoring wildly higher figures.

Source 'The american holocuast' David Stannard.

Tasmania

The Tasmanians, estimated at between 5000 and 8,000 individuals in 1803, were reduced to a population of around 300 by 1833, when the surviving population were relocated to Flinders Island. The remnant population continued to decline until the last surviving Tasmanian Aborigine died in 1876.

Some were killed by introduced diseases, others at the hands of settlers, either in conflicts over land seizures, or murdered by Europeans who considered the Tasmanian Aborigines to be either a potential threat, or simply an inconvenience best exterminate''

Source: Colin Martin Tatz, With Intent to Destroy p.78-79

Africa

''The Herero and Namaqua Genocide in German South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) in 1904–1907 was the first organized state genocide according to the UN Whitaker report (1985), the Herero were also the first ethnic group to be subjected to genocide in the 20th century.[70] Eighty percent of the total Herero population and 50 percent of the total Nama population were killed in a brutal scorched earth campaign led by German General Lothar von Trotha.''

And who can forget the holocaust where Christian Protestant Hitler killed 6 million jews
0
reply
Ladipidoo
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#150
Report 9 years ago
#150
I was reading the Metro the other day (kk, I know it's not a reliable source ), that 1/4 of the world is Muslim. :gasp:
0
reply
Delta Usafa
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#151
Report 9 years ago
#151
(Original post by Naffy)
List of all genocides in history

Genocide of the Christian European Colonialism

The American continent

From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus set foot on the Americas to the 1890 massacre of Sioux at Wounded Knee by the United States militia, the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere may have declined, by as many as 100 million. In Brazil alone the indigenous population has declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 3 million to some 300,000 (1997).Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons. This population debate has often had ideological underpinnings. Robert Royal writes that "estimates of pre-Columbian population figures have become heavily politicized with scholars who are particularly critical of Europe and/or Western civilization often favoring wildly higher figures.

Source 'The american holocuast' David Stannard.

Tasmania

The Tasmanians, estimated at between 5000 and 8,000 individuals in 1803, were reduced to a population of around 300 by 1833, when the surviving population were relocated to Flinders Island. The remnant population continued to decline until the last surviving Tasmanian Aborigine died in 1876.

Some were killed by introduced diseases, others at the hands of settlers, either in conflicts over land seizures, or murdered by Europeans who considered the Tasmanian Aborigines to be either a potential threat, or simply an inconvenience best exterminate''

Source: Colin Martin Tatz, With Intent to Destroy p.78-79

Africa

''The Herero and Namaqua Genocide in German South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) in 1904–1907 was the first organized state genocide according to the UN Whitaker report (1985), the Herero were also the first ethnic group to be subjected to genocide in the 20th century.[70] Eighty percent of the total Herero population and 50 percent of the total Nama population were killed in a brutal scorched earth campaign led by German General Lothar von Trotha.''

And who can forget the holocaust where Christian Protestant Hitler killed 6 million jews
Oooh. That's such a complete list "of all the genocides in history" you have there! Too bad you left out the Rwandan genocide, when the Muslim Hutus massacred hundreds of thousands of Christian Tutsis. Or the Armenian Genocide, when the Turks murdered a million and a half Christian Armenians.
0
reply
roots
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#152
Report 9 years ago
#152
(Original post by near_comatose)
But I hardly think it's good conduct to start riots in a country for you because someone has mocked an evidently imaginary figure to voice an opinion.
I don't think its a good idea either.

I think muslims voice their opinion quite openly and often here, and anywhere in Europe.
its good for all communities to speak up rather than sit in a corner.

They build mosques all over the show here (I think there was even a church demolished to make way for a mosque to be built?), preach their insidious hatred in the streets of London and wear their head scarves in schools. Can you imagine the outrage if a mosque were to be demolished so that a church could be built in, say Turkey?
You can wear what you like. It wasn't so long ago that British women did the same thing.

Those are Churches that are unused. There would be outrage because Muslism feel strongly about their faith, Christians don't as much.
0
reply
Dante786
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#153
Report 9 years ago
#153
(Original post by Delta Usafa)
Oooh. That's such a complete list "of all the genocides in history" you have there! Too bad you left out the Rwandan genocide, when the Muslim Hutus massacred hundreds of thousands of Christian Tutsis. Or the Armenian Genocide, when the Turks murdered a million and a half Christian Armenians.
My point was to show, that all groups of people have inflicted death and destruction to other people, and the western european people are no different.
0
reply
Delta Usafa
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#154
Report 9 years ago
#154
(Original post by Naffy)
My point was to show, that all groups of people have inflicted death and destruction to other people, and the western european people are no different.
The difference though is, the western world has kinda stopped with the whole genocide thing in the last 100 years.
0
reply
Diaz89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#155
Report 9 years ago
#155
(Original post by Delta Usafa)
Errr. The Ethiopians did the overthrowing there. A few American special forces teams tagged along to receive intelligence about Al Qaeda. Not to mention, the operation was supported by the British Navy. Dunno if you knew that.
:facepalm: America fully supported Ethiopia and other groups economically, militarily and diplomatically to overthrow the Islamic Courts to maintain the previous status quo for its own benefits under the guise of Al Qaeda members operating there.

The US wanted 3 men arrested when they refused, the U.S. first financed the rival warlord factions, and then followed with limited air strikes as the ICU rule in Mogadishu fell in the face of Ethiopian Army assault.

Having Anarchy in Somalia, is bliss for buisness seeking to exploit its uranium,fisheries and in general dump their toxic waste on its shores.
reply
Dante786
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#156
Report 9 years ago
#156
(Original post by Delta Usafa)
The difference though is, the western world has kinda stopped with the whole genocide thing in the last 100 years.
Erm The Jewish Holocaust only happened 60 years ago and what about the killings of the serbs, but you did say 'kinda' stopped.

And the only muslim inflicted genocide in the last 100 years, were pakistanis killing bengalis, and that was muslim against muslim.
0
reply
Hanvyj
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#157
Report 9 years ago
#157
I think muslims voice their opinion quite openly and often here, and anywhere in Europe. They build mosques all over the show here (I think there was even a church demolished to make way for a mosque to be built?)
Err, you don't like people building mosques? why exactly? Churches get demolished all the time, often because they are old/derelict and the often get sold because few people attend them in certain areas... Does this upset you? Is this anything to do with Muslims?

preach their insidious hatred in the streets of London
A lot of people preach things on the streets of London, i have met quite a few mad Christian people preaching at me!

and wear their head scarves in schools.
Im sorry, i don't understand your problem with this. Do they make you wear a headscarf in school?

Can you imagine the outrage if a mosque were to be demolished so that a church could be built in, say Turkey? It would be 'dis-respecting the culture and beliefs of the country'
If you there was a mosque in turkey that was dissused and derelict that no one went to that was going to get dimmolished, i doubnt there would be that much fuss if someone build a church there if there were a high proportion of practicing christians in the area. Not that i would know.

Also, you are complaining that Turkey does this thing, and its bad so you are proposing we should model our country on that, and do the same... logic?

and even if it were done here, it wouldn't be politically correct, but if muslims segregate themselves here and criticise the way we live our lives, our freedoms - it's enriching our culture, it's diversifying our culture!
Segregation is a problem, as it is with anything really. I dont think i have ever been affected by a high concentration of Muslims living in my area though. There is no violence as a result, i have NEVER been approached by a Muslim and told to convert, i have been approached by Christians ALOT to do this.

I have been subject to alot of violence from people, mostly appear to not be Muslim.
0
reply
Bishamon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#158
Report 9 years ago
#158
You're speaking to an idiot quite frankly, clearly someone with little understanding or knowledge of the complex geo-politics and economics which govern most wars and atrocities. Seems like someone who spends too much time getting his information from Faux News.
0
reply
Moe Lester
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#159
Report 9 years ago
#159
(Original post by Naffy)
And who can forget the holocaust where Christian Protestant Hitler killed 6 million jews
Hitler was brought up a Roman Catholic in Roman Catholic Austria (Catholics aren't Protestants). He ended up disliking Christianity and it's links to Judaism and became a bizarre neo-pagan.

Interestingly enough to this discussion he said this about Islam.

"The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
0
reply
Diaz89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#160
Report 9 years ago
#160
(Original post by Bagration)
Burma was part of the British Raj and was invaded by Japan in 1942 after Siam (Thailand) sided with Japan. In 1943/44 Britain began to take back Burma, and the Chindits were Commonwealth troops involved with that. There were some Burmese in the Imperial Japanese Army in the fighting in Burma, but Burma was barely a country at the time, let alone an independent one which could have sided with Japan.
Burma was separated from India in 1935. Burmese in general hated the British and so welcomed, at first, the Japanese invasion. Burmese independence leader Bao Maw was excited by the Japanese success, and hoped for full Burmese independence however due to horrible treatment of Burmese laborers only then did then begin to resent the Japanese but that didn't mean they favored the British in any way.

While Britain may have been imperialist, she was hardly the type of imperialist that Japan was, and at any rate still embargo'd Japan not because she was imperialist but more because she was a direct threat to Britain and because she was committing war crimes in China. Most economic sanctions from the Anglosphere came after Japan occupied French Indochina which was considered the last step.
This might be interesting http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3...age&q=&f=false
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1409)
79.65%
Leave (360)
20.35%

Watched Threads

View All