ot mien kampf wrote: Every time the Palestinians rise up, they get bombed back to the stone age and nothing gets better for them. They act like shit, they get treated like shit, no sympathy. People say a few things to please the Arabs in exchange for oil and then nothing happens because no one gives two shits about people, like Muslims, who turn to terrorism.

People displaced from their homelands tend to fight to regain them, even at impossible odds. Look what happened to the native Americans. They tried multiple peace treaties, which weren't worth the paper they were written on. They tried fighting, they lost, and it made things for them even worse. They finally succumbed and submitted to their new white overlords, and their lives and cultures were completely ruined. Some Irish Republicans fought back against their UK overlords and had better results. But put yourself in the shoes of an American Indian in 1885. What do you do?

Very hard to answer that question for me, but chances are I go out fighting for my people and my land in whatever ways I can, even when the outcome is inevitable. Why would the Palestinians not do the same? I hate to see violence in any sort, but I also hate to see people steamrolled by greater military power without recourse. At what point do you fight back and at what point do you fold? I'm not so sure either you or I would meekly accept what someone else thinks is best for us or our respective people.

Hotdigr wrote:What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Can either philosophy truly hope to stand up in heaven or jannah, to their deity of choice and claim to be the initially aggrieved party?
Who is innocent of any wrongdoing other then vengeance.
And hope to have their god of choice agree with them and forgive them for their sins?
And lets face it - that exactly what they are, from any perspective.

And so the circle of hatred and intolerance keeps growing. on BOTH sides.

I'm tired of people saying you win by being free of hate. I'm weary of caring about Islam when there appears to be absolutely no effort from Muslims to do anything but act like they're being persecuted after every attack. I'm sick of giving them support when their beliefs are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-child and violent.

History is intolerant and unfair, winners just write history to make it appear as though their side was deserving. I want Europe to remove enough Muslims that they stop attacking Europe, you can judge whether the reaction was fair after the fact, like they did with WW2. The sides are parting and I know quite firmly which side I'm on and who will randomly kill me on the street.

I'd rather be alive than politically correct.

Rutiger wrote:

ot mien kampf wrote: Every time the Palestinians rise up, they get bombed back to the stone age and nothing gets better for them. They act like shit, they get treated like shit, no sympathy. People say a few things to please the Arabs in exchange for oil and then nothing happens because no one gives two shits about people, like Muslims, who turn to terrorism.

People displaced from their homelands tend to fight to regain them, even at impossible odds. Look what happened to the native Americans. They tried multiple peace treaties, which weren't worth the paper they were written on. They tried fighting, they lost, and it made things for them even worse. They finally succumbed and submitted to their new white overlords, and their lives and cultures were completely ruined. Some Irish Republicans fought back against their UK overlords and had better results. But put yourself in the shoes of an American Indian in 1885. What do you do?

Very hard to answer that question for me, but chances are I go out fighting for my people and my land in whatever ways I can, even when the outcome is inevitable. Why would the Palestinians not do the same? I hate to see violence in any sort, but I also hate to see people steamrolled by greater military power without recourse. At what point do you fight back and at what point do you fold? I'm not so sure either you or I would meekly accept what someone else thinks is best for us or our respective people.

Logically, by extension, you'd agree that a violent response by Europeans to the mass migrant arrival is as justified then? The displacement of European people and cultures in neighborhoods by foreigners and Islam. I respect the Palestinians as far as I'd respect any national group who fights against the mass arrival of foreigners on their lands. Like the Europeans are today. Then again, random mass slaughter rarely leads to anything but a response in kind. Anyone who responds otherwise is weak and pathetic, bordering on suicidal. The Palestinian response is expected, as is the Israeli one. They are both fighting as you'd expect. Violence is awful, but there is no response that will succeed other than further violence.

There are no right or wrong sides, the only "right" side is the one you belong to. I was born European, I will die European and my children will be at least half European in any situation. I see Islam as a threat to that side. Palestinians see Israelis as a threat to their side, and vice-versa. The Vietnamese and Khmer understand this idea of a threat to people and culture and proved it during various wars with the French and Americans (and still maintain animosity against each other today).

ot mien kampf wrote:Logically, by extension, you'd agree that a violent response by Europeans to the mass migrant arrival is as justified then?

I don't have to justify anyone's violent actions, but I can attempt to put myself in other's position before making decisions on taking violent actions. Some may, in fact be unavoidable, but most I'd say, are not. The goal of any violent confrontation should be to end future violent confrontations. I don't think an all-out assault on Muslim migrants or Muslim countries meets that lofty goal in any way. As I said, as often as not, violence begets more violence and things actually get much worse for those involved, not better. Escalating violence must be the absolute last resort within conflict.

ot mien kampf wrote:

Hotdigr wrote:What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Can either philosophy truly hope to stand up in heaven or jannah, to their deity of choice and claim to be the initially aggrieved party?
Who is innocent of any wrongdoing other then vengeance.
And hope to have their god of choice agree with them and forgive them for their sins?
And lets face it - that exactly what they are, from any perspective.

And so the circle of hatred and intolerance keeps growing. on BOTH sides.

I'm tired of people saying you win by being free of hate. I'm weary of caring about Islam when there appears to be absolutely no effort from Muslims to do anything but act like they're being persecuted after every attack. I'm sick of giving them support when their beliefs are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-child and violent.

History is intolerant and unfair, winners just write history to make it appear as though their side was deserving. I want Europe to remove enough Muslims that they stop attacking Europe, you can judge whether the reaction was fair after the fact, like they did with WW2. The sides are parting and I know quite firmly which side I'm on and who will randomly kill me on the street.

I'd rather be alive than politically correct.

Rutiger wrote:

ot mien kampf wrote:Logically, by extension, you'd agree that a violent response by Europeans to the mass migrant arrival is as justified then?

I don't have to justify anyone's violent actions, but I can attempt to put myself in other's position before making decisions on taking violent actions. Some may, in fact be unavoidable, but most I'd say, are not. The goal of any violent confrontation should be to end future violent confrontations. I don't think an all-out assault on Muslim migrants or Muslim countries meets that lofty goal in any way. As I said, as often as not, violence begets more violence and things actually get much worse for those involved, not better. Escalating violence must be the absolute last resort within conflict.

Avoiding violence isn't a goal in and of itself. Protecting a national culture is a more noble goal. Violence to protect a culture within its own borders is what I'd consider justified although borders are, obviously, blurred in many cases (Israel, the lands of the Khmer Krom). Fortunately Western Europe is a rather cut and dry example where a foreign culture has only arrived very recently, unlike the Vietnamese in Cambodia or vice-versa.

Unfortunately violence has already been escalated by one side.

Hotdigr wrote:

ot mien kampf wrote:

Hotdigr wrote:What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Can either philosophy truly hope to stand up in heaven or jannah, to their deity of choice and claim to be the initially aggrieved party?
Who is innocent of any wrongdoing other then vengeance.
And hope to have their god of choice agree with them and forgive them for their sins?
And lets face it - that exactly what they are, from any perspective.

And so the circle of hatred and intolerance keeps growing. on BOTH sides.

I'm tired of people saying you win by being free of hate. I'm weary of caring about Islam when there appears to be absolutely no effort from Muslims to do anything but act like they're being persecuted after every attack. I'm sick of giving them support when their beliefs are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-child and violent.

History is intolerant and unfair, winners just write history to make it appear as though their side was deserving. I want Europe to remove enough Muslims that they stop attacking Europe, you can judge whether the reaction was fair after the fact, like they did with WW2. The sides are parting and I know quite firmly which side I'm on and who will randomly kill me on the street.

I'd rather be alive than politically correct.

Katie Hopkins Verified account
‏@KTHopkins

Go on. Draw a cartoon to the survivors, come up with a hashtag, lay flowers in a square. Just like you did last time. And will do the next.

ot mien kampf wrote:[Unfortunately violence has already been escalated by one side.

As an American, I can't say this violence with/from the middle east (if not just tacit support of it) has been one-sided. We've stuck out dirty little fingers in everyone's pie in the quest for cheap oil and some blowback/backlash is unavoidable. Surely you know about early British involvement in the area as well (especially the Palestine/Israel thing). I would exclude much of the rest of Europe from that blame, though.

ot mien kampf wrote: Go on. Draw a cartoon ....