Ukip leader Nigel Farage provokes anger after agreeing with 'basic principle' of Enoch Powell’s noto - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Stopper;43429784]I wasn't replying specifically to. This topic is absolutely pointless - you can find conflicts between Islam and Christianity dating since the conception of the former. They are not an excuse for conflicts today.[/QUOTE] You did reply specifically to me though. You quoted my post and only my post. The point I was making was that just because it should not be used to justify modern conflicts does not mean that historical truths about early islam should be obscured for political ends.

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;43429811]Please look into Islamic expansion into Europe, then you might understand why the crusades existed and the aggressiveness of the Islamic sultanates at the time. The ottoman empire's aggression is a perfect example of Islamic aggression towards Europe\Christianity. Since your in Bulgaria (Your FP flag), you should already know all this since the Ottomans conquered Bulgaria and held it for several hundred years until WW1 finally made the ottoman empire collapse. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Bulgaria[/url][/QUOTE] And I don't see how that pertains to immigration to the UK today and Farage's idiotic antics. It happened, there's no argument about that. Yes, and believe me when I say that I don't need you to teach me the history of my country's suffering. It is still irrelevant to the topic at hand, and irrelevant to the topic of immigration. Hell, the only reason the whole argument started was because of archangel's stupidly misplaced ad hominem. [editline]6th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Aidan_088;43429861]You did reply specifically to me though. You quoted my post and only my post. The point I was making was that just because it should not be used to justify modern conflicts does not mean that historical truths about early islam should be obscured for political ends.[/QUOTE] Goddamn it, I quoted your post because I clicked reply under your post, not because I was replying specifically to [I]you[/I].

Vasili, it's funny, because that's pretty much exactly what Europe, specifically the English and Spanish, did to Africa. They're hardly any better than the Islamic slavers.

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;43429226]That's what ignorant\uneducated lefties don't understand and will pull the race card. Immigration is a very touchy subject, we have been made to have some kind of slave\cultural guilt trip which makes the subject of anti-immigration\multiculturalism taboo. This is regardless of what point of immigration you are talking about, be it culturally, economically, lack of resources\infra-structure to support mass immigration... the list goes on. Immigration is a hot-topic across Europe but right now anyone under the thumb of the European union cannot do anything about it.[/QUOTE] How the fuck is immigration a taboo subject - if it was half of the press wouldn't continuously push as an issue because it would cost them views/readership, and by reading this thread the fact several people have voiced matching views would also suggest it's not very taboo. In fact huge chunks of the media love pushing anti-immigration/anti-Europe/anti-welfare rhetoric, because then that's what people care about, instead of stuff like the estimated £30 billion avoided and unpaid tax, most of it by the large corporations and hedge funds that own said media. Oh, occasionally the odd story like Starbucks leaks out, but it soons gets lost the drizzle of dubious stories on immigrants/Europe/people on benefits.

[QUOTE=Stopper;43429874] Goddamn it, I quoted your post because I clicked reply under your post, not because I was replying specifically to [I]you[/I].[/QUOTE] Well if you don't want to reply to a specific person just use the general reply function at the bottom of the page. It will stop such confusion from occurring again.

[QUOTE=archangel125;43429898]Vasili, it's funny, because that's pretty much exactly what Europe, specifically the English and Spanish, did to Africa. They're hardly any better than the Islamic slavers.[/QUOTE] We are discussing the historical hatred of Islam in Europe and why. Not to see who is worse. Islamic conquests into Europe were attempts of colonialism however, the Ottomans succeeded in some parts, likewise with the Moors. Lets not forget how the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade"]Arabs got Europe into the slave trade[/URL] with them, despite the historical dislike of slavery in Europe (which is a result of the rise of racism from the slave trade).

"Historical dislike of slavery in Europe", pull the other one Vasili

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43430038]"Historical dislike of slavery in Europe", pull the other one Vasili[/QUOTE] *The historical dislike of slavery against other Europeans Black people are fair game

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;43429811]Since your in Bulgaria (Your FP flag), you should already know all this since the Ottomans conquered Bulgaria and held it for several hundred years until WW1 finally made the ottoman empire collapse.[/quote] The Bulgarians declared their independence from the Ottomans in 1908 but had existed as a separate principality for 40 years before that. Ottoman dominance in the balkans was broken by the 1912 Balkan war (That later resulted in a second balkan war, fought between the victors, because everyone can become irredentist/imperialist shits). The Ottoman Empire was eventually defeated in WW1, in no small part due to the participation of Arab rebels who got screwed by the western allies after the war. Even in defeat Turkey had to fight for independence after Greece was allowed to try and build a new Byzantine empire in anatolia with Allied blessing and a shaky interpretation of the treaty of the Armistice terms. Point is, Christians can be just as bad in victory

[QUOTE=archangel125;43429898]Vasili, it's funny, because that's pretty much exactly what Europe, specifically the English and Spanish, did to Africa. They're hardly any better than the Islamic slavers.[/QUOTE] I think the Africans have as much right to be angry at us for enslaving them as we do to the middle east for trying to conquer and enslave us. Plus the middle east was enslaving Africans long before we did. [QUOTE=Vasili] Black people are fair game[/QUOTE] What the fuck.

[QUOTE=archangel125;43429898]Vasili, it's funny, because that's pretty much exactly what Europe, specifically the English and Spanish, did to Africa. They're hardly any better than the Islamic slavers.[/QUOTE] Islamic conquests conquered North Africa before the Europeans by the way. So using Africa as a defense is entirely wrong. Infact the muslims under Caliph Umar invaded north africa which was what was left of the roman empire (Byzantine empire) and slaughtered\enslaved them and african tribes. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_North_Africa[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests[/url]

[QUOTE=Xystus234;43430078]I think the Africans have as much right to be angry at us for enslaving them as we do to the middle east for trying to conquer and enslave us. Plus the middle east was enslaving Africans long before we did. What the fuck.[/QUOTE] Africans rounded up slaves for Arabs and Europeans, they traded humans for goods. Africans were as much involved in the dealings of the slave trade as much as being the victim of it, they still practice slavery today.

[QUOTE=Vasili;43429341]I am a Islamophobe. I do not like the Qu'ran or its Islamic societies philosophies and pratices, as well as their historical war against Europe for hundreds of years.[/QUOTE] I'm actually surprised that you care enough about something which happened 1000 years in the past enough for it to shape your current views on entire regions and ethnic groups even when their connection to that past is tenuous at best.

[QUOTE=Vasili;43430051]*The historical dislike of slavery against other Europeans Black people are fair game[/QUOTE] You're so full of shit, dude. Just ask the Irish.

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;43430092]Islamic conquests conquered North Africa before the Europeans by the way.[/QUOTE] And the Romans conquered the whole of North africa before Islam even existed. Remember Carthage? Where they salted the fields so nothing would grow again?

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;43430092]Islamic conquests conquered North Africa before the Europeans by the way. So using Africa as a defense is entirely wrong. Infact the muslims under Caliph Umar invaded north africa which was what was left of the roman empire (Byzantine empire) and slaughtered\enslaved them and african tribes. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_North_Africa[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests[/url][/QUOTE] Actually, it's entirely right, because it doesn't change what the Europeans did one iota.

[QUOTE=archangel125;43430148]Actually, it's entirely right, because it doesn't change what the Europeans did one iota.[/QUOTE] We're not discussing what Europe did in Africa foremost, we're discussing why there is historically rooted Islamophobia in European society and why people oppose it morally, philosophically or religiously.

[QUOTE=Lazzars;43430145]And the Romans conquered the whole of North africa before Islam even existed. Remember Carthage? Where they salted the fields so nothing would grow again?[/QUOTE] Yes i am aware of Carthage it was destroyed by the romans after the Carthage general Punic Carthaginian invaded Italy and then it became a huge city under the romans which was then destroyed by the muslims. Adding onto the nature topic, muslims burned thousands of olive trees planted by the Romans as muslims had no need for them. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage[/url]

[QUOTE=archangel125;43429406]Hey, they've got good reason for warring against Europe. The Crusades seriously fucked their shit up.[/QUOTE] Lol what is this The crusades didn't destroy the middle east indefinitely. They were still one of the richest and most populated and prosperous places in the world for centuries after the crusades ended. The Ottomans were also pretty powerful and wealthy right into the 17th century along with the rest of the Islamic world, where only then (with significant aid from the socioeconomic and military revolutions ongoing in Europe at the time) did they begin to be eclipsed.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43430277]Lol what is this The crusades didn't destroy the middle east indefinitely. They were still one of the richest and most populated and prosperous places in the world for centuries after the crusades ended. The Ottomans were also pretty powerful and wealthy right into the 17th century along with the rest of the Islamic world, where only then (with significant aid from the socioeconomic and military revolutions ongoing in Europe at the time) did they begin to be eclipsed.[/QUOTE] The ottomans were powerful all the way up to the early 19th century before collapsing due to being a looser in WW1.

The Ottomans were moribund from halfway through the 19th century, it was amazing they lasted as long as they did [editline]6th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Sword and Paint;43430204]Yes i am aware of Carthage it was destroyed by the romans after the Carthage general Punic Carthaginian invaded Italy and then it became a huge city under the romans which was then destroyed by the muslims. Adding onto the nature topic, muslims burned thousands of olive trees planted by the Romans as muslims had no need for them. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage[/url][/QUOTE] You're thinking of Hannibal and what does a bunch of burned olive trees have to do with anything?

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;43430289]The ottomans were powerful all the way up to the early 19th century before collapsing due to being a looser in WW1.[/QUOTE] The Ottomans were rotting by the 18th century. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries it was just a long slide into decay and stagnation. The rest of Europe tried to stop the Russians taking it to bits but it was a long series of stopgap measures that ultimately ended in the collapse of that empire. Europes inability to properly manage the collapse of the Ottoman Empire ended up causing a lot of the problems of the 20th and 21st centuries as well.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43430302]what does a bunch of burned olive trees have to do with anything?[/QUOTE] The short answer: It was the grazing combined with the destruction of irrigation channels and olive/citrus orchards (trees create moisture and prevent erosion) and war. I won't go into depth about Agricultural issues in Africa, a interesting book\resource is Andrew Watson's Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World: The Diffusion of Crops and Farming Techniques, 700-1100.

[QUOTE=Lazzars;43430145]And the Romans conquered the whole of North africa before Islam even existed. Remember Carthage? Where they salted the fields so nothing would grow again?[/QUOTE] What's the relevance of this exactly in a topic that's entirely concerned with the subject of Islamophobia in European society?

Well actually it's more about Farage agreeing with Enoch Powell and his ugly brand of Ur-Fascism

Well, we know that most UKers know that Farage is a cunt. He won't get into power, and all will be well.

[QUOTE=archangel125;43430706]Well, we know that most UKers know that Farage is a cunt. He won't get into power, and all will be well.[/QUOTE] He and his party have been rapidly gaining more support over the last few months.

lmao Enoch Powell said Nothing Wrong - Signed, Facepunch.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43430652]Well actually it's more about Farage agreeing with Enoch Powell and his ugly brand of Ur-Fascism[/QUOTE] I don't agree with Enoch Powell or Nigel Farage but to call them fascists is just absurd. Powell's Morecambe budget and the UKIP election manifestos show that both of them are economic libertarians and believe in the rolling back of the state and generally less economic intervention. This is diametrically opposed to nationalists socialist economic views. Fascism is not a synonym for far-right.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;43430811]I don't agree with Enoch Powell or Nigel Farage but to call them fascists is just absurd. Powell's Morecambe budget and the UKIP election manifestos show that both of them are economic libertarians and believe in the rolling back of the state and generally less economic intervention. This is diametrically opposed to nationalists socialist economic views. Fascism is not a synonym for far-right.[/QUOTE] Thank you Wikipedia: [quote]Although fascism is usually placed on the far right on the traditional left–right spectrum, fascists themselves and some commentators have argued that the description is inadequate.[/quote] Ahem.