You got upset because I stated facts. You banned me because I stated uncomfortable, but well-documented truths about the behavior of muslims.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/17tLFiSLjz/x/c/4ZCaGcS8Trj
Muslims aren't a "race". Nor are they an ethnic identity; they're a cartel of politically-connected international criminals that commit theft, drug trafficking, slave trading, terrorism and murder because their religious teachings glorifies the exploitation of "heathens". It's brazen to the point local government authorities have PSAs warning people not to go to muslim countries "because they were offered a high-paying job" because those muslims do indeed seize people's passports, then force their victims into indentured servitude.
https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2020/06/30/modern-day-indentured-servitude/
Your moral failing is that you refuse to acknowledge reality.
Your criticism of Islam has to focus on Islam, rather than Muslims particularly, especially how you worded it as an inherent moral failing among Muslims, rather than claims of over-representation.
Has to? HAS TO? Hahahahahahaha, I'll judge muslims by the content of their character.
After all, the invasive, criminal and exploitative behavior of muslims aligns with the instructions of their warmongering cult-leader. They don't see it as a 'moral failing'.
Thats how they have always been.
They continue to carry out their criminal, subversive and exploitative activities even in the modern day, with the blessing of their state powers and their religion.
And I can prove everything I said.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-09-02-0315
"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
It's in their 'holy book' and the laws of their religion - which muslims have always used to justify what they do. Stating such is not an 'identity attack'.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
This banditry, invasion, enslavement and even mass murder is what the muslims have been doing in the middle east - first to any other native peoples in the region, then outwards to other vulnerable peoples and nations over the centuries. It is part of their religion. And that has been a staple of their existence since then, and is - even now.
https://mondediplo.com/1998/04/02africa
https://archive.org/details/spain-history-volume-1/page/251/mode/1up
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9772719/
https://www.icct.nl/publication/isis-and-their-use-slavery
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-politics-darfur/
https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-trafficking-in-persons-report/somalia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_grooming_gang
https://www.cfr.org/article/ethnic-cleansing-happening-nagorno-karabakh-how-can-world-respond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxuwDWbYsMI
And as it has been said before, the sole purpose of these vile actions muslims commit has always been to propagate their violent religion, by either force, blackmail or simply ethnic cleansing if their victims refuse to submit.
Secondly, muslims are not above using narcotics, blackmail and sex trafficking to break their targets and poison the communities they infest, either. Then, and even now.
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/accrington-soldier-line-drug-gang-24041441
https://www.frontpagemag.com/first-muslim-senator-keeps-california-a-sexual-abuse-sanctuary-state/
https://www.godreports.com/2015/02/uk-hundreds-of-more-victims-in-muslim-rape-case/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
They're not above destroying their own children when it comes to sating their perverse lusts either. They don't even care to maintain the next generation in the nations they have conquered either.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/longform/2022/8/22/sex-trafficking-in-iraq
https://www.journeyman.tv/film/7677
After all, their religion mandates the conquest and enslavement from those they deem 'unbelievers'. This world, and the consequences of their vile actions and depraved ways does not matter to them - their religion has blinded them with lurid tales of an 'afterlife' that pander to their every perverse whim.
The fact that you had to label these facts I spoke of as 'claims' makes you no better than those criminals. You know what that makes you? At best, an ignorant idiot too frightened of offending those savage, slave-dependent mass murderers. At worst, an islamic apologist actively covering up their crimes because deceiving 'unbelievers' is part of your wretched religion.
Muslims and their pet apologists use every iota of their connections and position to label those facts I stated as "identity attacks", "claims" or "islamophobia" or whatever the fuck buzzword you lot cling on to silence all criticism of your so-called religion.
Which brings me to my second point: You tried to divert attention from the behavior of muslims by demanding that I criticize their so-called religion. You demanded that I take part in the lie of seperating islam from the muslims when their own "religious" doctrines specifically exhorts upon them to exploit, extort, enslave and exterminate anyone they deem 'infidels', which they have been doing for centuries.
To your duplicitous demand to "focus my criticism of islam rather than muslims" I say: I don't negotiate with terrorists.
I will never obey your decree to "taqqiya"-fy my criticism of muslims and their vile crimes. I will never take part in the insidious lie of seperating islam from the muslims because the muslims are following their religion, and see no problem with exploiting, enslaving and then exterminating anyone who does not submit to them.
Because without the criticism of muslims and their horrific actions, the criticism of islam simply allows muslim apologists to go "BUT THATS NOT TRUE COMMUNI-uh ISLAM!" and nothing changes. Criticizing the actions of muslims, analyzing their behaviors in enabling slave trading and exploitation of nations at the behest of their "religious" leaders, and the steps that must be taken to ending the global terror of islamic invasion is made clear.
PS: Also, stop using chatGPT. I didn't say anything about "overrepresentation".
PSS: If you're that determined to ban all criticism of your mohammedan leash-holders, then make it a clear law. At least then people will know who truly owns you.
No, and Arab would be more of a clear violation.
I agree that Muslims are not a race. The weird part is that there is a racialization of Muslims that make the attacks on them an identity attack. Where you could have lesser devout forms of Muslims reject certain aspects of Islam, and this isn't much of an issue.
Frankly, it's a similar problem with jews. Jews aren't a race; but most of the rule violating attacks on them treat them as a race.
Anything that attacks their behaviour would be an attack on their religion (which prescribes how they should act). That's what I mostly see.
Are people attacking their physical traights? If not, what consitutes an attack on race, rather than religion.
The specification of the speaker.
A moderate is at best, labeled an apostate by their religious peers, or at worst, a liar who puts on a facade of goodwill to groom their victims into complacency.
Or, additionally, a Useful Idiot.
I've literally had a muslim directly tell me that Islam has never been spread by war. It's kind of like living in a Leftist buble.
Okay, in the future: When I talk about Muslims, I talk about religeous Muslims, who follow Islam and all it entails.
I am able to differentiate them and Turks, Syrians, Iranians and other Arabs who are not Muslim. Don't push your wrong logic on other people.
Btw every follower of Islam will also say those people who don't follow Islam are not Muslims. So even they would agree with me.
This is part of an interesting point, because what we call "Jihadis" is what Saudi Arabians call "Takfirists". Basically, they kill Muslims by 'Takfiring" them and declaring them to be non-Muslims, and then kill them. It's why so many Islamic Terrorist attacks kill Muslims while Islam explicitly bans killing Muslims.
But yes, your first sentence is fine.