Military Coup in Turkey

[Cearna]

I found that most of the Arabs I met, knew the meaning of their own name, to mispronounce, could possibly, obliterate that meaning. For example my boyfriend had a sister named fizee and a brother named Fizer ( I have no idea how to spell them, but they are so similar and yet could make the world of difference to be miss-pronounced.

[lcam88]

Mr Farrell commenting on the Coup

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLNsy9Z5gnI

[Aragorn]

It always seemed to me that the EU was trying an awful lot harder to get the Islamic fundamentalist Erdogan into the EU than Erdogan was trying to get into it himself. Turkey's economy has already been strong even without the promises of the so-called economic benefits that membership would bring. Some group behind the EU seems to be obsessed with flooding Europe with Muslims.

Yeah, because their supplies of African and Eastern European refugees have run out.

On a historic note, there have already been many Muslims here in Belgium — mostly of Moroccan and Turkish origins — since the 1950s. This was an economic immigration, organized by the then-governments. The Belgian people weren't willing to work in the (now defunct) coal mines anymore at the time, so they first brought in a wave of Italians to come and do that dirty work, then later a wave of Moroccans, and then finally a wave of Turks. I grew up with the children of those immigrants.

And of course, those people have all stayed here. Some brought their families over, and those who were still very young children at the time have in the meantime grown up and gotten married to the children of other immigrants. Given that those cultures normally also favor large families, they began to expand more quickly, and then, with international travel having become both easier and cheaper, more Turkish and Moroccan citizens started moving here in order to be with their friends, families and/or loved ones.

Oh, and whenever there's a humanitarian crisis somewhere, our government always puts the doors wide open, just so they would be able to put Belgium on the world map as being some kind of hospitable paradise — which it isn't. So we've now also got lots of Central African immigrants here, as well as Eastern European immigrants — Kosovars, Serbians, Croatians, et al. They open the door wide for those people, but it's got nothing to do with genuine humanitarianism. As those immigrants will eventually also find out.

It's a matter of pure hypocrisy, and it generally also comes paired with a preferential treatment for the immigrants while at the same time, the indigenous Belgian population is quite ostensibly being shoved into a corner. It happens each and every time there's such an international crisis, and then they're supposedly surprised and shocked that populist right-wing parties gain traction among the lesser educated populace at the next elections. Politicians are generally quite stupid, but I find it hard to believe that they would be that stupid.

Who knows, maybe it's some kind of experiment to see how well a centralized and corporatist government can handle a multicultural society in preparation for their New World Odor? After all, the EU is one of the driving forces behind the globalist corporatocracy.

Not that there's anything wrong with multiculturalism, by the way. So long as there is mutual respect for human rights and for each other's propriety, a meeting of different cultures can only enrich us all as a civilization. But I do hate the hypocrisy and the goodie-two-shoes propaganda. They welcome Muslim immigrants, but once those Muslims become Belgian citizens — and if their children are born here, then those children will automatically become Belgian nationals — then they will soon find out that the preferential treatment was only a smokescreen.

The only ethnic group that is really being treated favorably over here are the (Zionist) Jews, who also happen to control most of the diamond trade, and specifically so in the city of Antwerp. If there is a racist attack against Muslims, then there will be a public condemnation by all political parties. If there is a racist attack against Jews, then they bring out the paratroopers to come and patrol the streets of the Jewish districts. And yes, it has to be the paratroopers — the army rangers and the specialized anti-terrorism units of the federal police force aren't impressive enough.

Oh, and as some of you may already know, Holocaust denial is a criminal offense here in Europe. If you even as much as dare utter the words that you personally do not believe that the Holocaust was real, then you can go to jail, and you will be branded a neo-Nazi in the press, regardless of your political convictions. So much for freedom of thought.

---

(*) Which our politically correct Belgian television news networks insist on pronouncing as "Erdolan", rather than as "Erdogan".

What's the political angle here? I assume it has something to do with the language but I wouldn't know what. I noticed newspeople here in the US starting to say what sounds like "Erdowan" all of a sudden.

It is pronounced something like Erdowan, that's what it sounds like the Turkish language.

Joseph P. Farrell has made it a point to say that is the correct pronunciation.

But there is nothing so amusing as having mainstream media nitwits try and be politically correct by altering the pronunciation of the man's name away from how it is written, and then doing it wrongly.

---

I found that most of the Arabs I met, knew the meaning of their own name, to mispronounce, could possibly, obliterate that meaning. For example my boyfriend had a sister named fizee and a brother named Fizer ( I have no idea how to spell them, but they are so similar and yet could make the world of difference to be miss-pronounced.

Well, just for the record, most people in Turkey are Muslims, but the Turkish people are not of Arab descent. They also don't write from right to left, as is the case in the Arab nations. The Turkish alphabet differs from the Latin alphabet used in most Western European nations, but it is a derivative thereof.

[BabaRa]

Hillary Clinton Ties Emerge to Turk That Erdoğan Accuses of Plotting the Attempted Coup

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is accusing Islamic cleric Fethullah Gülen of being the mastermind behind the failed coup that was launched late Friday evening in Turkey.

It turns out that Gülen is, in exile, holed up in, get this, Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania.

Last week Monday, just days before the coup. Chuck Ross reported at the Daily Caller:
A newly-released email and lobbying documents filed with Congress reveals new ties between Clintonworld and members of a network operated by a mysterious Islamic cleric from Turkey.

Connections between Clinton and acolytes of the imam, Fethullah Gulen, could muddle the complex relationship between the U.S. and Turkey, a key NATO ally, if the former secretary of state wins the White House...

[A] 2009 email recently released by Judicial Watch provides yet another example of access being provided to a Clinton campaign and Clinton Foundation donor.

In the April 1, 2009 message, a Gulen follower named Gokhan Ozkok asked Clinton deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin for help in connecting one of his allies to President Obama.

Ozkok is founding board member of the Turkish Cultural Center and part of a network of businesses and non-profits affiliated with the Gulen movement, also known as Hizmet...

Ozkok served as national finance co-chair of the pro-Clinton Ready PAC. He gave $10,000 to the committee in 2014 and $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign last year. He is also listed on the Turkish Cultural Center’s website as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the non-profit arms of the Clinton Foundation. He’s given between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton charity.

http://www.targetliberty.com/2016/07...e-to-turk.html

[modwiz]

It sure is unpleasant to follow trails when they run through sewer pipes.

[Aianawa]

They/she be sinking fast, will it make it to the 26 th of July afloat ?.

[bsbray]

Mr Farrell commenting on the Coup

Thanks for posting this lcamm. I wasn't aware of the extent to which Erdogan had been changing the foreign relations coming out of Turkey. I was hoping that the coup would succeed to take him out, but now I'm glad that it didn't. Then again it's a good opportunity to remind myself to keep a safe distance from any firm opinions when it comes to developing stories like this. The chess game goes several moves deeper than it appears at present.

Not that there's anything wrong with multiculturalism, by the way. So long as there is mutual respect for human rights and for each other's propriety, a meeting of different cultures can only enrich us all as a civilization. But I do hate the hypocrisy and the goodie-two-shoes propaganda. They welcome Muslim immigrants, but once those Muslims become Belgian citizens — and if their children are born here, then those children will automatically become Belgian nationals — then they will soon find out that the preferential treatment was only a smokescreen.

I agree that multiculturalism can be good, and we've seen a lot of that here in the US. For one thing modern music wouldn't be nowhere near what it is today if it weren't for blending of black blues and jazz music with bluegrass and other traditional forms. But I also agree with what Teddy Roosevelt said about it:



Obviously this is very nationalistic, and it shouldn't just be for the US but for any nation that is interested in keeping its identity and sovereignty. I would prefer that individuals have a maximum of freedom and responsibility in their own affairs, local governments after that, followed by state and finally national governments. But though we have that bass-ackwards here, I would support nationalism any day over globalist agendas, just because it's at least that one step closer to people having the power and being truly free.

If the entire population of Iran was dumped onto Britain, France or Germany, it goes without saying that the traditional values, culture and government of these nations would go out the window overnight. It would be a hybrid form of government at best, giving a lot of ground to Islamic styles of government (ie more or less theocratic), or else civil war. So the more fundamentalist Muslims Europe absorbs, the closer to this reality it is moving. It is not a matter of what someone looks like or where they are born per se, but what beliefs and values they are instilled with from a young age. Islamic values and secular humanist values in Europe are incompatible. That is the problem.

[lcam88]

Thanks for posting this lcamm. I wasn't aware of the extent to which Erdogan had been changing the foreign relations coming out of Turkey. I was hoping that the coup would succeed to take him out, but now I'm glad that it didn't. Then again it's a good opportunity to remind myself to keep a safe distance from any firm opinions when it comes to developing stories like this. The chess game goes several moves deeper than it appears at present.

+1 to this. But its starting to look like my knee jerk view has more merits for consideration. Wikileaks suffering a DOS type attack now that it is about to leak details on the coup...

I think the bigger mistake rather than having opinions, is thinking that one side is the "good guy", the protagonist of the movie that will attempt to make things right. That is something we only have in the movies.

Islamic values and secular humanist values in Europe are incompatible. That is the problem.

I like something Dinesh D'Souza said about his experience in prison. "All criminal acts comes down to stealing". It is about taking something that is not yours. Whether it be someones dignity, someones possessions, or someones life.

From that perspective, as long as I'm playing devils advocate here, Islamic and European values are perfectly compatible, they just don't agree on what the pecking order should be. So they then turn to their favorite flavor of bigotry, whether it be of divine origin (religious), or of some other home baked origin of some self proclaimed superiority (Europeans), and they settle it like proper animals. Posturing, more posturing, lots of deaths, and eventually the new crop [of wheat] will spring forth to soak up the rays of sunlight becoming heavy with their seeds, waiting then to be cut down like all the crops prior.

Yes, I am suggesting that our cultures has been culled many times over. That all the tools in play, economics, military interventions, religion, education, social norms are there to prevent us from becoming the perfect natural human beings we are capable of. Those tools are the shears used to shape us into the form currently desired.

When you know something is being taken from you, unfairly or unjustly, what D'Souza said about criminal acts being a form of theft is interesting. Perhaps there is a form of theft yet unrecognized.

[Aragorn]

Not that there's anything wrong with multiculturalism, by the way. So long as there is mutual respect for human rights and for each other's propriety, a meeting of different cultures can only enrich us all as a civilization. But I do hate the hypocrisy and the goodie-two-shoes propaganda. They welcome Muslim immigrants, but once those Muslims become Belgian citizens — and if their children are born here, then those children will automatically become Belgian nationals — then they will soon find out that the preferential treatment was only a smokescreen.

I agree that multiculturalism can be good, and we've seen a lot of that here in the US. For one thing modern music wouldn't be nowhere near what it is today if it weren't for blending of black blues and jazz music with bluegrass and other traditional forms. But I also agree with what Teddy Roosevelt said about it:



Obviously this is very nationalistic, and it shouldn't just be for the US but for any nation that is interested in keeping its identity and sovereignty. I would prefer that individuals have a maximum of freedom and responsibility in their own affairs, local governments after that, followed by state and finally national governments. But though we have that bass-ackwards here, I would support nationalism any day over globalist agendas, just because it's at least that one step closer to people having the power and being truly free.

If the entire population of Iran was dumped onto Britain, France or Germany, it goes without saying that the traditional values, culture and government of these nations would go out the window overnight. It would be a hybrid form of government at best, giving a lot of ground to Islamic styles of government (ie more or less theocratic), or else civil war. So the more fundamentalist Muslims Europe absorbs, the closer to this reality it is moving. It is not a matter of what someone looks like or where they are born per se, but what beliefs and values they are instilled with from a young age. Islamic values and secular humanist values in Europe are incompatible. That is the problem.

Personally, I would prefer not seeing identity and sovereignty associated with the concept of a nation, a religion or any particular ethnic group, but rather with the concept of individual people.

I am opposed to globalism because it only globalizes corporate affairs — legally and economically — and as such, aims to place the corporations above national laws. I opine that laws are often wrong, and even that the concept of legislation — i.e. the ultimately militarily enforcible restriction of the freedom of the majority of the people by a self-appointed elite minority — is a fundamental violation of human rights, but that is all merely a red herring when applied as an excuse for the supplanting of national legislations by the corporations' own sets of rules. Corporatist globalism is nothing other than a disguised coup d'état against all nations, and it almost single-handedly originates from within the US-born (or at best, Anglo-Saxon) multinational corporations.

What I also disagree with, is the blanket and collectivist assumption that all human beings are the same. All human beings are equivalent — which literally means: "equal in value" — but we are all individuals, and we all also do to a certain extent carry within us the influences of the culture and nation we grew up in. With that in mind, I do not oppose the idea of immigration, but I do oppose blanket demands in both directions when differing cultures meet.

The people of the nation which opens its doors to immigrants should not demand of the immigrants that they abandon that which makes them into who they are as human beings, but at the same time, the immigrants themselves should also not demand that the people of the nation they migrate into would turn a blind eye on account of things which were allowed, custom or even demanded in the immigrants' country of origin, if those things are deemed unacceptable in the welcoming nation's own culture, or even worse, that the sovereignty of the welcoming nation's own culture would be sacrificed in favor of a substitution by the culture and customs of the immigrants.

All of the above are just some generic thoughts and opinions I hold, but I guess the core of what I'm trying to say is two-fold:

• Respect is a door that swings both ways. We should be tolerant, but at the same time, a line should be drawn to avoid one party taking advantage of the other. And most of the problems dealing with the subject of immigration appear to center around where exactly that line should be drawn. In Western Europe concretely, the so-called progressive politicians are all too willing to sacrifice the sovereignty of their indigenous culture in order to welcome immigrants who are themselves quite ardently conservative and who show an unwillingness to make even the slightest concessions. These so-called progressive politicians are not acting out of generosity or out of a truly progressive spirit, but rather out of an opportunistically crafted political statement which they hope will garner them more support upon the next elections.
  
  
  I will give you an example: I have already addressed elsewhere on the forum that the workers unions in Belgium are politically affiliated. Well, before I was officially declared disabled, I used to be a member of the socialist workers union — a choice which itself originated from within my family, which had traditionally been strongly sympathetic with the socialist party — and as such, it has been my observation over the years that whenever there was an employment vacancy at the socialist workers union, they would always favor a candidate of a "politically controversial" nature, provided of course that the candidate was a legal Belgian national.
  
  So for instance, if there was a single vacancy for a clerk and two people applied for the job, one of them being "politically controversial" — e.g. a Belgian national of North-African or Turkish origins, or an LGBT person, or someone with an otherwise uncommon visual appearance — then they would hire that "controversial" person with prejudice. Not out of sympathy or out of open-mindedness, but by way of a political statement, to show everyone how progressive they are, or perhaps even worse, to prove to themselves that they would indeed be open-minded and progressive. Which they're not.
  
  I do consider myself a politically progressive person, but discrimination is always wrong, and inverse discrimination is still a form of discrimination in my book.

• Wholesale/blanket approaches never work. We are all individuals, and we should look at each case individually. I know that this is very difficult to achieve from within the bureaucratic point of view, but perhaps that in itself then tells us something about how the very concept of an elaborate bureaucracy is fundamentally flawed.

[Aragorn]

Update: According to this article by RT, Wikileaks has just released 300'000 e-mails from 762 mailboxes belonging to Erdogan's AKP party, in response to the severe repression in Turkey after the failed coup.

The leaked e-mails — which are of course in the Turkish language — can be found here.

[bsbray]

I think the bigger mistake rather than having opinions, is thinking that one side is the "good guy", the protagonist of the movie that will attempt to make things right. That is something we only have in the movies.

I don't think there are any "good guys," but I definitely think there are better guys, and the globalists seem hellbent on trying to start WW3 between NATO and Russia. There can't be much worse than that. When the Ukrainian and Syrian situations were at the peak of their intensity in terms of our confrontation with Russia is around when something noticeably changed, with reports of the CIA headquarters in Langley being on lockdown and then the Jade Helm wargames domestically and a lot of other unusual stuff. Now we have made amends with Iran, Russia and Pentagon-backed forces have stabilized Assad's power in Syria, and we're not hearing much about the Ukranian situation anymore. I can only see these developments as positive things.

From that perspective, as long as I'm playing devils advocate here, Islamic and European values are perfectly compatible, they just don't agree on what the pecking order should be. So they then turn to their favorite flavor of bigotry, whether it be of divine origin (religious), or of some other home baked origin of some self proclaimed superiority (Europeans), and they settle it like proper animals. Posturing, more posturing, lots of deaths, and eventually the new crop [of wheat] will spring forth to soak up the rays of sunlight becoming heavy with their seeds, waiting then to be cut down like all the crops prior.

You could say that they're "perfectly compatible" in some abstract way, but that's not going to wash for all the women walking around European cities who are being assaulted and gang-raped and all the rest. Really barbaric things go on routinely in parts of the Middle East and you can't say that this is compatible with European culture.

Instead of trying to use flowery language to describe how barbaric some aspects of Islamic culture are, I'll just post some images and we can think about how compatible these things are with European culture.







Here's a news article to go with the one above: Sentenced to Death, Rape Victim is Freed by Pakistani Court

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 7— Bowing to public outrage, a Pakistani court has freed a rape victim who was sentenced to death by stoning for the crime of having extramarital relations.

Perfectly compatible with European culture? The court only freed her because of "public outrage," no doubt because of western media coverage that she received.








In Saudi Arabia, the punishment for stealing is having your hand cut off. A lot of those images would be too graphic to post here, but here's one from ISIS in Syria practicing the same thing (they are very ideologically similar to the Saudis):




I could keep posting these all day. Being gay also meets with death under Sharia law, and anything from drinking alcohol to blasphemy are dealt with in very harsh ways as well. If this is all compatible with European culture, then everything is compatible with European culture and the word "compatible" is meaningless.

So there might be no such thing as "good guys" who are always doing the what we consider to be the right thing, but people can certainly do better than that.

[bsbray]

Personally, I would prefer not seeing identity and sovereignty associated with the concept of a nation, a religion or any particular ethnic group, but rather with the concept of individual people.

You mean individual people being as free as possible and having much personal responsibility as possible? If that's what you mean then that's exactly what I'm saying too in the post above, and that local, state and national governments should have power after the individual and in that order, just to maintain public order. But if globalism supersedes nationalism then we are moving in the totally wrong direction to achieve that. Here in the US there have been a lot of states standing up to federal laws lately and that is a move in the right direction.

I am opposed to globalism because it only globalizes corporate affairs — legally and economically — and as such, aims to place the corporations above national laws. I opine that laws are often wrong, and even that the concept of legislation — i.e. the ultimately militarily enforcible restriction of the freedom of the majority of the people by a self-appointed elite minority — is a fundamental violation of human rights, but that is all merely a red herring when applied as an excuse for the supplanting of national legislations by the corporations' own sets of rules. Corporatist globalism is nothing other than a disguised coup d'état against all nations, and it almost single-handedly originates from within the US-born (or at best, Anglo-Saxon) multinational corporations.

Agreed. But globalism is also very political outside of corporate affairs, most obviously with the EU, but it's also a factor in US politics and all of the major western allies who implement new national laws, regulations and agendas. It comes down to us from everything from the UN to the GX summits and Bilderberg type meetings. That's not to say that international cooperation like this is always bad. Really it should be a good thing, and there is a lot of potential today for governments working together in a peaceful and productive way. But it would be naive for any of us to assume that these institutions are beyond corruption and are only doing good things for us.

Really I think individual nations for the most part do a much better job of taking care of themselves than if they allowed international organizations to start dictating their affairs to them. We have seen this complaint a lot in the EU from countries who don't have as much power as Germany or France (France ignoring or working around many EU laws anyway, to protect its own domestic markets). Many Americans are resentful and distrusting of agendas promoted by the UN, such as Codex Alimentarius, Agenda 21 and international gun control initiatives, and I think for good reason.

The people of the nation which opens its doors to immigrants should not demand of the immigrants that they abandon that which makes them into who they are as human beings, but at the same time, the immigrants themselves should also not demand that the people of the nation they migrate into would turn a blind eye on account of things which were allowed, custom or even demanded in the immigrants' country of origin, if those things are deemed unacceptable in the welcoming nation's own culture, or even worse, that the sovereignty of the welcoming nation's own culture would be sacrificed in favor of a substitution by the culture and customs of the immigrants.

Exactly. And let's think about it this way:

If there are two countries, and one of them is doing much better than the other in terms of personal freedoms and standard of living and all the rest, why in the hell would people in country A let millions of people from country B come over and try to make their country exactly like the crappy one that all of those people just came from? I don't like to use such black and white terms because I know many countries in the Middle East are very prosperous and relatively liberal, but then again I am tired of political correctness as well. If Muslims like Islamic law so much then they should just stay in the Middle East and enjoy it there.

In Western Europe concretely, the so-called progressive politicians are all too willing to sacrifice the sovereignty of their indigenous culture in order to welcome immigrants who are themselves quite ardently conservative and who show an unwillingness to make even the slightest concessions. These so-called progressive politicians are not acting out of generosity or out of a truly progressive spirit, but rather out of an opportunistically crafted political statement which they hope will garner them more support upon the next elections.

Yes. These people are so tolerant that they will invite some of the most intolerant people in the world into your countries and then start giving their political voice preference over those who belong to the traditional cultures of Europe. The pandering for new voters also happens here in the US, with illegal Mexican immigrants, though Mexicans are at least much more culturally similar to Americans than Muslims are to Europeans. I'm not really even in favor of deporting all illegal immigrants, but my problem with what's happening here is that in California, for example, these illegals can vote in elections, including national elections, without even being citizens, on top of being here illegally in the first place. That is a very dangerous voting block to the pandering to, but it is exactly what the Democratic party has been doing in recent years. Clinton's campaign almost seems built wholly on the idea that Trump is racist for wanting to fix immigration problems.

If I lived closer to California I'd consider driving there on election day and voting in several different precincts myself, multiple times, just because it's apparently illegal and racist to require photo ID at polling booths, and there's nothing to stop me from making up any name for myself and claiming I'm from California. If people who aren't even citizens can do it then why shouldn't I be able to too?

So for instance, if there was a single vacancy for a clerk and two people applied for the job, one of them being "politically controversial" — e.g. a Belgian national of North-African or Turkish origins, or an LGBT person, or someone with an otherwise uncommon visual appearance — then they would hire that "controversial" person with prejudice. Not out of sympathy or out of open-mindedness, but by way of a political statement, to show everyone how progressive they are, or perhaps even worse, to prove to themselves that they would indeed be open-minded and progressive. Which they're not.

The same thing happens here. These kinds of policies began as a way to get African Americans more opportunities to increase their social and economic positions, which I understand completely. It was a good idea as far as that goes, because they had a very rough journey and were at a major disadvantage after emancipation, until relatively recently. But what it has turned into today is exactly as you say. Some places have actually been sued for not being diverse enough, so it's a reverse form of discrimination. It's a complicated situation so I don't know what the solution to that would be, but in any case cultural assimilation should be a priority for anyone moving in from a foreign country.

[lcam88]

Instead of trying to use flowery language to describe how barbaric some aspects of Islamic culture are, I'll just post some images and we can think about how compatible these things are with European culture.

I enjoyed the images you share. If you want to, please feel free to post more.

Do you have images of scenarios in secret CIA prisons in European nation that played host "western agendas"? What about western values in Iraqi prisons? Nazi Germany and their concentration camps...

You could say that they're "perfectly compatible" in some abstract way, but that's not going to wash for all the women walking around European cities who are being assaulted and gang-raped and all the rest. Really barbaric things go on routinely in parts of the Middle East and you can't say that this is compatible with European culture.

+1

That is something also present in Europe and North America in the last 200 years. Witch trials? I like the test: "If she floats she is a witch, and if she doesn't it is a shame she had to die."

I'm sure cameras weren't around when Christian armies did their deeds in the Crusades, in the purges of the older cultures in Europe and cultures in North and South America.

But we do have artifacts, to preface:

During the Middle Ages, torture was considered a legitimate way to extract confessions, punish offenders, and perform executions. Some methods were considerably crueler than others — these 10 being among the most barbaric and brutal.

1. The Judas Cradle (of Italian origin)


There is a similar device of spanish origin



2. Saw Torture



3. Pear of Anguish



Non fatal, to be followed by some other method...

FYI a similar type device was used by the US occupation that involved a bladder and a garden hose.

4. Breaking Wheel



5. Iron Chair



6. Head Crusher



7. Rat Torture

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD24v-ExKyA


8. Coffin Torture



9. Breast Ripper



This one even has variation.



10. Knee Splitter



I am in serious doubt about whether there are any "better guys". How do you know which is which? Application of your own cultural values? Maybe a good argument can be made to suppose Islamic Culture is more primitive in their methods than European Culture, but that is not the same as saying European culture is somehow better, only that it is more evolved.

My contention is simply: based on the idea the crimes are about theft, the issue of pecking order is the main difference between European and Islamic cultures as they co-mingle.

Migrants think their law, the Koran (interestingly that is literally the word "Law" in Arabic) is supreme over European secular law.

[Dreamtimer]

I visited an exhibit on medieval torture and once was more than enough. I usually try to purge the images from my mind.

We stand apart in the modern era because our laws don't allow for the kinds of brutality allowed under sharia. Of course, we did decide to put aside 70 years of observing the Geneva conventions and sanction water boarding and other kinds of torture and even rename the activity. We defend ourselves by naming terror.

No western nations have an obligation to tolerate sharia. The political correctness arguments don't make sense. Nations have laws. Have they really rewritten them all to be tolerant of religious brutality? I find that hard to believe.

When people spread fear of sharia coming here it's insane. It can't take legal hold. Please tell me where I'm wrong. I don't know anyone, let or right, who wants to tolerate that.

[bsbray]

I enjoyed the images you share. If you want to, please feel free to post more.

Do you have images of scenarios in secret CIA prisons in European nation that played host "western agendas"? What about western values in Iraqi prisons? Nazi Germany and their concentration camps...

The key word there is "secret." If it were culturally acceptable it wouldn't have to be a secret, would it?

I am only talking about aspects of modern Islamic culture, ie the culture of the people pouring into Europe, not what intelligence agencies do. And I'm comparing this to modern European culture, not to medieval European culture, though medieval Europe also had an Islamic "immigration" problem of its own that it dealt with very brutally.

That is something also present in Europe and North America in the last 200 years. Witch trials? I like the test: "If she floats she is a witch, and if she doesn't it is a shame she had to die."

You have to go back a little more than 200 years to find the stuff you're posting, but medieval European practices like this would also not be culturally acceptable in modern Europe. Do you see my point? We are only dealing with modern European and modern Islamic cultures, existing simultaneously in the present, not invasions into past cultures.

I am in serious doubt about whether there are any "better guys". How do you know which is which? Application of your own cultural values? Maybe a good argument can be made to suppose Islamic Culture is more primitive in their methods than European Culture, but that is not the same as saying European culture is somehow better, only that it is more evolved.

I actually never said anything about either culture being "better." That's not my point. You might remember from our previous discussion how I dislike words like "good" and "bad" when evaluating things.

My point is not to moralize about who are good or bad people, but that modern European and Islamic cultures are incompatible because of the violent practices like shown above, which still happen in the Middle East today, not just 500 years ago.

My contention is simply: based on the idea the crimes are about theft, the issue of pecking order is the main difference between European and Islamic cultures as they co-mingle.

In other words you believe that most Europeans are actually okay with the abuse of women, throwing acid in peoples' faces and cutting hands and legs off as forms of legal punishment, or stoning people to death. You think this will go over just fine in Europe, as long as the native Europeans themselves remain in charge of it. That's your point?