• Before posting anything about the COVID-19 virus, please read this first Click Here

Hot The Invasion of Europe

Karloff

PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
4,085
Likes
6,518
Just an African cooking a cat in a street in Italy.
I didn't watch it (don't want to find out if the animal is alive while he is doing it) but that is typical of immigrants, they also slaughter swans and ducks and anything that they can catch basically.
 

Kai

PI Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
121
Likes
42
Anything bad you do in life sooner or later will affect your life in a way. Western countries are paying the price of their sins and this is just beginning. Your kids and grand kids will pay much more.
 

Zosimus

PI Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
551
Likes
1,031
Anything bad you do in life sooner or later will affect your life in a way. Western countries are paying the price of their sins and this is just beginning. Your kids and grand kids will pay much more.
There is no European nation whose misdeeds can compare with those of the Turks as indications of character. Sadism and barbarity are things which the European races engage in occasionally, in fits and starts, in frenzies and orgies, but things which the Turks engage in habitually, as a matter of preference and policy. If you would have us lose a hand for our sins, please do yourself the justice of removing all your own limbs too. Better yet, recognise the value of Hamlet's dictum: 'Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping? Use them after your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.'
 

Kai

PI Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
121
Likes
42
The main source of migration from Africa, ME or any other places in the World to Europe and to America is crimes committed by Westerners in these areas. Especially invasions of other countries in various ways, stealing their sources, trying to destablize them in all areas of life is actually destroying the future of Western countries in long term.
 

Templar

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2016
Messages
536
Likes
890
The main source of migration from Africa, ME or any other places in the World to Europe and to America is crimes committed by Westerners in these areas. Especially invasions of other countries in various ways, stealing their sources, trying to destablize them in all areas of life is actually destroying the future of Western countries in long term.
Why should this country have to pay a price for something we had no part in. Infact for alot of our history we have been treated as badly as Africa and the Middle East.
 

Zosimus

PI Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
551
Likes
1,031
The main source of migration from Africa, ME or any other places in the World to Europe and to America is crimes committed by Westerners in these areas. Especially invasions of other countries in various ways, stealing their sources, trying to destablize them in all areas of life is actually destroying the future of Western countries in long term.
It's a good thing that the Turks never had an empire which invaded other countries, stole their resources, destabilised them, and committed terrible atrocities upon their native peoples, eh?
 

Kai

PI Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
121
Likes
42
It's a good thing that the Turks never had an empire which invaded other countries, stole their resources, destabilised them, and committed terrible atrocities upon their native peoples, eh?
Look at the places where Western countries ve been, all of them talk English or French or Spanish, not their own languages.

Look at the places where Turks ve been, all of them talk their own languages, not Turkish.

This simple indicator helps us to distinguish the difference between an invader and a protector.
 

Templar

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2016
Messages
536
Likes
890
Look at the places where Western countries ve been, all of them talk English or French or Spanish, not their own languages.

Look at the places where Turks ve been, all of them talk their own languages, not Turkish.

This simple indicator helps us to distinguish the difference between an invader and a protector.
What about Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire then or did we forget about them as Turks changed the name of the City to Istanbul ?
 
Last edited:

Zosimus

PI Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
551
Likes
1,031
Look at the places where Western countries ve been, all of them talk English or French or Spanish, not their own languages.

Look at the places where Turks ve been, all of them talk their own languages, not Turkish.

This simple indicator helps us to distinguish the difference between an invader and a protector.
Turks are not native to Anatolia, one of the heartlands of ancient Greek culture, where now only Turkish his spoken for the most part. Istanbul itself was a capital stolen from a greater empire.

The Turks are protectors? In the sense of having the extortion of protection money as one of the engines of their empire yes. The Turks allowed other nations to survive in stunted forms which the Turks bled dry to compensate their own lack of industry. For better or worse (I think worse) the Europeans aimed to 'civilise' the natives in their colonial efforts,and this is what lead to the destruction of native languages and traditions. The Turks did not destroy local languages because the Turks, lacking civilisation themselves, and a sense of altruism, did not regard their civilised subjects as younger peoples in need of apprenticeship towards civilisation but rather as prey to extort from. There are other reasons why the languages of the Ottoman subjects survived. In the case of the Arabs it was that Arabic was a sacred language to Muslims. In the case of other peoples it was that preserving ethnic diversity assisted the Turks in their strategy of division and conquest. Mostly it was the case that eliminating a language takes effort and Turks are naturally indolent.

Europeans may not have acted well in the imperial era (nobody thinks of colonialism as a glorious and altruistic project) but the idea of a civilising mission was not an incidental justification for colonialism but one of its primary motives. Solely opportunistic acts of piracy like King Leopold's destruction of the Congo were not the norm in nineteenth century colonisation. Bear in mind that Europe's imperial atrocities were contemporary with Ottoman atrocities in the Balkans and elsewhere. I'm tempted to recount a litany of Turkish villainy but there is not enough black ink in the world to enumerate the black deeds of the Turk.

You may also answer that Turks were more tolerant of other religions than the Christian European nations. This is true, but I think Islamic tolerance refelcts poorly on Muslims. Christianity was intolerant because it regarded the loss of a single soul as an intolerable calamity. Islamic civilisation, which also believed that salvation hinges on doctrinal orthodoxy, was tolerant solely because it cared less about human life. The Christian pays his jizya tax in this life and goes to Hell in the next, and the Muslim gets to pat himself on the back for his tolerance. Everyone wins.
 

Kai

PI Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
121
Likes
42
Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs rebukes EU representative during press conference. Actually he tells what I say in more polite way.

 
Top Bottom