HMMMMHomeSarah PalinATW by Pete Moore March 21, 2019 40 1 min 4 yrs It’s as if he extreme left has a double standard. Click to rate this post![Total: 0 Average: 0] ATW Post navigation Previous postNext post 40 thoughts on “HMMMM” The point is valid, but it would have been a stronger point without the ” extreme left ” reference Of course that one single webpage snapshot represents the exact singular opinion of the left . Every left wing politician and individual on the planet have all agreed that all White Australians are to blame for the mosques massacre. Great job Pete revealing such a hidden fact. The point is not valid Phantom. It’s stupid. Who has blamed all White Australians for the killIngs ? The thug that runs Turkey has pretty much blamed all the west for ” islamophobia ” in light of this killing and has used film of the massacre to get his followers all blood hungry Look it up It’s as if he extreme left has a double standard Extreme double standards like stating we will saty in the EEA, the CU and the SM and then insisting ‘out means out’ when the result goes your way Pete? Those extreme double standards? I’ve read both articles linked in the meme and apart from each expresseing different views from different people on different continents, the Ohio writer says the Trump is wrong to blame Somalis: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/christchurch-shootings-white-australian-guilt-new-zealand.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/12/trump-is-wrong-to-blame-somali-refugees-for-the-ohio-state-terror-attack.html Point 1: The FNM in general labels people like myself “far right extremists” simply for desiring my country to be (a) independent and self-governing and (b) not overrun by millions of third world savages. Therefore why shouldn’t I in turn label those political parties and media establishments who hold the opposite view “far left”? If they want to coin stupid phrases for me, I’ll turn it back and do the same for them. What’s good for the goose… Point 2: While I agree that one webpage or screengrab doesn’t automatically encapsulate the entire opinion of the far-left, it IS indicative, and to such a large degree that the generalisation holds true and can be stated as such for most of them. Brex Re your point 2. The same could be said for the right regarding its attitudes to Islamist terrorism and all Muslims versus its attitude to neo nazi White supremacist violence and all whites. For example, Trump’s “ Ban all Muslims” demand following a jihadi terrorist attack with his “ a few bad apples” attitude to Right wing terror. I agree to an extent, Colm, the same could be said on both sides. Only a tiny minority of both Muslims and White supremacists carry out violent attacks. Most in both groups just live peaceful lives. Where I’d disagree is that Islam has a holy book which (from the quotes I’ve read) seems to urge its followers to carry out such attacks. Most don’t actually do so, but they are united by Islam’s goals for world domination by the sword, and thus there isn’t all that much condemnation or cooperation with the police against those that DO actually carry out the attacks. Plus, as far as I know there isn’t one single global “W/S” movement or textbook which all its followers adhere to. If one adds up all the Islamic attacks and places them against all W/S attacks on a global scale, then I think that Islam would win comfortably. It’s been a global scourge against the forces of European enlightenment for centuries, and simply shouldn’t belong here in any shape or form. Phantom, The point is valid, but it would have been a stronger point without the ” extreme left ” reference A fair point Phantom but sadly, it’s completely wasted on Pete. Would you rather be a Muslim in Europe/N America or would you rather be a Christian in Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Or in Iran, Afghanistan or Bangladesh? Or Algeria, Sudan, or Yemen? Extremist, murderous wild intolerance is the norm, has been the norm all over that world, for a long time. These issues are fairly beyond left and right. Though the true left has plenty to answer for. Including a general and increasing categorizing people primary by racial or ethnic or sexual identity first, in the US Also, I object to the word “supremacist”. I don’t want to reign supreme over any other race or nationality; I just want to be left alone in my own country. Shag goats, eat sheep eyes, slaughter your meat in whatever barbaric ways you choose, fine. No problem. Just do it elsewhere, not here. “Where I’d disagree is that Islam has a holy book which (from the quotes I’ve read) seems to urge its followers to carry out such attacks.” So does Christianity and Judaism. Seamus, The OT does indeed contain passages where God advises the Israelites to wage total war upon its enemies, and not to leave any of them alive unless they defile Israel and lead it astray with their idolatry. The NT is more complicated and one could take several quotes of JC and use them one way or another. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth, but rather a sword”, says JC in one instance. In another place he admonishes a disciple for using his sword to cut off the ear of a Roman soldier. I do agree that there are several utterances in the NT that could be argued one way or the other. But JC does not, in general, urge his followers towards a bloodthirsty revolution in order to establish his kingdom. And at no point in the 2K year history of Christianity has the church laid down as doctrine a violent revolution except in answer to external agression from without (mostly from Islam). “And at no point in the 2K year history of Christianity has the church laid down as doctrine a violent revolution except in answer to external agression from without (mostly from Islam).” What do you think the Crusades were? Phantom I am under no illusion that Islam is a much more politically suffocating religion in countries where it has a majority. It has yet to undergo a genuine secular push back the way Christianity has rightly been made to comes to terms with in Western countries. Seamus, I refer you to the last 11 words of my above comment. Yeah. And I again ask – what do you think the Crusades were? Oh, I see Seamus. You think the church suddenly thought “hey, everything is peaceful, no problems at all…..let’s attack Muslims for absolutely no reason at all except that we can”? //– what do you think the Crusades were?// The Crusades were essentially defensive. If Islamic forces, Arab or Ottoman, had stayed outside the Christian world, no European force could ever have been mobilised against them, and certainly not in any Holy War. But when they conquered Jerusalem and Christian areas of Syria and then Constantinople many felt it was a religious duty to fight. The Crusades were a counter-attack against Islamist aggression in Europe. A COUNTER-attack. COUNTER. We didn’t start it. Yeah. Pretty much. Spain was a more complicated aspect and the Reconquista as such should likely be separated from the Crusades. However at no time in the 11th century did Muslim lands (outside of Spain) attack Catholic lands. The Holy Land, which is what was being fought over, had been in Muslim hands since 640 AD. “But when they conquered Jerusalem and Christian areas of Syria and then Constantinople many felt it was a religious duty to fight.” That was one hell of a delay. They conquered Jerusalem in 638 AD. The First Crusade started in 1096. //That was one hell of a delay. They conquered Jerusalem in 638 AD. The First Crusade started in 1096.// Which made it a much shorter delay than the Irish war of independence. The point is that the Crusades were a religious war aimed at recapturing holy cities lost to Islam. Remember “The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished…” But in fact the first Crusade was to help the Byzantines defend their empire against the Turks. Later it went on to include Jerusalem and other holy cities. Everyone was aware that these places had once been part of the Christian world. But if you’re interested in the historical, but irrelevant, question of why not earlier, the answer if obviously the fact that Europe was entering the “dark ages” at the time Jerusalem was lost and was not even in a position to help itself. There was no central organisation and certainly nothing like the wealth needed to launch such a huge military campaign over many years and necessitating fitting out large armies, coordinating between different peoples, etc. That all came much later in Europe. Of course, to the leftist mindset any Islamist agression is excusable and any Judeo-Christianic pushback is deplorable, no matter what the time or circumstance. And at no point in the 2K year history of Christianity has the church laid down as doctrine a violent revolution except in answer to external agression from without (mostly from Islam). The Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella and the Inquisition? “The point is that the Crusades were a religious war aimed at recapturing holy cities lost to Islam.” Not many Muslims in Estonia. “Of course, to the leftist mindset any Islamist agression is excusable and any Judeo-Christianic pushback is deplorable, no matter what the time or circumstance.” No. I’m neither defending Islamic aggression nor judging Christian aggression. I’m denying your assertion that the Church in its 2,000 year history never advocated religious expansionism. “Which made it a much shorter delay than the Irish war of independence.” And actually no. You make it seem like there was no attempt at Irish independence made before the war of Independence. The Holy Land had been under Muslim rule since 640 AD, was largely unchallenged as such until the Crusades, and was largely peaceful as such until the Crusades. “But in fact the first Crusade was to help the Byzantines defend their empire against the Turks.” True, but then went further and attacked non-Turks. So it went from restoring recently captured Byzantium land in Anatolia and went to conquering land in the Holy Land. It went from being a defensive war to being an aggressive war after that. I have to hold my hands up in ignorance to that, Paul. You’ll have to educate me. (Not a problem, no-one knows everything). //It went from being a defensive war to being an aggressive war after that.// Was it a coincidence that, in the vast Muslim world at the time, the Crusades wished to “conquer” a place that happened to hold their holiest sites? – the place of the birth of their religion and the place they believed God became man and later rose from the dead, and they place they knew had been taken from Christianity by Islam? They wanted to, in modern terms, “liberate” the Holy Land. It had been Christian for centuries and they wanted it back. The world would be a much better place if everyone converted to Quakerism 😇 //The Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella and the Inquisition?// Paul, the Inquisition wasn’t a “violent revolution”. It was a paranoid measure aimed at maintaining power, not usurping someone else’s power. Or maybe you meant their ventures in the Americas. But that was more part of the drive to expand trade at the end of the Middle Ages. The belief that they were spreading “the word of God” no doubt spurred on the conquistadors to greater efforts, but the colonisation in the west was not driven by the church. “Was it a coincidence that, in the vast Muslim world at the time, the Crusades wished to “conquer” a place that happened to hold their holiest sites?” No. But does it matter? “They wanted to, in modern terms, “liberate” the Holy Land. It had been Christian for centuries and they wanted it back.” It probably hadn’t. The Holy Land largely became Christian following 328 AD. It then came under Muslim rule in 638 AD. So it was under Christian governorship for 310 years. And Muslim governorship for 460 years. The populace was majority Muslim. So it wasn’t a liberation. It was a conquering. It was essentially a culling of the large Jewish population in Spain at the time who the Catholic monarchs saw as a threat to consolidation of their power. In 1478 Pope Sixtus IV issued a bull authorizing the Catholic Monarchs to name inquisitors who would ‘address the issue’ // The populace was majority Muslim. So it wasn’t a liberation. It was a conquering.// Did the Americans conquer Alsace-Lorraine or liberate it? And what about the Polish/Soviet aggression against Lodz in 1944? And do you really believe that if the Free State army had moved into NE Ireland in 1922 that would have been aggression and a conquering? // It then came under Muslim rule in 638 AD. So it was under Christian governorship for 310 years.// Over 300 years for me means centuries. Thanks for the chat lads, I’m off to bed. “Did the Americans conquer Alsace-Lorraine or liberate it?” Complicated. As the population was largely mixed, and not easy to put into simply French or simply German. “And what about the Polish/Soviet aggression against Lodz in 1944?” Apologies I don’t get the reference. “And do you really believe that if the Free State army had moved into NE Ireland in 1922 that would have been aggression and a conquering?” Ireland as a whole is Irish. So yes you could argue that individual pockets here or there could be seen as conquering. However Northern Ireland was not a real place. It had no history or uniqueness that set it apart from the rest of Ireland. It was artificially constructed. Paul, the Inquisition wasn’t a “violent revolution”. It was a paranoid measure aimed at maintaining power, not usurping someone else’s powe The latter point precisely the one I make above. I didn’t say the Inquisition was, I offered it as a potential for inclusion hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. It’s as if he extreme left has a double standard. And of course the extreme right doesn’t. They have justified the slaughter in Christchurch (see Allan) and Pete Moore seems to be cool with that. No doubt he will correct me if I’m wrong. In all fairness Allan didn’t justify the Christchurch shooting Peter. He just said it never happened. It never happened… but its still the fault of the Jews! Comments are closed.