Nope. It's called realism ;)

1. there is no parallel between jews as old participants of european culture and muslims which were always external conquerors for europe; whether from north-western africa (today's spain, portugal, smal part of france - till reconquista) or from asia minor to balkan and middle europe (ottoman raids); part of balkan even remainded islamized what mess up balkan till now

2. thats why is pegida completely new story; it's clear - whenewer arise movement like pegida, opposing islam as expansive ideology, some nazis join it as well. no way to prevent it, unless to ignore them

3. i dont think that europe could undergo the same like rise of "third reich"; europe is educated enough to not kill each others like muslims in islamic countries; the maximum what can occure if muslims piss off us properly is loading trains by muslims and sending them not to concentration camps but back to desert

4. dtto

you are probably muslim babarak, arent you? so it's difficult to discuss european future with you; there is hardly any reason for you to give priority to traditional europe instead of islamized europe.
it's your obligation always to prefer allah, if you are good muslim. so discussion with you can not reach solution but just your needless scaring with hitler

babark, the feeling is mutual, and given how little sleep I'm getting you would not believe how tired I am. But try to be brave and persevere. I can tell you from experience it can be rewarding.

If you are not interested in semantics, why do you constantly ask questions about the meanings of things? Language is how we are able to communicate with each other about such stuff... it's like you want to play, but don't like the game.

Unlike your false dilemmas (this is not an insult - it is the dictionary definition technical term for the kind of questions I quoted you as making), the dilemmas I'm trying to open your eyes to are real. You jumped into this thread asking questions that, as I explained to you, were leading to receiving confirmation of preexisting opinions. That's not WRONG. But it is what it is.

You like asking questions, but you don't like the answers.


For example, I was one of the three original answers you responded to (yogs, me and Timpuu I think). Now you say by implication my answer was not insightful? You even use words to kind of imply there was no threat at all, it seems I was the only one noticing it, perceiving it... etc...

Did you miss that Klumpen, who was the one being named and threatened, also saw it as a threat? Because I remember that. I would hope my track record would have built some confidence in you that I'm not making this stuff up... Also, did you consider most people are non confrontational and chose to ignore the threat, because like me, they considered it not serious, but unlike me, just decided to not make a big deal of it?

Well, is it or is it not a threat, in your opinion? Because you're not quite saying. You're just asking questions. Don't you realize if you actually answered some questions both of us would be much less tired and actually understand each other better?

Look, I have tried to tell this to you several times. Maybe you don't call what you are doing "word games". But I do. If you have a better name for it, tell me, and I will use it to avoid offending you. I'm not sure that's possible unfortunately.

I mean you just read stuff all wrong. I am sad and angry. I am not gleeful at all. Do you actually believe that? 0_o When I catch you doing semantical or rhetoric tricks, I am not happy: I get pissed with you. Because the way you talk to me, makes me believe you are doing it on purpose.

The only times I see a glimpse of actual honest engagement from you is when after a lot of prodding, and what seems to me embarassing moments, you eventually let some of your emotional motivations surface.


Now I apologize in advance if this embarasses you, but let me give another tiring example.

What you just said was that the threat is conditional and if the conditions are not met, it is nonsensical to call it a threat.
If by nonsensical you mean not serious I guess I agree. But if "nonsense" actually means illogical - which is the normal meaning - then you are the one making a logical mistake. Not me.

Statement: If conditions A will happen then threat B will come true.
Analysis 1 - If it happens that A will not happen, then B was still a threat. It does not magically change into something else.
Analysis 2 - If it happens that A does happen but B still does not happen. That also does not make B less of a threat. It only proves it was not effected.
Analysis 3 - If A happens and B also happens. B will both have been a threat, and have become a reality.
Analysis 4 - Just to be exhaustive on the logical space, the case where A is false but B becomes true is the funky one, but irrelevant here.

To me this is what threats are in a nutshell... an intimidation tactic. If they scare someone, they don't have to be acted out, and they worked. Would that mean they were not ever actually threats? That is nonsense... Jamys did not really make an accusation - he made a threat. I am not gleeful, but I am sad that you continue to try and disagree with me without being direct about it not being a threat.

You: Hej guys, the accusation was kind of valid right?
Us: No, it was rather not. Baecause of many reasons.
Me: By the way describing it as an accusation rather than a threat is kind of wrong.
You: Tiresome evasions instead of responding directly to the implication I just made...

You just want to see only the accusation... for some reason... Nothing in your proposed logic makes the threat stop being a threat. It is just another way you are tiresomely avoiding actually saying what you believe. Do you think it was a threat or not babark?

Now let me again tell you why the threat is a big deal - to me and klumpen at least.

What matters here to some of us - the ones that care about the human angle in this stuff rather than just the ideological - are the human motivations. You really want it to be ideological, but it isn't. And it wasn't. It was just common decency to not threaten someone else... do you get that?

Why did jamys feel the need to threaten klumpen?
Who really acted like a jackbooted thug making threats (read - like a nazi) in this whole thing?
When people are acting like nazis, is it perhaps nonsensical to focus on their ideology rather than their behavior?

To me and klumpen, we got a glimpse into jamys' soul, and it was ugly. I for one try to not be afraid of ugly. Maybe jamys needs help. Maybe he needs to be fought. Think about it, maybe you will get it some day...

And while you're at it. Why do you, despite constantly saying you are curious, show such a lack of openess to the answers you are being given?

Never ever expect honesty from babark.
He replies to but practically never answers questions and likes to denounce people as racists when they see through his deflection pattern.

He is not obligated to be honest with lowly infidels anyway, so this probably won't change.
The arrogance in his replies defies anything else on this whole board.

To quote him from another thread after most of his evasive walls of text: Imho it sums up this whole character.

Wasn't that even a reply he made to me? I remember something like that... anyway, despite maybe many people thinking I'm a jerk, I often give many folks the beneift of the doubt too often. babark is interesting, and he obviously cares at some level. I try to engage that level, but he never really opens up. In a way that "dishonesty" is doing him most harm. Not us...

And if I am wrong about that. Well maybe confronting him does serve some public good... walls of text be damned...

Yes, it was a reply to one of your posts.

If he'd be honest he'd probably just post, that he is happy about the post jamys made, because he doesn't like me, but this would be "below him" and would give too much information and he avoids doing this because information could be used against him, so he uses his usual socratic method and plays games instead: Asking lots of subtle loaded questions while answering none but replying to some with even more questions and evasions and then claiming, that he answered the questions although he knows the difference between a reply and an answer.

Although it's hard to believe sometimes, I think most of us are not in here due to personal dislike of anyone else. Things are kinda personal but that's because as Vaina said, we are stating or defending some deeply held convictions, and reacting to very disturbing events - you know, like the one that happened "meanwhile in Koln"... To me of course that should mean even more respect and openess, rather than less... and I'm not saying I manage to live up to that ideal all the time.

I actually agree.
The root of the problem as I see it is that Islam is still Medieval. Other religions try to adapt with varying degrees of success to a evolving world but important Islamic leaders seems to flat out refuse this. They haven't had much of a reformation at all.
Unless Islamic religious leaders and followers doesn't want to be some sort of global pariah they need a massive education program. No poverty isn't the root of the problem. Look at the big Islamic countries in the middle east. They're floating on oil. Use all that wealth to step into the 20th century at least I say.

But there is hope that something is happening. If going by the western media I can get access to Islam seems to be schizophrenic. Grand leaders in the Islamic heartlands scream what is essentially "Anger and violence." while Islamic leaders in the western world say "Islam is a religion of love and peace.". I get a feeling the western world Islamic leaders can and are affecting some sort of change in Islams home countries. Time will tell I guess.

That's fine. I'll believe in Europe for you. Pour a little beer out of respect for my ancestors' roots. Give props to those forefathers of mine who came from imaginary places like Britain, France, and Germany.

That's because when the economic crisis hit people was really affected. They rapidly lost jobs and income. Lives was shattered and it was fast and widespread. Lots of ordinary citizens was affected.

It's the same way now. In just say 10 years citizens of Europe have gone from seeing immigrants as a sort of a novelty to living in parts of their own country that's actually predominantly immigrant. Many see immigrants everywhere now. They're our doctors, workmates, car mechanics, cashiers, neighbours, stand in line with us at shops, they're "suddenly" surrounding us on a scale we haven't got used to yet. Countries are actually changing on grassroot level and it's being done by politicians without any real consensus from their citizens. That's why it got to be such a big political issue so fast. European citizens don't recognize their countries anymore.

Maybe they need concentration camps to make it more 1940s. That was a beautiful Europe, I bet there were people in the 70s upset by the lack of them.

Ford said that he didn't asked the customers what they wanted because they would have said faster horses. It's the same reason why the politicians don't ask the people how the future should look like.

Not a fan of democracy I hear?
Oh and if Ford had explained to his customers why cars was better they might actually have agreed there you know.

If politicians think their people are stupid and should be fooled they're just dictators. If any democratic politician ever thinks in that direction the answer is always more information to the people so they understand better what they are voting on. More impartial information of course.

I'm sorry, again, you're the only one who saw it as a threat. Even klumpen, in his initial response, made absolutely no mention of a threat, but instead focused on the accusation of being a nazi (only that portion being quoted), and called him out on "slander". Claiming that most people are not confrontational is a bit irrelevant, because lots of people responded to the accusation of being a nazi, except they all focused on THAT, and how THAT was wrong (again with no mention of a threat, always only quoting the accusation of being a nazi)- which is what instigated my response to that point.

If someone says "People who don't know how to swim, if they go in the deep end, they will drown", it isn't a threat.
If someone says "People who like leaping, if they leap off a tall building, they will get killed", it isn't a threat.
To insert the concept of an authority figure/group instead of an act of nature into the examples of action and consequence, if someone says "People who are prone to violence, if they murder someone, they will get punished for it", again, it isn't a threat.

Does your country "threaten" you, Brasas? I'm pretty sure it has laws in place that state that if you kill someone you will be punished for that. Do you take that as a threat?

"X are nazis. If nazis do this horrible thing, then they will get justice delivered to them"- It is very obvious that there was no threat there. People might (and they did) take issue with the initial accusation of being a nazi, but any claim of a threat is ludicrous, unless one agrees that the claim of being a nazi is true.
How on earth would it be an intimidation tactic? Are you suggesting that jamys was attempting to intimidate people into not doing a second kristalnacht? Because otherwise, it is not a threat.
It might be a language barrier or something...I honestly can't see how else to explain this. Constantly repeating the word "threat" doesn't make it any more true.

No, my wet dream is always to see tyrants as leaders.

Just how much information do they need to take an informed decision? Do you think the internet isn't big enough?