Study finds Muslims want to blow us up because of...

[USN_Hokie]

...post-colonial period western/US foreign policy, intervention against foreign dictatorships, and control of fossil fuels. Ron Paul was right.

...just kidding. The study found that they're violent because they're retards who have no meaning in life.

[quote]Young men who leave their homes to fight for terrorist groups in Syria mainly come from disadvantaged backgrounds, have low levels of education and “lack any basic understanding of the true meaning of jihad or even the Islamic faith”, according to a new report.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 6.html?amp[/quote]

Now, don't mistake the part where they don't understand Islam to mean this has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a symptom. It's not their stone age, barbaric, cult religion which makes them...stone age barbarians - they chose a stone age, barbaric cult religion because they are stone age barbarians. They chose a religion (for example) where women have to be covered head to toe because, by and large, they can't control themselves biologically without it. It's required for them to live collectively without raping / adulterating everyone. Culture > all else, including religion.

Liberals want to take these folks, move them to the west where they're even less educated with even less purpose, and then wonder why they blow up/stab/run over/rape people? Liberals /multiculturalists are creating violence.

With that said, there are some good, smart people who are nominally Muslim, mostly because of family & tradition. If those people want to move here and integrate with our society in a productive fashion (ie, bringing skills we need and not sucking up welfare), I'm OK with that (culture > all else). None of them are Syrian, though. All the smart ones left awhile ago. That still leaves some other problems (regression to the mean among offspring) that I won't get into here.

[oaktonhokie]

Interesting point about why the women must be covered up.

A rutting pig can't control himself. The Muslims are better than the pigs, but not by much, in that they are aware that they cannot control themselves. They should require their livestock to cover themselves also.

...post-colonial period western/US foreign policy, intervention against foreign dictatorships, and control of fossil fuels. Ron Paul was right.

...just kidding. The study found that they're violent because they're retards who have no meaning in life.

Young men who leave their homes to fight for terrorist groups in Syria mainly come from disadvantaged backgrounds, have low levels of education and “lack any basic understanding of the true meaning of jihad or even the Islamic faith”, according to a new report.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 6.html?amp

Now, don't mistake the part where they don't understand Islam to mean this has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a symptom. It's not their stone age, barbaric, cult religion which makes them...stone age barbarians - they chose a stone age, barbaric cult religion because they are stone age barbarians. They chose a religion (for example) where women have to be covered head to toe because, by and large, they can't control themselves biologically without it. It's required for them to live collectively without raping / adulterating everyone. Culture > all else, including religion.

Liberals want to take these folks, move them to the west where they're even less educated with even less purpose, and then wonder why they blow up/stab/run over/rape people? Liberals /multiculturalists are creating violence.

With that said, there are some good, smart people who are nominally Muslim, mostly because of family & tradition. If those people want to move here and integrate with our society in a productive fashion (ie, bringing skills we need and not sucking up welfare), I'm OK with that (culture > all else). None of them are Syrian, though. All the smart ones left awhile ago. That still leaves some other problems (regression to the mean among offspring) that I won't get into here.

[awesome guy]

...post-colonial period western/US foreign policy, intervention against foreign dictatorships, and control of fossil fuels. Ron Paul was right.

...just kidding. The study found that they're violent because they're retards who have no meaning in life.

Young men who leave their homes to fight for terrorist groups in Syria mainly come from disadvantaged backgrounds, have low levels of education and “lack any basic understanding of the true meaning of jihad or even the Islamic faith”, according to a new report.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 6.html?amp

Now, don't mistake the part where they don't understand Islam to mean this has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a symptom. It's not their stone age, barbaric, cult religion which makes them...stone age barbarians - they chose a stone age, barbaric cult religion because they are stone age barbarians. They chose a religion (for example) where women have to be covered head to toe because, by and large, they can't control themselves biologically without it. It's required for them to live collectively without raping / adulterating everyone. Culture > all else, including religion.

Liberals want to take these folks, move them to the west where they're even less educated with even less purpose, and then wonder why they blow up/stab/run over/rape people? Liberals /multiculturalists are creating violence.

With that said, there are some good, smart people who are nominally Muslim, mostly because of family & tradition. If those people want to move here and integrate with our society in a productive fashion (ie, bringing skills we need and not sucking up welfare), I'm OK with that (culture > all else). None of them are Syrian, though. All the smart ones left awhile ago. That still leaves some other problems (regression to the mean among offspring) that I won't get into here.

The article makes it sound like they're inter-city losers joining a gang. I don't believe that paints the entire picture and is slanted as their interviews are with people that got caught and so are going to be more of the dullards in the lot. The middle and upper classes in Europe also joined ISIS, it's more than just the inbred facet of Islam.

[USN_Hokie]

The middle and upper classes in Europe also joined ISIS, it's more than just the inbred facet of Islam.

Right, and look at the ones who do - the loser outcasts. The study noted two different variables: social outcasts and low intelligence. It's no different than any other cult - they attract weak-minded people.

[awesome guy]

The middle and upper classes in Europe also joined ISIS, it's more than just the inbred facet of Islam.

Right, and look at the ones who do - the loser outcasts. The study noted two different variables: social outcasts and low intelligence. It's no different than any other cult - they attract weak-minded people.

They're the ones that got caught, not the entire dataset. I'm saying the stupid are the ones caught first and are the ones they interviewed. The smart ones from upper and middle classes didn't get caught and interviewed.

[USN_Hokie]

The middle and upper classes in Europe also joined ISIS, it's more than just the inbred facet of Islam.

Right, and look at the ones who do - the loser outcasts. The study noted two different variables: social outcasts and low intelligence. It's no different than any other cult - they attract weak-minded people.

They're the ones that got caught, not the entire dataset. I'm saying the stupid are the ones caught first and are the ones they interviewed. The smart ones from upper and middle classes didn't get caught and interviewed.

We're talking about Syria. Average IQ is very low 80's: https://iq-research.info/en/page/averag ... y/sy-syria

"The smart ones" are still dull by 1st world standards.

[awesome guy]

The middle and upper classes in Europe also joined ISIS, it's more than just the inbred facet of Islam.

Right, and look at the ones who do - the loser outcasts. The study noted two different variables: social outcasts and low intelligence. It's no different than any other cult - they attract weak-minded people.

They're the ones that got caught, not the entire dataset. I'm saying the stupid are the ones caught first and are the ones they interviewed. The smart ones from upper and middle classes didn't get caught and interviewed.

We're talking about Syria. Average IQ is very low 80's: https://iq-research.info/en/page/averag ... y/sy-syria

"The smart ones" are still dull by 1st world standards.

ISIS is drawing from more than Syria. Below is what I'm talking about. The article pins around the norms of the region which are still lower than the norms of the west. The point is they're not just inbred retards, they're people suffering the soul poisoning called Islam and that cuts across all socioeconomic statuses. I get your point and agree about low IQs and the like. I'm saying that it's not just the dummies and isn't even best described as imbeciles, which it certainly contains a large segment of just because of the demographics in question.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mbers.html

[Vienna_Hokie]

What separates a religion from a cult?

Serious question. A lot of similarities, but one is viewed as good, the other as bad.

[USN_Hokie]

The middle and upper classes in Europe also joined ISIS, it's more than just the inbred facet of Islam.

Right, and look at the ones who do - the loser outcasts. The study noted two different variables: social outcasts and low intelligence. It's no different than any other cult - they attract weak-minded people.

They're the ones that got caught, not the entire dataset. I'm saying the stupid are the ones caught first and are the ones they interviewed. The smart ones from upper and middle classes didn't get caught and interviewed.

We're talking about Syria. Average IQ is very low 80's: https://iq-research.info/en/page/averag ... y/sy-syria

"The smart ones" are still dull by 1st world standards.

ISIS is drawing from more than Syria. Below is what I'm talking about. The article pins around the norms of the region which are still lower than the norms of the west. The point is they're not just inbred retards, they're people suffering the soul poisoning called Islam and that cuts across all socioeconomic statuses. I get your point and agree about low IQs and the like. I'm saying that it's not just the dummies and isn't even best described as imbeciles, which it certainly contains a large segment of just because of the demographics in question.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mbers.html

That article is somewhat of a mess, but I think they're talking mostly about upper-caste/more educated folks from sub-saharan africa, and indonesia. This makes sense, the poorest and stupidest from those areas don't have the means or even the know-how to get themselves to Syria. Maybe we're talking past each other, but I don't see it disagreeing with anything I've said or feel.

Yes - Smart people can get sucked into Islam (9/11 hijackers were a mix of educated outcasts and younger guys with mental issues) just as schools indoctrinate youth into leftist policies. My arguments were against the Europeans trying to integrate people from these areas now.

[awesome guy]

The middle and upper classes in Europe also joined ISIS, it's more than just the inbred facet of Islam.

Right, and look at the ones who do - the loser outcasts. The study noted two different variables: social outcasts and low intelligence. It's no different than any other cult - they attract weak-minded people.

They're the ones that got caught, not the entire dataset. I'm saying the stupid are the ones caught first and are the ones they interviewed. The smart ones from upper and middle classes didn't get caught and interviewed.

We're talking about Syria. Average IQ is very low 80's: https://iq-research.info/en/page/averag ... y/sy-syria

"The smart ones" are still dull by 1st world standards.

ISIS is drawing from more than Syria. Below is what I'm talking about. The article pins around the norms of the region which are still lower than the norms of the west. The point is they're not just inbred retards, they're people suffering the soul poisoning called Islam and that cuts across all socioeconomic statuses. I get your point and agree about low IQs and the like. I'm saying that it's not just the dummies and isn't even best described as imbeciles, which it certainly contains a large segment of just because of the demographics in question.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mbers.html

That article is somewhat of a mess, but I think they're talking mostly about upper-caste/more educated folks from sub-saharan africa, and indonesia. This makes sense, the poorest and stupidest from those areas don't have the means or even the know-how to get themselves to Syria. Maybe we're talking past each other, but I don't see it disagreeing with anything I've said or feel.

Yes - Smart people can get sucked into Islam (9/11 hijackers were a mix of educated outcasts and younger guys with mental issues) just as schools indoctrinate youth into leftist policies. My arguments were against the Europeans trying to integrate people from these areas now.

Right. And the ones already there in Europe and doing the radicalization are gen1 and gen2 of the Islamic wave their, not just recent Syrian immigrants. The ones within the Mosque are largely educated, sending their educated kids as well as just arrived Syrian retards back to fight for the caliphate. The "educated" from northern Africa are coming in too. That article wasn't really a mess.

[USN_Hokie]

What separates a religion from a cult?

Serious question. A lot of similarities, but one is viewed as good, the other as bad.

To me - I think it's the exploitative aspects which make a religion a cult. Recruiting folks to go blow themselves up at a checkpoint, drink some spiked kool-aid, or write huge checks to the church in exchange for eternal salvation is exploitative, IMO.

That's obviously subjective, and probably in-line with militant atheists who think of all religions as cults. What I think those crazy post-modernist atheists (many of whom engage in their own ritualized faiths - veganism, global warming, etc..) fail to realize is that religion was the first rule of law for people to work cooperatively in society together. They dismiss religion as arbitrary rituals and mysticism (or worse), while forgetting (or more likely, denying) that these elements exist for a reason.

A great example is from the lounge the other week where someone asked for opinions on polygamy. A libertarian predictably chimed in and said it was nobody's business and should be legal. That's an easy, over-simplistic argument to make from a personal / micro perspective. In a macro sense, there are NO examples - present day or in recorded history - of peaceful polygamist societies. It makes perfect sense, because polygamist (really polygynist) societies invariably leave large numbers of men with no future prospects (see the trend here?) to get laid or have a family. These men invariably must be either used for war, either internally or externally (LDS communities in the US are small enough that they're just outcast onto the streets to be someone else's problem). It's no mistake that islam promises 72 virgins to young men for blowing themselves up. It's evil and genius at the same time, if you think of it.

One of the triumphs of judeo-christian culture is the enshrinement of monogamy. Monogamy (or, at least the perception of it - people obviously cheat) allows for peaceful societies where men are motivated to create peace and protect their way of life. This excess productivity and peacefulness allows the smartest men to study or practice science instead of being worried about protecting a harem. Obvious things like this are lost on the post-modernist intelligentsia idiots (or as Taleb calls them, the "IYI's" ("Intelligent, Yet, Idiots"). Back to your original question, something like monogamy isn't exploitative - it's productive towards a cooperative, productive society.

[Vienna_Hokie]

What separates a religion from a cult?

Serious question. A lot of similarities, but one is viewed as good, the other as bad.

To me - I think it's the exploitative aspects which make a religion a cult. Recruiting folks to go blow themselves up at a checkpoint, drink some spiked kool-aid, or write huge checks to the church in exchange for eternal salvation is exploitative, IMO.

That's obviously subjective, and probably in-line with militant atheists who think of all religions as cults. What I think those crazy post-modernist atheists (many of whom engage in their own ritualized faiths - veganism, global warming, etc..) fail to realize is that religion was the first rule of law for people to work cooperatively in society together. They dismiss religion as arbitrary rituals and mysticism (or worse), while forgetting (or more likely, denying) that these elements exist for a reason.

A great example is from the lounge the other week where someone asked for opinions on polygamy. A libertarian predictably chimed in and said it was nobody's business and should be legal. That's an easy, over-simplistic argument to make from a personal / micro perspective. In a macro sense, there are NO examples - present day or in recorded history - of peaceful polygamist societies. It makes perfect sense, because polygamist (really polygynist) societies invariably leave large numbers of men with no future prospects (see the trend here?) to get laid or have a family. These men invariably must be either used for war, either internally or externally (LDS communities in the US are small enough that they're just outcast onto the streets to be someone else's problem). It's no mistake that islam promises 72 virgins to young men for blowing themselves up. It's evil and genius at the same time, if you think of it.

One of the triumphs of judeo-christian culture is the enshrinement of monogamy. Monogamy (or, at least the perception of it - people obviously cheat) allows for peaceful societies where men are motivated to create peace and protect their way of life. This excess productivity and peacefulness allows the smartest men to study or practice science instead of being worried about protecting a harem. Obvious things like this are lost on the post-modernist intelligentsia idiots (or as Taleb calls them, the "IYI's" ("Intelligent, Yet, Idiots"). Back to your original question, something like monogamy isn't exploitative - it's productive towards a cooperative, productive society.

So the problem with religion is that religion puts people in position of unquestioned power. The reason that western christian society has evolved is that the laws of man have been separated from the law of the church. There is little difference between the muslim states of today and the christian states of the middle ages. Why? Because of the church is no longer the ultimate law of man. You can actually look at the pedo priest nightmare as proof of this. Despite the church's attempts to protect itself, some of those involved were held accountable for their crimes against the laws of man. You could never have a situation like that in a muslim country because the church would never allow it and it controls the government.

Thus the reason I don't agree with the cult description of the muslim religion. It ignores the fundamental problem which is not the religion itself, but the lack of a social legal foundation to keep the one true law of man in check: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Something our founding fathers understood and built our entire constitutional republic on. From the three branches to the electoral college to the separation of church and state and the right to bear arms. It was put in place to provide a level of balance of power and prevent the abuses of societies in the past (and present).

[Major Kong]

Meh, Islam can't even decide which side of the family should be in charge of the Religion of Peace.

Not to say that Christianity hasn't had their problems in history but the two factions of Islam have been going at it for nearly 14 centuries.

Have y'all ever tried to figure out Islams hierarchy There actually isn't one on an international level...just a bunch of "scholars". Anybody with Google and a tablet can become a Khateeb.

this kind of organization breeds chaos with adherents, especially those of the stupid variety.

[USN_Hokie]

What separates a religion from a cult?

Serious question. A lot of similarities, but one is viewed as good, the other as bad.

To me - I think it's the exploitative aspects which make a religion a cult. Recruiting folks to go blow themselves up at a checkpoint, drink some spiked kool-aid, or write huge checks to the church in exchange for eternal salvation is exploitative, IMO.

That's obviously subjective, and probably in-line with militant atheists who think of all religions as cults. What I think those crazy post-modernist atheists (many of whom engage in their own ritualized faiths - veganism, global warming, etc..) fail to realize is that religion was the first rule of law for people to work cooperatively in society together. They dismiss religion as arbitrary rituals and mysticism (or worse), while forgetting (or more likely, denying) that these elements exist for a reason.

A great example is from the lounge the other week where someone asked for opinions on polygamy. A libertarian predictably chimed in and said it was nobody's business and should be legal. That's an easy, over-simplistic argument to make from a personal / micro perspective. In a macro sense, there are NO examples - present day or in recorded history - of peaceful polygamist societies. It makes perfect sense, because polygamist (really polygynist) societies invariably leave large numbers of men with no future prospects (see the trend here?) to get laid or have a family. These men invariably must be either used for war, either internally or externally (LDS communities in the US are small enough that they're just outcast onto the streets to be someone else's problem). It's no mistake that islam promises 72 virgins to young men for blowing themselves up. It's evil and genius at the same time, if you think of it.

One of the triumphs of judeo-christian culture is the enshrinement of monogamy. Monogamy (or, at least the perception of it - people obviously cheat) allows for peaceful societies where men are motivated to create peace and protect their way of life. This excess productivity and peacefulness allows the smartest men to study or practice science instead of being worried about protecting a harem. Obvious things like this are lost on the post-modernist intelligentsia idiots (or as Taleb calls them, the "IYI's" ("Intelligent, Yet, Idiots"). Back to your original question, something like monogamy isn't exploitative - it's productive towards a cooperative, productive society.

So the problem with religion is that religion puts people in position of unquestioned power. The reason that western christian society has evolved is that the laws of man have been separated from the law of the church. There is little difference between the muslim states of today and the christian states of the middle ages. Why? Because of the church is no longer the ultimate law of man. You can actually look at the pedo priest nightmare as proof of this. Despite the church's attempts to protect itself, some of those involved were held accountable for their crimes against the laws of man. You could never have a situation like that in a muslim country because the church would never allow it and it controls the government.

Thus the reason I don't agree with the cult description of the muslim religion. It ignores the fundamental problem which is not the religion itself, but the lack of a social legal foundation to keep the one true law of man in check: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Something our founding fathers understood and built our entire constitutional republic on. From the three branches to the electoral college to the separation of church and state and the right to bear arms. It was put in place to provide a level of balance of power and prevent the abuses of societies in the past (and present).

Right, theocracy vs. constitutional democracy/republic. Islam is obviously incompatible with the latter (sharia and all that), and going back to my original point (culture > religion), it's not any surprise or coincidence that this is the case. Studies have shown (and I can't find a free example at the moment) that democracies don't (can't?) exist in societies below a certain average cognitive ability (somewhere around 90ish IQ I think, but don't quote me). Below that level - democracies and republics will always fail. Therefore, it's not any surprise that Islam prospers in ass-backwards stone-age societies where a theocracy (dictatorship) rules the day.

You brought up a good point with regards to absolute power. This is the problem with completely secular societies - it puts all the power in the hands of government to set moral norms. A constitutional republic/democracy has a check against run-away religion, but secular societies leave the fox to guard the proverbial hen house.

[133743Hokie]

...post-colonial period western/US foreign policy, intervention against foreign dictatorships, and control of fossil fuels. Ron Paul was right.

...just kidding. The study found that they're violent because they're retards who have no meaning in life.

Young men who leave their homes to fight for terrorist groups in Syria mainly come from disadvantaged backgrounds, have low levels of education and “lack any basic understanding of the true meaning of jihad or even the Islamic faith”, according to a new report.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 6.html?amp

Now, don't mistake the part where they don't understand Islam to mean this has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a symptom. It's not their stone age, barbaric, cult religion which makes them...stone age barbarians - they chose a stone age, barbaric cult religion because they are stone age barbarians. They chose a religion (for example) where women have to be covered head to toe because, by and large, they can't control themselves biologically without it. It's required for them to live collectively without raping / adulterating everyone. Culture > all else, including religion.

Liberals want to take these folks, move them to the west where they're even less educated with even less purpose, and then wonder why they blow up/stab/run over/rape people? Liberals /multiculturalists are creating violence.

With that said, there are some good, smart people who are nominally Muslim, mostly because of family & tradition. If those people want to move here and integrate with our society in a productive fashion (ie, bringing skills we need and not sucking up welfare), I'm OK with that (culture > all else). None of them are Syrian, though. All the smart ones left awhile ago. That still leaves some other problems (regression to the mean among offspring) that I won't get into here.

They're living in the middle ages. They are hundreds of years behind the western world and don't know what to make of it. It's overwhelming to them. They're mostly ignorant/uneducated by modern standards and the imams use that to their advantage and indoctrinate them in their warped view of the Koran.