In yet another case for why Twitter shouldn’t exist, a noted journalist, Julie has had her book on cancel culture cancelled after getting into a Twitter spat with a Muslim journalist and activist, Ash Sarkar.
This spat was over an article published years ago where the author was joking about not becoming a teacher because he wouldn’t be able to stop himself from shagging the students. Sarkar decided to stick her oar in and write a screed on Twitter about it, at which point Burchill spoke up and asked how old Aisha was when she “married” Muhammad. Now Burchill has been accused of Islamophobia despite the Koran happily declaring Aisha’s age, and Burchill’s book about cancel culture has been cancelled because the publisher is spineless.
Is a bit confusing. This is what I assumed happened:
journalist 1 is a pedophile > the author criticized the pedo > muslim activist defended the pedo? > the author said ofc you defend pedos cause your prophet was a pedo > twitter crowd cancel her for being islamophobe
Sorry about that, here’s what happened as far as I understand:
Journalist 1 makes a James Gunn-esque joke about not being a teacher as he’d shag the kids > Muslim activist jumps in to have a dig at Journalist 1 and starts lecturing about how all child sex abuse is wrong > author then questions the Muslim activist as to how old Aisha was > activist starts up the accusations of Islamophobia to deflect attention > authors book gets cancelled.
That's the thing about sometimes learning about a topic from a different field of study, they're not interested in maintaining the narratives in other fields. Military History isn't here to spin the narrative of about peaceful expansion. They're looking explicitly at military expansion. And to be clear, the presenters aren't being biased. They readily admit when they are likely biased because the only surviving source is from the Islamic sources... because the other sources were "lost" when the losers were fucking exterminated. They don't put that part in, but there's no other way to put it.
What is particularly galling about all the information from their own Islamic sources of the battles and conflicts, is that the Islamic sources repeatedly celebrated the complete and wholesale slaughter of civilians, retreating forces, and surrendering forces. Islamic sources never justified any Causus Belli for their wars, they just came from absolutely nowhere and started raising everything they could get their hands on. When the Persian and Roman Empires only finally understood what was happening, the Islamic war bands kept taxes low and promoted a semblance of freedom in captured cities, and then once the war was over and the imperial forces driven out, imposed extreme suppression.
The "religion of peace" nonsense is clearly just that when your own sources:
Celebrate indiscriminate and wholesale slaughter
Never justify any offensive campaign
Show that populations captured by your war parties are lied to in order to secure territory, and are then fully subjugated once there is no available opposition
The common thread among the Islamic Empire's early enemies is that they had no idea what they were dealing with until they were involved in a full scale war that they were now losing. This process repeats over and over again for hundreds of years.
The only other thing to take note of is that the Islamic Empire is constantly engaged in power struggles internally, and occasionally has to break from violent expansion to either suppress their own uprisings, or kill their own commanders so that the current established order isn't threatened.
That's the thing about sometimes learning about a topic from a different field of study, they're not interested in maintaining the narratives in other fields. Military History isn't here to spin the narrative of about peaceful expansion.
At least until Black Lives Matter finishes refining their newly-rediscovered art of political violence to an equal level, Islam is the unquestionable king of the victim hierarchy.
In yet another case for why Twitter shouldn’t exist, a noted journalist, Julie has had her book on cancel culture cancelled after getting into a Twitter spat with a Muslim journalist and activist, Ash Sarkar.
This spat was over an article published years ago where the author was joking about not becoming a teacher because he wouldn’t be able to stop himself from shagging the students. Sarkar decided to stick her oar in and write a screed on Twitter about it, at which point Burchill spoke up and asked how old Aisha was when she “married” Muhammad. Now Burchill has been accused of Islamophobia despite the Koran happily declaring Aisha’s age, and Burchill’s book about cancel culture has been cancelled because the publisher is spineless.
What a world we live in.
Is a bit confusing. This is what I assumed happened:
journalist 1 is a pedophile > the author criticized the pedo > muslim activist defended the pedo? > the author said ofc you defend pedos cause your prophet was a pedo > twitter crowd cancel her for being islamophobe
Is this correct?
Sorry about that, here’s what happened as far as I understand:
Journalist 1 makes a James Gunn-esque joke about not being a teacher as he’d shag the kids > Muslim activist jumps in to have a dig at Journalist 1 and starts lecturing about how all child sex abuse is wrong > author then questions the Muslim activist as to how old Aisha was > activist starts up the accusations of Islamophobia to deflect attention > authors book gets cancelled.
I'm sure Ash is just as outraged about her people raping English girls all throughout the nation.
Classic.
"It's islamophobic to tell the truth!"
Jesus, Julie Burchill. Is she still getting into scrapes?
Trads should realise Islamic religion is the best religion.
Immediate punishment on hearing criticism of any of it's dogmas. Based.
Yes, yes, cuck to Islamic policies. That'll work great. You'll definitely preserve some form of heritage then.
Muslim heritage is definately preserved with Islam.
"White" hertiage is preserved nowhere in any religion whites are typically associated with. No pagans exist, Christianity comes in 3 flavors.
The most moderate version of Islam is still more traditionalist than Christianity.
It isn't, but it's created a bureaucratic and administrative authoritarian system that lies to people and tells them that it's preserved.
"According to this well sourced Hadith, we were always at war with East Asia."
Not only that, but you seem to be unfamilar with the divisions between Islam. At least the Christians stopped warring against each other.
Point.
What convinced me was the history of early Islamic expansion by the Kings & Generals channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2cEIDZwG5M
That's the thing about sometimes learning about a topic from a different field of study, they're not interested in maintaining the narratives in other fields. Military History isn't here to spin the narrative of about peaceful expansion. They're looking explicitly at military expansion. And to be clear, the presenters aren't being biased. They readily admit when they are likely biased because the only surviving source is from the Islamic sources... because the other sources were "lost" when the losers were fucking exterminated. They don't put that part in, but there's no other way to put it.
What is particularly galling about all the information from their own Islamic sources of the battles and conflicts, is that the Islamic sources repeatedly celebrated the complete and wholesale slaughter of civilians, retreating forces, and surrendering forces. Islamic sources never justified any Causus Belli for their wars, they just came from absolutely nowhere and started raising everything they could get their hands on. When the Persian and Roman Empires only finally understood what was happening, the Islamic war bands kept taxes low and promoted a semblance of freedom in captured cities, and then once the war was over and the imperial forces driven out, imposed extreme suppression.
The "religion of peace" nonsense is clearly just that when your own sources:
The common thread among the Islamic Empire's early enemies is that they had no idea what they were dealing with until they were involved in a full scale war that they were now losing. This process repeats over and over again for hundreds of years.
The only other thing to take note of is that the Islamic Empire is constantly engaged in power struggles internally, and occasionally has to break from violent expansion to either suppress their own uprisings, or kill their own commanders so that the current established order isn't threatened.
Honestly, they remind me of the Klingons.
The masters of realpolitick.
You can't have realpolitick without any politicking.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! So much for that!
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/10/exclusive-former-west-point-professors-letter-exposes-corruption-cheating-and-failing-standards-full-letter/
I said fields of study, not "teachers".
Silly woman, there is only 1 religion you are allowed to mock....
http://stonetoss.com/comic/hellfire/
Funny tho, I guess it means it is the truth if the evil demean it eh?
That comic took me back to when xkcd was truthy/funny.
I used to read XKCD every time it came out,
BAAAAAAAAAAAARF
virgin XKCD vs CHAD STONE_TOSS
always put the bullshit empty buzzword "islamophobia" in quotes. it doesn't exist. it will never exist.
Islam uber alles.
At least until Black Lives Matter finishes refining their newly-rediscovered art of political violence to an equal level, Islam is the unquestionable king of the victim hierarchy.
The ones returning to Europe are very open that the beheadings weren't traumatizing because allahu akbar.