IMMIGRATION thread

[Sarmatian]

No, it is to say that we're dealing with probabilities rather than a proven/not proven dichotomy. In general.

Funnily enough, your probability evidence was proven completely false. In all probability, you probably have no idea what you're talking about but are probably repeating what you read on the probably first internet site that comes up in google. You should probably devote some more time befory you're caught again with low probablity of probable evidence.

For someone who admits he is dealing in probabilities, your posts are amazingly full of certainties. One would think a little more caution would be used if you were aware of that.

[Viking]

With respect to the number of innocent lives, with respect to the stability of the country, with respect to the basic social services destroyed for nothing.

If you can choose between having 100 people killed and those 100 people + 900 other people (=1000 in total) killed, the first scenario is trivially preferable. If you can choose between 100 people killed and 1000 people different from the first group of 100, it's not trivial any more. That's why I asked the question that you dodged. Chances are great that many Libyans who currently are alive would have been killed by the Gaddafi regime if it had not lost.

Given how many Libyans felt like revolting, one wonders how adequate those social services were.


It would not have been in the regime's best interest to target civilians. Misrata, Zawiya, Zuwara, Ajdabiya - no bloodbaths when retaken and those were the ones that were actually retaken by the government.

Misrata was never completely recaptured by the regime. One might not have expected a bloodbath in any of the recaptured cities, but innocent/peaceful people getting sucked in by a crackdown on regime opponents is highly likely.

And of course, taking up arms against a dictator is, regardless, normally considered heroic and not something to get executed (http://www.bbc.com/news/10214416) for.


Air support and crippling the regime certainly did.

That's another topic.


Because they lack that sovereignty. It is only because of Saudi Arabia and USA's aligned interests in the region that makes the funding of Islamists a common foreign policy initiative.

Not buying it.


Entrusting these militias to pull the country back together after bombing the hell out of it and kicking the regime that held it together for decades aside is the stupidity here. NATO shouldn't have done anything.

The militias weren't really entrusted with anything. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan didn't turn out all that great, so there was some hope and/or expectation that not using ground forces would yield a better result. Thus far, the results do not look particularly promising; although a more complete understanding of the consequences of the intervention is probably still many decades away.

The chaos Libya has seen thus far might make politicians weary of trying similar interventions in the future, but then they'd have to deal with negative consequences of not intervening, like a steady flow of people applying for political asylum (in the weirdest of ways (http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-09/news/mn-2355_1_mig-jet-fighter)), so-called human rights abuses (https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/09/21/italy/libya-migrants-describe-forced-returns-abuse), and whatever else is on the dictator's CV.



This:

Is enough to see through how the coverage of the war as it unfolded is propoganda. Same goes for Syria.

Huh?


Funnily enough, your probability evidence was proven completely false.

No, the animal bones were not the evidence (it was mentioned in the article that bones there didn't look human); but long-standing claims of a massacre at Abu Salim (claims backed up by several individuals who were in the prison at the time). I initially considered linking to Wikipedia, but thought it better to use an actual news source.

Even if you presume that no massacre did occur at Abu Salim, you have the people searching for relatives that went missing during the Gaddafi regime - two of them interviewed in that very article. This contradicts the "no evidence" line, which was all I indented to.

[AE Bravo]

If you can choose between having 100 people killed and those 100 people + 900 other people (=1000 in total) killed, the first scenario is trivially preferable. If you can choose between 100 people killed and 1000 people different from the first group of 100, it's not trivial any more. That's why I asked the question that you dodged. Chances are great that many Libyans who currently are alive would have been killed by the Gaddafi regime if it had not lost.
What do you have to go by? There is little to no reason to believe that more people would have died. Why are the chances GREAT??? I dodged because this is not an argument, I have no interest in these philosophical responses. Give me numbers and the details of the conflicts, the state of Libyans during and post-intervention that show me you actually care about Libya and not your responsibility to protect fantasy.

Adequate or not, this is not enough to justify a humanitarian intervention like the one NATO conducted. If you are not entirely committed and are driven by the sole motive of removing a renegade head of state, you are not presenting a model humanitarian intervention or a good precedent for anything. It set a bad precedent and reveals how they are not to be trusted, because they evidently don’t place a country and its population's interest in high regard.

And of course, taking up arms against a dictator is, regardless, normally considered heroic and not something to getexecuted for.
The persecutions, executions, and banishment of black Libyans today is far worse than what the regime had ever done in its history.

Not buying it.
USA, Turkey, and some Gulf countries have an agreement in that propping up Islamists as opposition to regimes they don’t want in power is the way to go now.

Thus far, the results do not look particularly promising; although a more complete understanding of the consequences of the intervention is probably still many decades away.
The operation itself was hardly promising. It was a bloodbath and brought suffering on a wider scale than Qaddafi’s crackdown. It’s easy to see “promising” from your tv set or the quick google search hoping for a new democratic country to emerge.

[Papewaio]

No, it's even worse - I was making an abstruse philosophical point out of radical scepticism.

Carry on.

That is a posh way to sum up the schlong measuring contests of the Backroom...

[Viking]

What do you have to go by? There is little to no reason to believe that more people would have died. Why are the chances GREAT??? I dodged because this is not an argument, I have no interest in these philosophical responses. Give me numbers and the details of the conflicts, the state of Libyans during and post-intervention that show me you actually care about Libya and not your responsibility to protect fantasy.

Adequate or not, this is not enough to justify a humanitarian intervention like the one NATO conducted. If you are not entirely committed and are driven by the sole motive of removing a renegade head of state, you are not presenting a model humanitarian intervention or a good precedent for anything. It set a bad precedent and reveals how they are not to be trusted, because they evidently don’t place a country and its population's interest in high regard.

I do not call it a 'humanitarian intervention'. When I said that the chances were great, I was referring to another point.

Namely the point that whether or not there is an intervention has an effect on who dies and what for. Without an intervention, civilians opposing the regime would have a greater chance of dying (and those associating with them in whatever way) than other civilians. With the intervention, the civilians most likely to die are supporters of a brutal dictatorship (plus local factors).

In sum: different people die with and without an intervention. So when you oppose the intervention, you OK that these people who would otherwise not have been killed end up dead.

And how many did die (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/08/libyan-revolution-casualties-lower-expected-government)? Good luck finding out.


The operation itself was hardly promising. It was a bloodbath and brought suffering on a wider scale than Qaddafi’s crackdown. It’s easy to see “promising” from your tv set or the quick google search hoping for a new democratic country to emerge.

If the fighting made a "bloodbath" after the intervention had started, it would be just as much because Gaddafi refused to give up. And why would he - I am sure his conscience was very far from clean. Good things weren't waiting for him.



It’s easy to see “promising” from your tv set or the quick google search hoping for a new democratic country to emerge.

Fiction.

But I got to ask how many Libyans you've asked about whether or not the intervention was a bad thing, and for those who say it was a bad thing: if that's the opinion they've held all the time or if it is based on hindsight.

You have repeatedly been morally indignant on behalf of Libya(ns), so I wonder how many Libyans you've actually heard the opinion of. Not nearly enough to be able to reasonably claim to speak on the behalf of a majority of Libyans, I suspect.

[AE Bravo]

Thus, in total, the Libyan government’s high-end estimate of the conflict’s death toll, as of January 2013, is 11,500.
These two estimates of 8,000 and 11,500—by the U.S. and Libyan governments, respectively—conceivably bound the actual number killed in the conflict. If so, and if the counterfactual analysis above is correct, then NATO intervention magnified the death toll in Libya by about seven to ten times. This would be consistent both with city-level data provided by the rebels, indicating that the intervention multiplied the number of deaths in Tripoli and Misurata, and with NATO’s broadening of the geographic scope of fighting within the country. It also would confirm the speculation of knowledgeable observers, such as Seumas Milne, who opined at the war’s end that “while the death toll in Libya when NATO intervened was perhaps around 1,000–2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure.”59

If the fighting made a "bloodbath" after the intervention had started, it would be just as much because Gaddafi refused to give up. And why would he - I am sure his conscience was very far from clean. Good things weren't waiting for him.
No, no not just as much.

But I got to ask how many Libyans you've asked about whether or not the intervention was a bad thing, and for those who say it was a bad thing: if that's the opinion they've held all the time or if it is based on hindsight.
Hindsight.

[Fragony]

lol, way to make yourselve popular. A petition to ban the unislamic oktoberfest in Munich. Germans just got to love that. Votes are really marginal, a few hundreds, but these few hundred really should go somewhere else. I wonder how marginal these votes really are, as only naturalised refugees can vote, there are thousands more in Munich. Demands already they just arrived.

[Montmorency]

stop reading quality media it was a prank petition on Change.org

[Myth]

The first death of a "migrant" on the EU border happned last night in Bulgaria.

A group of 50 men who claim to be from Afghanistan entered Bulgarian territory illegally, through mountanous terrain, and were about 80 or so kilometers inside Bulgaria when they were confronted by a team of 3 border policemen who were sent to investigate an alarm by the automatic perimeter system.

One of them was armed, and they allegedly tried to intimade the guardsmen. The border patrol produced a warning shot, but this happened under a bridge and the ricochet wounded the illegal migrant. He died en route to the hospital, the rest were detained and taken to a refugee camp.

On the body of the dead man was found a loaded pistol and a mobile phone with two sim cards. The men are described to be 54 in number, aged 20 to 35 and in good physical condition.

Migrants? I think not.

They entered the border illegally, and were trudging through forested mountanous terrain at 10 PM in the cover of darkness. Yet, now the EU liberals are crying over the poor, defensless migrant who died.

Newsflash: if you seek asylum and refugee status, you go through the border checkpoints. Not through the mountains, not whilst carrying weapons and not in a brigade of 50 able bodied men, not during the cover of darkness and definitely you do not try to intimidate the boreder patrol once discovered.

[Fragony]

Migrants yes, refugees no.

Hey Merkel, thanks

And gutmensch was so devestated when Wilers warned for an islamic tsunami, who's right now. Can we please gently but firmly escort gutmensch to his library and stuff his pipe so he feels comfortable by now.

[Fragony]

stop reading quality media it was a prank petition on Change.org

Could be, but looks like it isn't. I'll be the first to apoligize if you are correct

[Sir Moody]

The first death of a "migrant" on the EU border happned last night in Bulgaria.

A group of 50 men who claim to be from Afghanistan entered Bulgarian territory illegally, through mountanous terrain, and were about 80 or so kilometers inside Bulgaria when they were confronted by a team of 3 border policemen who were sent to investigate an alarm by the automatic perimeter system.

One of them was armed, and they allegedly tried to intimade the guardsmen. The border patrol produced a warning shot, but this happened under a bridge and the ricochet wounded the illegal migrant. He died en route to the hospital, the rest were detained and taken to a refugee camp.

On the body of the dead man was found a loaded pistol and a mobile phone with two sim cards. The men are described to be 54 in number, aged 20 to 35 and in good physical condition.

Migrants? I think not.

They entered the border illegally, and were trudging through forested mountanous terrain at 10 PM in the cover of darkness. Yet, now the EU liberals are crying over the poor, defensless migrant who died.

Newsflash: if you seek asylum and refugee status, you go through the border checkpoints. Not through the mountains, not whilst carrying weapons and not in a brigade of 50 able bodied men, not during the cover of darkness and definitely you do not try to intimidate the boreder patrol once discovered.

None of the major news networks are reporting the man was armed only that he was shot and killed... and the official statement of the Bulgarian police reads "None of the migrants were armed, but they put up resistance." so it may be a case of Chinese whispers

[Sarmatian]

On the body of the dead man was found a loaded pistol and a mobile phone with two sim cards. The men are described to be 54 in number, aged 20 to 35 and in good physical condition.

Migrants? I think not.


Obviously, they wanted to invade Bulgaria.

Let's all take a step back and remember, Castro took control of Cuba with 81 men.

[Fragony]

Obviously, they wanted to invade Bulgaria.

Let's all take a step back and remember, Castro took control of Cuba with 81 men.

That far a stretch that they weren't there with any good intentions? We should at least consider that. We would be idiots if we don't.

Feel free to call me an idiot anyway

[Montmorency]

Let's all take a step back and remember, Castro took control of Cuba with 81 men.

To be fair, he did it by sparking popular revolt in the Sierra Maestra mountains.

I doubt there's any popular Islamist sentiment brewing amongst the natives of southeastern Bulgaria, which by the way is far less forested and elevated than the Sierra Maestra.

[Fragony]

They are not from Bulgeria they just arive there

[Myth]

Sarmatian, if you like them so much be my guest, go to Afghanistan and get culturally enriched. Those were 50 able bodied men sneaking in through the dead of night, being guided via mobile phone. They attempted to intimitade the border guards. The report I read stated that at least one handgun was confiscaeted after the fact.

They didn't try to invade Bulgaria, I don't need your snide remarks. Their goal was to go further inside Europe.

[Sarmatian]

That far a stretch that they weren't there with any good intentions? We should at least consider that. We would be idiots if we don't.

Feel free to call me an idiot anyway

I'd be more afraid of 50 Red Star fans than of them, let's put it that way.

And 3 policemen would not be nearly enough in that case, trust me.


Sarmatian, if you like them so much be my guest, go to Afghanistan and get culturally enriched. Those were 50 able bodied men sneaking in through the dead of night, being guided via mobile phone. They attempted to intimitade the border guards. The report I read stated that at least one handgun was confiscaeted after the fact.

They didn't try to invade Bulgaria, I don't need your snide remarks. Their goal was to go further inside Europe.

Why don't you go there? That's approximately where you're from, no? It took us a while to civilize you. You should now help others. Go, fly my pretties! Fly!

Kidding aside - it is about time to stop this fear mongering. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees/immigrants, however you want to call them. Odds are, there will be idiots among them.

Considering these people have crossed half a world, in cold or heat, hunger, sometimes traveling with their families, sometimes worrying about them, with limited access to health care, been treated by some worse than cattle, forced into small camps with low hygiene, it's a credit they're holding so well.

I'd be seriously pissed off in their place by now.

[Sir Moody]

Sarmatian, if you like them so much be my guest, go to Afghanistan and get culturally enriched. Those were 50 able bodied men sneaking in through the dead of night, being guided via mobile phone. They attempted to intimitade the border guards. The report I read stated that at least one handgun was confiscaeted after the fact.

They didn't try to invade Bulgaria, I don't need your snide remarks. Their goal was to go further inside Europe.

Again since everyone has ignored me - the Official police statement says the migrants were NOT armed but were resisting - there is no mention of a recovered firearm in any report I have found.

[Fragony]

Again since everyone has ignored me - the Official police statement says the migrants were NOT armed but were resisting - there is no mention of a recovered firearm in any report I have found.

maybe it's bullshit, maybe it's not. I don't know as I can't

[Myth]

We can debate the origins of Bulgarians in another thread, but I'd like to quickly dispel the myth that we are turcic hordes. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056779

"On the whole, in light of the most recent historical studies, which indicate a substantial proto-Bulgarian input to the contemporary Bulgarian people, our data suggest that a common paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible."

According to Herodotus, the Thracians were the most numerous tribe in the region. They didn't magically disappear, nor did they get assimilated by much fewer people migrating over (like slavs, celts and the vaunted proto bulgarians). Serbians, Bulgarians, Macedonians - all of these are thracians in their DNA.

As far as the red star fans: sure, like any group of young hotheads with a flag above them, they can be dangerous. But these guys here seem coordinated and on a mission. That's more dangeorus IMO even if it's just a prospect and not a proven fact.

Sir Moody, the articles vary greatly, I agree. The same agency reports it one way in Bulgarian and another way in English. I'll wait for more credible sources and translate if necessary.

[Sarmatian]

We can debate the origins of Bulgarians in another thread, but I'd like to quickly dispel the myth that we are turcic hordes.

Funny, 'cause that's exactly what a member of a Turkic horde would say.

Anyway, even if it is just a prospect and not a proven fact, it is too dangerous. We'll have a talk with Greeks and Romanians and decide what we're gonna do with you.


As far as the red star fans: sure, like any group of young hotheads with a flag above them, they can be dangerous. But these guys here seem coordinated and on a mission. That's more dangeorus IMO even if it's just a prospect and not a proven fact.

Sir Moody, the articles vary greatly, I agree. The same agency reports it one way in Bulgarian and another way in English. I'll wait for more credible sources and translate if necessary.

50 coordinated men on a mission aren't stopped by a 3 border policemen.

Quarter of a million of those people passed through Serbia in the recent months and there hasn't been a single negative report so far. Calm your horses and put your arrows back in the quiver, my nomadic friend, these people are not a threat to your wimminfolk.

[wooly_mammoth]

We'll have a talk with Greeks and Romanians and decide what we're gonna do with you.


It it common knowledge in Romania that all Bulgarians are treacherous cucumber farmers.

[Viking]

No, no not just as much.

There is a fundamental disagreement here on how to do the moral calculus (or, rather, on whether there exists more than one "valid" way to do it).

[Greyblades]

Quarter of a million of those people passed through Serbia in the recent months and there hasn't been a single negative report so far. Calm your horses and put your arrows back in the quiver, my nomadic friend, these people are not a threat to your wimminfolk.

...I find it hard to believe that out of a quarter of a million people none of them caused trouble. If you haven't noticed humans aren't generally that well behaved.

[Husar]

...I find it hard to believe that out of a quarter of a million people none of them caused trouble. If you haven't noticed humans aren't generally that well behaved.

Yes, the Bulgarians brought a lot of crime to Germany for example. We should have never let these countries in the east join the EU because they're all filthy barbarians who have no business being in an exclusive club with us rich western high elves, they just want to leech our money.

Oh wait, they're not the poorest anymore, of course I mean to say the Syrians should not be allowed to leech off our rich, cool Bulgarian, Romanian and Polish half-elf brothers. These people have no business in our cool euro-elite club and they only bring crime and problems and I fully support our Bulgarian half-elf brotherfriends in stopping them from leeching off their/our country.

Whew, almost misdirected my xenophobia at the newly rich who are cool now. :sweatdrop:

[Greyblades]

Er... Iwas referring to the statistical improbability that out of 250000 people not one committed a crime, regardless of ethnicity.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Husar]

Er... Iwas referring to the statistical improbability that out of 250000 people not one committed a crime, regardless of ethnicity.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

It was a ruse, I quoted you and then indirectly and sarcastically replied to someone else based on your assumption that no group of people is above bad behavior.
If no one ever notices I may get away with it. :sweatdrop:

[Sarmatian]

Er... Iwas referring to the statistical improbability that out of 250000 people not one committed a crime, regardless of ethnicity.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

They most certainly have, but nothing out of ordinary.

They weren't caged, they were given help, they were allowed to move freely. Kindergarten teachers brought kids out to refugee camps to play together. Doctors came to provide medical help. There were no confrontations with locals or the police, no women were raped, no rise in criminal activity.

In fact, it appears all you need to do is treat them like humans.

[Brenus]

“Again since everyone has ignored me - the Official police statement says the migrants were NOT armed but were resisting - there is no mention of a recovered firearm in any report I have found.” Hint: Don’t let reality spoiled a good story.

“Oh wait, they're not the poorest anymore, of course I mean to say the Syrians should not be allowed to leech off our rich, cool Bulgarian, Romanian and Polish half-elf brothers” Yeah, good old story: In France we said, don’t let these Arabs taking the jobs of our Portuguese…

“There were no confrontations with locals or the police, no women were raped, no rise in criminal activity.” C’mom, now, they were in SERBIA!!!! Remember, the worst of the Balkan countries, the butcher(s) of the Balkan…
https://youtu.be/a883c47yy5E
Even I will (was) frightened to death by Yugo 45.

“I'd be more afraid of 50 Red Star fans than of them, let's put it that way.:”
https://youtu.be/Gcf1-ejsKC4?list=PLXbS3XmpXou0n7ZtwP0A1rNYc8npy7pOc

[Fragony]

Job oppertunities for German males! Cleaner-companies are no more willing to allow females to go to these eye-surgeons, IT-experts and rocket-scientists, as they tend to get harrased and raped. Good job Merkel.

[Myth]

Funny, 'cause that's exactly what a member of a Turkic horde would say.

Anyway, even if it is just a prospect and not a proven fact, it is too dangerous. We'll have a talk with Greeks and Romanians and decide what we're gonna do with you.

Better team up or you'd get your butts handed to you... again :laugh4:

[Greyblades]

They most certainly have, but nothing out of ordinary.

They weren't caged, they were given help, they were allowed to move freely. Kindergarten teachers brought kids out to refugee camps to play together. Doctors came to provide medical help. There were no confrontations with locals or the police, no women were raped, no rise in criminal activity.

In fact, it appears all you need to do is treat them like humans.

Yeah, no.

Spare me your wishy washy "treat them like humans and it'll all be ok" crap. If you have a quarter million people moving through a country and not one is recorded acting criminally either your record keepers are lying, they're incompetent or your law enforcment is not doing thier jobs.

Not even South Korea has that good a crime rate!

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, no.

Spare me your wishy washy "treat them like humans and it'll all be ok" crap. If you have a quarter million people moving through a country and not one is recorded acting criminally either your record keepers are lying, they're incompetent or your law enforcment is not doing thier jobs.

South Korea doesnt have that good a crime rate!

You seem to take things too literally.

I'm sure there have been crimes committed, but those were on a small scale, like someone stealing in a supermarket, which happen all the time and newspapers don't bother about it.

There haven't been serious crimes - no rapes, no confrontations, no mass fights, no conflicts with the police, massive increase in crime and so on.

[Fragony]

Just another, just another thousands https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5SszlCvCDM good luckwith that Germany schaffing that. Merkel is the most disasterous German politician since Hitler, difference is the trains drove the other way of course, now they drive to Germany, and the jews will leave voluntarily.

[Sarmatian]

Indeed. There has never been a more pressing danger to Europe than refugees walking.

Youtube commentaries look like commentaries on stormfront when there's a gay pride parade.


Islam is a cancer. Spread the truth and learn what you can do to stop the invasion!

Where are the fucking drones when you need'em?

What are you waiting for, pilot? Pull the trigger!

Lookes like an invasion this are no refugees but terrorists

looks like a huge swarm of rats. I wonder how much trash and bodily waste they left on the side of the road after their swarm went through that town

The wonderful European values of racism, bigotry, nationalism, parochialism, fear, ignorance and total absence of empathy.

[rvg]

Thank God for the Atlantic ocean.

[Husar]

Thank God for the Atlantic ocean.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

:mad:

[HopAlongBunny]

https://youtu.be/umqvYhb3wf4

[classical_hero]

Calm your horses and put your arrows back in the quiver, my nomadic friend, these people are not a threat to your wimminfolk.

Really? Considering Sweden is the rape capital of the West, it is hardly any wonder that rape statistics will start to rise in places where these "migrants" will go.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/06/europes-rape-epidemic-western-women-will-be-sacrificed-at-the-alter-of-mass-migration/
(http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/06/europes-rape-epidemic-western-women-will-be-sacrificed-at-the-alter-of-mass-migration/)
Rape and sexual assault (as well as forced prostitution) is rampant within the refugee camps in Germany, and it has spilled out to the nearby towns. Rape in Germany has already been described as an “epidemic (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6527/migrants-rape-germany)” and one that the German authorities, and media, are keeping rather quiet about. The reality is that German authorities, who know that many of these asylum seekers are rapists, will allow those men to live freely among German women – they have decided to allow German women to be raped, just like authorities all across Europe.
Women of Europe must understand what is happening here. This is not Page Three, or a Carry On film sexist joke (for the record, I wouldn’t be without my Carry On collection); this is a truly brutal hatred of women that demands we are slaves and absolutely believes it has the right to rape women who don’t submit. The men think of women this way because that is where they come from, that is what they know.
Reports reveal that the bulk of “asylum seekers” now piling in to Europe are from countries including Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and other places where women are treated appallingly as a matter of course. It’s not the “extreme fringe” or a “tiny minority”; it is the norm, the mainstream, and the law of the land.
It’s true, women are abused everywhere, but in most countries it’s against the law. In Islamic states, it is the law.
European women should be very afraid of what's waiting for them.

[CrossLOPER]

breitbart
Can you post sources that have more trustworthiness than foodbabe?

[classical_hero]

I see you have no argument about what is being said.

[Greyblades]

Plus Brietbart's been getting better over the years ever since the owner died.

[CrossLOPER]

I see you have no argument about what is being said.
Let me clarify: I investigated the sources of the link you gave, and the contributors came up as a bunch of nutcakes. One of them has a running "Jihad Watch" or something.

Post less inflammatory (read: better) resources.

I am not putting in more effort than you into an argument that you chose to introduce.

[Sarmatian]

I see you have no argument about what is being said.

Everywhere refugees go there are ponies and rainbows.

Source: ijustpulleditoutofmyass.com

[Crandar]

http://www.lucify.com/the-flow-towards-europe/

It's Putler's fault.

[Papewaio]

If you are living outside of Africa you or your ancestors are immigrant stock.

[Montmorency]

Anyone living anywhere is "of immigrant stock"...

[Papewaio]

Anyone living anywhere is "of immigrant stock"...

Unless you live where humans started and all your ancestors did likewise... So yes highly unlikely.

[Fragony]

What does that have to with practical problems. Austria also now gives the finger to relinut Mutti Theresa and closes it's borders. Good idea. This flood must be stopped.

[AE Bravo]

So following this thing for a while it's basically a classic case of culture-phobia on EU's end. Besides that I can only see the benefits, and I envy you all.

[Papewaio]

The current refugee crisis is revealing several things in the strain that it is putting on Europe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

It is interesting to note that the convention was originally made for the benefit of European refugees. Now that the flux has reversed Europe wants to block it. How wonderfully selfish when you only want the benefits one way.

[Fragony]

economic migrants and wellfare-tourists aren't refugees

[Husar]

economic migrants and wellfare-tourists aren't refugees

Prejudices aren't facts.

[Fragony]

Prejudices aren't facts.


facts are facts, and it's a fact that only a few are refugees

[Greyblades]

Eh, technically the Iraqi, libyan and Syrian movers could be legally counted as refugees as they are fleeing war zones, though I don't think all of of the reasons for moving will have been be self preservation.

The rest of the influx though are certainly migrants.

[Crandar]

Afghans and Erythreans are also refugees, the former because Afghanistan is still a war-zone and the latter because they flee from a regime that puts North Korea or Saudi Arabia in a positive light.

[Fragony]

Afghans and Erythreans are also refugees, the former because Afghanistan is still a war-zone and the latter because they flee from a regime that puts North Korea or Saudi Arabia in a positive light.

Always have been shit the world is shit, but this current uncontrolable horde is all Mutti Theresa's fault, so let Germany deal with her blundering, share the shit because some eastblock farmhorse has a messias-complex? Give her a DS and a copy of Pokemon so she can collect them all instead, or put her in a safe cntrolled enviroment as she already lost her mind years ago.

[Husar]

Funny how compassion is a messiah complex to the rightists who so often complain about the decay of morals and values and propose that taxes and welfare be replaced with charity. I guess all these countries received too much charity money so the people would rather go elsewhere.
The rightists are always right because "Es muss sein!".
Unable to see what is there to see because it is not hidden and cry me a river over what is not a lake because the sea is on the other side of the world where what you get is never what you see because the elephant in the room was so popular even though he never twinkled.

[Fragony]

Funny how compassion is a messiah complex to the rightists who so often complain about the decay of morals and values and propose that taxes and welfare be replaced with charity. I guess all these countries received too much charity money so the people would rather go elsewhere.
The rightists are always right because "Es muss sein!".
Unable to see what is there to see because it is not hidden and cry me a river over what is not a lake because the sea is on the other side of the world where what you get is never what you see because the elephant in the room was so popular even though he never twinkled.

Nice proza, a shame that you can't live in proza. Almost everywhere in western Germany the are saying that they just can't handle it anymore. Mutti Theresa is ruining your country, and for a very selfish reasons I might add, but she's not going to be remembered the way she wanted. It's going to get much worse when the families can come. Where is MuttiTheresa going to house all these people? It's not possible, and locals will get increasingly pissed off.

[AE Bravo]

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=751fb8c0dea3

Why are they allowed to make this much noise? It's a sensitive time as it is. Very disrespectful and not helpful to the cause.

I live in a country where migrants make up 80% of the population but they do not overstep their boundaries like this. There's a lot to be scared of honestly.

[Viking]

It is interesting to note that the convention was originally made for the benefit of European refugees. Now that the flux has reversed Europe wants to block it. How wonderfully selfish when you only want the benefits one way.

That's pure nonsense. European countries and European migrant nations were helping Europeans - the flux has in no way reversed. Most appropriately, Syria hasn't even signed that thing.

[Sarmatian]

Eh, technically the Iraqi, libyan and Syrian movers could be legally counted as refugees as they are fleeing war zones, though I don't think all of of the reasons for moving will have been be self preservation.

The rest of the influx though are certainly migrants.

Tehnically?

[CrossLOPER]

Tehnically?
They aren't white Christians, so technically that aren't human.

[Greyblades]

Funny.

Under the definition I am used to the only migrants that are counted as refugees are ones fleeing from probable death/enslavement/violence/etc. Those nations I and crandar mentioned are the nations where that applies.

I say technically because some have a more vague and/or broader definition

[Husar]

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=751fb8c0dea3

Why are they allowed to make this much noise? It's a sensitive time as it is. Very disrespectful and not helpful to the cause.

I live in a country where migrants make up 80% of the population but they do not overstep their boundaries like this. There's a lot to be scared of honestly.

They have a right to demonstrate, especially if they are citizens. I have no idea what they are demonstrating for though, if it is entirely in Arabic it's no wonder that they alienate the Germans.

[AE Bravo]

The death of culture.

Oh well, all good things....
:daisy: that.

It's about biting the hand that feeds you. Can't relate.

Also chill this is German culture it's gonna pack it up and move on, much more formidable than American culture. ~:flirt:

[Husar]

It's about biting the hand that feeds you. Can't relate.

Biting? I heard Arabic singing and saw Arabic placards, for all I know they were praising Germany.

[AE Bravo]

What a great way to assimilate to a culture that is the polar opposite of yours, parade its streets.

[Fragony]

What a great way to assimilate to a culture that is the polar opposite of yours, parade its streets.

Hussie has a good heart, I think he is terribly mistaken though.

[Greyblades]

I think that protest might be an palestinian protest march:

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-blasts-German-Palestinian-protest-for-third-intifada-426010

[Husar]

What a great way to assimilate to a culture that is the polar opposite of yours, parade its streets.


Hussie has a good heart, I think he is terribly mistaken though.

You don't even realize when I'm making fun of/mocking them?

If they want my well-meaning attention, they have to speak German...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=751fb8c0dea3

Why are they allowed to make this much noise? It's a sensitive time as it is. Very disrespectful and not helpful to the cause.

I live in a country where migrants make up 80% of the population but they do not overstep their boundaries like this. There's a lot to be scared of honestly.

Allowed?

For the same reason a German is allowed - I assume that, as in other European countries, the basic right of demonstration and protest is extended to all.


They have a right to demonstrate, especially if they are citizens. I have no idea what they are demonstrating for though, if it is entirely in Arabic it's no wonder that they alienate the Germans.

I rather think the intention is to demonstrate to raise fear.

:daisy: that.

It's about biting the hand that feeds you. Can't relate.

Also chill this is German culture it's gonna pack it up and move on, much more formidable than American culture. ~:flirt:

German culture is unlikely to do anything but refuse to acknowledge the protesters, which is essentially what Husar is doing. Of course, it may get to a point where the Germans feel generally threatened and just kill all the Muslims, but we're a ways off that yet.

As I said, I think the purpose of that demonstration is to raise fear in Germany, so that Muslims are more alienated among the Germans and are therefore easier to radicalise. Once they are radicalised they can be shipped out to IS or simply used to ferment more domestic unrest in Germany.

the end goal, of course, is the extinction of everything not Muslim.

If one accepts that non Muslims are evil then the course of action is entirely rational.


Tehnically?

Technically refugees, in the international sense, are those fleeing persecution rather than those merely fleeing conflict. Something of a grey area to be sure but in the UK we have generally housed the "opposition" to the regime, and not the mass of the oppressed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't even realize when I'm making fun of/mocking them?

If they want my well-meaning attention, they have to speak German...

I'm sure we covered the fact that nobody can read when you're being sarcastic over a year ago in the Ukraine thread.

[Papewaio]

That's pure nonsense. European countries and European migrant nations were helping Europeans - the flux has in no way reversed. Most appropriately, Syria hasn't even signed that thing.

Watch Casablanca and then come back and tell me there was no refugees leaving Europe for North Africa and beyond prior, during and after WWII.

[Viking]

Watch Casablanca and then come back and tell me there was no refugees leaving Europe for North Africa and beyond prior, during and after WWII.

A movie as a reference won't cut it.

Regardless, most of Morocco was a French protectorate until 1956. In general, you have to demonstrate who were calling the shots in these countries.

You don't need a refugee convention to accept refugees on your own territory.

[Papewaio]

I'm using a movie reference because it is an enjoyable way of getting a good reference. It also shows that it was common enough knowledge in the U.S. which way the people were traveling. Also you may want to watch it again and recognize which European country had control of Morocco as technically it wasn't France as it's government was in exile and it wouldn't make sense for them to need to run. Vichy France whilst European was an all together different beast and why the people traffickers in the movie were making a profit moving people along.

There are plenty of archival photos of ships loaded with refugees escaping Europe to go to North Africa. There is the movement of people to Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt and Lybia too.

Now if you want to play the colonial masters game. Then I will play the you broke it and you own it one. Lybia and Syria are the result of prior colonial and recent NATO actions.

[Papewaio]

Now for a more dry factual look:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Relief_and_Rehabilitation_Administration

Note the United Nations was what the Allies referred to themselves. This refugee organization did later get absorbed by the current United Nations. So the oldest UN organization is the one dealing with refugees.

The idea that: "That's pure nonsense. European countries and European migrant nations were helping Europeans - the flux has in no way reversed. Most appropriately, Syria hasn't even signed that thing.".

Compare and contrast with a list of the countries who signed the UNRRA:

The Agreement for United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration[3] founding document was signed by 44 countries in the White House in Washington, November 9, 1943. UNRRA was headed by a Director-General, and governed by a Council (composed of representatives of all state parties) with a Central Committee representing the United States, Britain, China, and the Soviet Union.[4] The other countries who signed the agreement included: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, the French Committee of National Liberation, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia.

So are all these countries European? No, not by a long shot. So my statement was not nonsense. You have somehow mistaken the EU for the UN.

Next time take the easy way out and watch a movie. :smoking:

[Husar]

I'm sure we covered the fact that nobody can read when you're being sarcastic over a year ago in the Ukraine thread.

Given that there are plenty of people outside the Backroom and even a few within who get my sarcasm right away, I know where the actual problem lies. ~;p

At the moment my biggest beef with this whole topic is that there are three scenarios:
1) Germany is full of foreign rapists
2) Germany is full of racists/nazis
3) A bit of 1 and 2

None of them sounds good to me.
Of course the truth is probably 3, but that does not make it better.
I don't think immigration is a problem in itself, the problem is that people make a huge issue out of immigration itself when from all I read the true problem lies with the laws, rules and the way it is handled by the government. That includes laws which are far too soft for some types of crime (we were too busy trying to jail people who copy a CD for the rest of their lives because Hollywood vult), laws which have even allowed inner-European criminals to operate in a cozy environment (no one cared much so far because they don't seem to turn German daughters into sex slaves and the Italians mostly shoot each other). Add to this that getting so many people at once (other countries conveniently collected them before they let them all through at once) causes actual logistics problems in a housing market where rents were already going up (that's a point for Fragony). And national measures to actually do a lot about it, such as raising new housing blocks are unthinkable and even with a lot of effort not possible within a month or two. So you end up "storing" the refugees somewhere, which causes other problems such as rape and whatnot. If some villages are half refugee population now, the distribution is also horribly implemented. 1.5 million refugees with a population of 82 million is 1.8%, so if some places have 50% or even anywhere above 10% refugee population, the distribution is badly organized.

To blame all this on the refugees is a bit silly though, our country was already a bit too much of a paradise for criminals before they arrived and not all of them are criminals after all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Given that there are plenty of people outside the Backroom and even a few within who get my sarcasm right away, I know where the actual problem lies. ~;p

Yes, I said it may well be that you're the funniest man here and we're all morons, but that doesn't change the fact that your responses are far too deadpan for text.

As you say, immigration itself is not inherently bad, but there are questions of scale, of the origin and circumstances of this particular wave of immigrants, and of their sense of entitlement.

One assumes the average German likes living in Germany, speaking German and drinking German beer. Anything that threatens that should be expected to provoke a negative reaction - anything that seriously or repeatedly threatens that might provoke a violent reaction.

If there is a problem with modern Germans it is the self-censorship for fear of being labled Nazis, rather than Germans actually being Nazis.

The rest of Europe secretly think Germans are like this:


https://youtu.be/doPR-6X9h7c

[Montmorency]

The rest of Europe secretly think Germans are like this:


https://youtu.be/doPR-6X9h7c

I'm not so sure. 20 years ago, that may have been funny; now, the laughter is distinctly nervous...

[Gilrandir]

Kindergarten teachers brought kids out to refugee camps to play together. Doctors came to provide medical help.

In this very order? If it is, then I'm not much surprised.

[Viking]

I'm using a movie reference because it is an enjoyable way of getting a good reference. It also shows that it was common enough knowledge in the U.S. which way the people were traveling. Also you may want to watch it again and recognize which European country had control of Morocco as technically it wasn't France as it's government was in exile and it wouldn't make sense for them to need to run. Vichy France whilst European was an all together different beast and why the people traffickers in the movie were making a profit moving people along.

That doesn't change anything - it was European territory. It was not a Moroccan state that welcomed the refugees.

Here's how things were, as a distantly related example, in Uganda:


Britain took on the responsibility for the homeless Poles, but is said to have treated the refugees with hostility. The Poles in Africa led a very difficult life in severely administered camps and were not allowed to mix with Africans. There were only 2,000 British nationals in Uganda at the time, compared with the 7,000 or so white refugees, according to records at the national archives.

[...]

The refugees had originally arrived in groups and they also left in groups and at different times. When World War II ended, the majority of the Polish refugees were resettled in the UK, Canada and Australia in 1948. The Refugee Office in Nairobi handled the resettlement. A few remaining refugees took up temporary employment in Uganda.

http://newafricanmagazine.com/when-europeans-were-refugees-in-african/4/

Basically, an imperial undertaking.


There are plenty of archival photos of ships loaded with refugees escaping Europe to go to North Africa.

I can find fake ones (apparently showing Albanians heading for Italy), but not real ones.


So are all these countries European? No, not by a long shot. So my statement was not nonsense. You have somehow mistaken the EU for the UN.

The next step is to look at the numbers of received refugees for the individual countries. You should find that the vast majority of refugees stayed in Europe, while significant numbers left for countries primarily made up of or ruled by descendants of European migrants or territories under European control.

In other words, no reversal of flux as far as actual states and responsible authorities are concerned.

[Fragony]

You don't even realize when I'm making fun of/mocking them?

If they want my well-meaning attention, they have to speak German...

I apreciate your sarcasm really, but I know you are deeply wrong

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not so sure. 20 years ago, that may have been funny; now, the laughter is distinctly nervous...

Inside every German is just another German. All we've seen in the last five years is that they've stopped simpering and started thinking about their own country again - something I applaud. I hope they get their army properly in order too, last I heard a lot of them were too fat to pass a basic physical.

Germany is a big country with a wealthy populace and a large industrial base - if it isn't a dominant power in world affairs then there's something funny going on.

[AE Bravo]

If they are allowed to make political protests, they will all be religiously-charged ones that bring middle eastern problems to EU. It’s going to drive policy towards mideast and within. There’s a reason you don’t see any of them in the United States.

Pretending like nothing’s wrong is unhealthy, the issues need to be tackled or you’re harboring racism. This seems all too familiar, and people are forgetting the fact that the immigrants have escaped war and countries ripped apart by sectarianism. Good luck if that's how you're going to deal with them. Stop fronting.

[Brenus]

"Technically refugees, in the international sense, are those fleeing persecution rather than those merely fleeing conflict." Nope. You try to create an artificial difference. The Refugee is some one who cross an international border to save his/her life, doesn't matter why: war, persecution, famine, natural disasters (flooding, droughts, etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

I do remember for Yugoslavia a special status had to be created Internally Displaced Person as Yugoslavia was in theory one state.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So when is eastern Europe going to finish building their anti immigrant wall? President Trump is going to be pissed if Hungary starts driving up the cost of electrified barbed wire.

[Fisherking]

Lets get real here. Neither the UN or the EU want to fix the problem.

If they did they would be doing much more to alleviate the suffering and provide aid and infrastructure for these people and worry about repatriating them once the conflict is over.

As it stands, these people are made to suffer in order to elicit your sympathies and make cultural suicide so much more palatable.

How on earth do you see traditional Islam and western culture as comparable?

Popular Islamic dogma has a sincere and abiding hatred for basic human rights and such a huge influx of migrants assure that they cannot be assimilated.

We see them ghettoised and demanding shari law implemented in their communities. We see Sweden becoming the rape capital of the world. Is that the fault of popular western culture?

While I have sympathy for the suffering of the individuals, I cannot condone the insanity of this makeshift solution of self destruction.

If the power structure was really concerned with that suffering they would be trying to stop it and not encourage a mass migration toward Europe.

What we are witnessing is the engineering of societal collapse.

[Gilrandir]

How on earth do you see traditional Islam and western culture as comparable?



Kareem Abdoul Jabbar.

[Fragony]

Kareem Abdoul Jabbar.

I got the same question, a tiny minority doesn't have has zero gravitas, islam just doesn't belong here. That's the answer.

[AE Bravo]

No, it belongs anywhere. There's just not enough progressive Muslims.

Since the US hardly has this problem and handles it well, EU just sucks at immigration and not up to the task. Biting off more than you can chew.

[Husar]

I apreciate your sarcasm really, but I know you are deeply wrong

About what? How can you say I'm deeply wrong when I was basically agreeing with you?
Or am I wrong until I demand gas chambers for immigrants according to you?

[Fragony]

About what? How can you say I'm deeply wrong when I was basically agreeing with you?
Or am I wrong until I demand gas chambers for immigrants according to you?

Can take it too far. You aren't basicly agreeing with me as you see no problem with the immense blunder Mutti Theresa made. It's going to take a while before anyone is going to take Germany serious again, nobody wants to share the burden. Been a while since countries are fortifying their borders. Since we are in Godwin territory, Germany is finally going to be judenrein, but juden are going to leave voluntary this time, they understand perfectly well what Mutti Theresa let in.

[Sarmatian]

they understand perfectly well what Mutti Theresa let in.

That has a head, torso, two legs, two arms, walks upright so definitely primates. Not enough hair to be apes so I make a motion we call that people, and the offspring of that -> children.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If they are allowed to make political protests, they will all be religiously-charged ones that bring middle eastern problems to EU. It’s going to drive policy towards mideast and within. There’s a reason you don’t see any of them in the United States.

Pretending like nothing’s wrong is unhealthy, the issues need to be tackled or you’re harboring racism. This seems all too familiar, and people are forgetting the fact that the immigrants have escaped war and countries ripped apart by sectarianism. Good luck if that's how you're going to deal with them. Stop fronting.

So...

Don't allow them to protest?

People are very vocal about the fact that they're not happy with the way immigrants behave and that they don't want the sectarian problems of the Middle-East imported but all the immigrants do is cry "racist".

So, now, many countries don't want to have these immigrants here at all.

Now, I recall that you said several pages ago that we should be taking thousands if not tens of thousands of people in per country, you implied we were obligated. So how do you propose we deal with their refusal to integrate?

We're not going to restrict their political or social freedoms any more than the native/assimilated population.

[Fragony]

That has a head, torso, two legs, two arms, walks upright so definitely primates. Not enough hair to be apes so I make a motion we call that people, and the offspring of that -> children.

Who think so kindly of jews, christians, and eachother.

[Husar]

Who think so kindly of jews, christians, and eachother.

Funny how you make such blanket statements about thousands of different people from more than a dozen different countries.
But I guess it can't be wrong because "Es muss sein." as you like to say...

[Fisherking]

So...

Don't allow them to protest?

People are very vocal about the fact that they're not happy with the way immigrants behave and that they don't want the sectarian problems of the Middle-East imported but all the immigrants do is cry "racist".

So, now, many countries don't want to have these immigrants here at all.

Now, I recall that you said several pages ago that we should be taking thousands if not tens of thousands of people in per country, you implied we were obligated. So how do you propose we deal with their refusal to integrate?

We're not going to restrict their political or social freedoms any more than the native/assimilated population.

I am interested in how they are all getting to Europe. It sure is a boom for the human trafficking trade.

Of course Soros says that his organisations are helping. I just wonder exactly how much and in what ways. All these poor people seem to have the thousands of dollars/euro/drachmas etc. to pay passage, with them coming from as far as Afghanistan.

He says borders and national sovereignty are the problem.

We all know what a big heart he has. Funny how all these ultra-rich have such big hearts and a problem with national sovereignty. I guess that is also a problem with rule of law. How very selfless they are. They all seem to be working for a global society and global government.

Weren’t these some of the very people who control the corporations who drafted and negotiated the TPP and several other trade treats said to infringe on national sovereignty?

I suppose it is only coincidental. After all, they are supporters and even the founders of such noble causes as open borders, global warming, free trade treaties, sustainable development, open cities, agenda 21, and agenda 2030. They were the architects of such fabulous democratic institutions like the EU and exert strong influence on the UN.

No, I am sure we are all just fools to question the motives of central bankers and the richest among the corporate elite. It is all humanitarianism and there could not possibly be anything in it for them.

Aren’t they all worthy causes and the global elite seem to be staking all their wealth to bring them to us. Obviously we are just looking a gift horse in the mouth.

I feel much, much, much, much better now. Knowing that all the richest me of the world, who know so very much more what is good for us, are looking out for the wellbeing of humanity and leading us to utopia. Even though they are forced to resort to dystopian methods to achieve it. All just for us. Aren’t we lucky.

[Fragony]

Funny how you make such blanket statements about thousands of different people from more than a dozen different countries.
But I guess it can't be wrong because "Es muss sein." as you like to say...

Am I wrong then? Antisemitism is rampant among people from islamic countries. I don't say es muss sein, that's just my way of mocking multicultists who can't understand the oh so obvious.

[Husar]

Come on, you blame the job creators for this?

Are you saying it's not fair that the nazis, the foreign criminal families that threaten judges, the local criminals who hold foreigners as sex slaves, the Italians who run their mafia here and the bankers who launder terrorist money "cannot be stopped" but when someone uses your grandma's internet connection to download a movie, she is threatened with 30 years in prison? We need to protect the job creators man, when someone uses poor eastern euros as sex slaves by threatening to kill their families if they talk in court, then it does not bother our national interests and there is no need to do anything. The real problem is when someone takes more from the rich than he pays back with interest, that's the kind of behavior we need to stop at all costs because it ruins our democracy.

We need to make sure that the poor (nazis) continue to fight the other poor (immigrants, salafists) before anyone gets the idea that the rich might be the ones making a profit from wage dumping. Let's blame more of our problems on the powerless poor masses!

[AE Bravo]

Now, I recall that you said several pages ago that we should be taking thousands if not tens of thousands of people in per country, you implied we were obligated. So how do you propose we deal with their refusal to integrate?

We're not going to restrict their political or social freedoms any more than the native/assimilated population.
The problem is the Islam you are importing. Every Muslim student association in Europe is funded by the Muslim Brotherhood, while every mosque is controlled by the Saudi clergy and its Shura council. Every Friday sermon and most university gatherings is rightwing Islam.

It’s baffling how people like Frag here overlook this Islamic politics game and just brush aside the whole thing when there’s no other solution besides containing this game yourself like the US has. Your people have done a fine job of colonizing and oppressing the private sphere in the past in other countries, do it on your own turf for once. Time to follow up on your humanitarian-pragmatic game.

Sometimes you need some fox news here and there to ease the process, lefty Islam gon pop up sooner or later. Oh look the UK is doing it already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank)

[Husar]

Am I wrong then? Antisemitism is rampant among people from islamic countries. I don't say es muss sein, that's just my way of mocking multicultists who can't understand the oh so obvious.

Anti-Americanism is rampant in Germany, Anti-Israelism as well to an extent, doesn't mean all the Americans left. And this is also a matter of proper integration. Of course they have to accept our values sooner or later, but when you greet them with demonstrations and by burning their homes you are not exactly advertising your "superior" culture to them either. I'm usually for a more "hard but hearty"-approach. Make people feel welcome but also don't present yourself as a "victim culture" where troublemakers are ignored or find plenty of loopholes to exploit. The latter is mostly a political problem, but our laws and procedures were already inadequate before these refugees came. Germany is also a safe haven for the Italian mafia, a trading hub for slaves and so on... The nationalists just don't seem to care much about that as they feel it does not affect them, the children of poor eastern Europeans are traded here after all, not their own...
Talk about cold and heartless.

[Fragony]

Every country has crime. Not every country takes in much more immigrants than they can handle. Where are they going to live? Where do their kids go to school? These kids don't speak German, going to be a burden for schools. Too many.

[Husar]

Every country has crime.

What a great argument, I think we can end the thread on that.

[Fragony]

What a great argument, I think we can end the thread on that.

Not we, you can, you have the means. But it wouldn't change anything. Things are going to be problematic anyway because it's simply dumb.

extraedit, go Patt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfb0PFZY5fA only being reasonable, but there is no reason in absolute faith and multiculturalism is a religion.

[Sarmatian]

Every country has crime. Not every country takes in much more immigrants than they can handle. Where are they going to live? Where do their kids go to school? These kids don't speak German, going to be a burden for schools. Too many.

And you have the numbers to prove it?

Last time when you were yammering about thousands of immigrants in Netherlands, I showed you data that disproved it and you immediately disappeared from the thread.

That's the right way to do it. Keep yourself ignorant otherwise you might have to cut down on the senseless hate.

[Gilrandir]

And you have the numbers to prove it?

Last time when you were yammering about thousands of immigrants in Netherlands, I showed you data that disproved it and you immediately disappeared from the thread.

That's the right way to do it. Keep yourself ignorant otherwise you might have to cut down on the senseless hate.

That goes back to you as well. You were "yammering" about empty West Ukrainian universities and even cities whose students and other inhabitants are all nationalists who have gone to raise hell on Maidan. When I asked for quantitative statistics you dropped the topic. Mote in thy eye, you know.

[Fragony]

And you have the numbers to prove it?

Last time when you were yammering about thousands of immigrants in Netherlands, I showed you data that disproved it and you immediately disappeared from the thread.

That's the right way to do it. Keep yourself ignorant otherwise you might have to cut down on the senseless hate.

I never play unfair, I have no idea what you are talking about but I will respond if you can find it. Senseless hate, just being reasonable. Even Sweden cries out that it are just too many, and Sweden is Sweden, it's just not possible.


You are perfectly right of course, I am going to tell my Iranian girlfriend tonight that I senselessly hate her. I never liked her anyway. It's about time I just say it.

[Gilrandir]

You are perfectly right of course, I am going to tell my Iranian girlfriend tonight that I senselessly hate her. I never liked her anyway. It's about time I just say it.

Wow, I see there's gonna be some dirty play tonight.~;) Just don't overdo it with the whip.

[Sarmatian]

That goes back to you as well. You were "yammering" about empty West Ukrainian universities and even cities whose students and other inhabitants are all nationalists who have gone to raise hell on Maidan. When I asked for quantitative statistics you dropped the topic. Mote in thy eye, you know.

The data completely refuted his clam, showing that net population gain topped at 6000-7000 in a single year during the last several years and has even been negative once or twice, ie. more people emigrated from than immigrated to Netherlands. Considering his point was that "there's no place for immigrants", it was pertinent for the discussion.

You, on the other hand, demanded numbers for a statement of mine. It was an article which said that a university in Lvov was closed during Maidan. You asked me to provide numbers which didn't exist, how many students were home, how many went to Kiev. It wasn't important because it was a significant number, otherwise university wouldn't cancel its lectures.

You didn't have a clue then and apparently, you still don't.



I never play unfair, I have no idea what you are talking about but I will respond if you can find it. Senseless hate, just being reasonable. Even Sweden cries out that it are just too many, and Sweden is Sweden, it's just not possible.


You are perfectly right of course, I am going to tell my Iranian girlfriend tonight that I senselessly hate her. I never liked her anyway. It's about time I just say it.

Is this another way of saying "I have black friends but..." ?

[Fragony]

I got black friends yeah, that one is such a cliche. You think I am a racist, that's fine. I'll tell my gf and my Somalian guest who lives in my guestroom that I dispise them, they aren't going to believe me though

You didn't jgive me what I asked for by the way, saying that I said something I didn't is called slander

[Fragony]

Islam is not a race and you're not racist if you are concerned about millions of unregistered and unknown people spilling into your country.

Ya. Turkish maffia caught on quikly, almost all pasports are fake, we have no idea who these people are. They refuse to register because Mutti Theresa promised everybody is welcome in Germany. That relinut farmhorse is a disaster.

[Husar]

Islam is not a race and you're not racist if you are concerned about millions of unregistered and unknown people spilling into your country.

Every country has crime.

[Montmorency]

Islam is not a race and you're not racist if you are concerned about millions of unregistered and unknown people spilling into your country.

In fact, it would be much easier if European governments adopted policies that answered a different question than 'how do we deal with these Mohammedans?'

By approaching integration as something that is done to or by "Muslims", you implicitly endorse the Islamist manifesto of "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer"; if we would like to remediate the insular tendencies of disoriented foreigners, then giving them nothing to latch onto but fundamentalist pan-Islamic identity and a sense of grievance. Or should we be surprised when we sweep a bunch of dust into a corner and end up with dustballs?

Even going according to a breakdown by ethnicity or national origin would be an improvement. Of course, at this point it would be too little too late given the oppositional structure and culture that has become well-established in Muslim Europe over the past 20 years.

[Sarmatian]

I got black friends yeah, that one is such a cliche. You think I am a racist, that's fine. I'll tell my gf and my Somalian guest who lives in my guestroom that I dispise them, they aren't going to believe me though

You didn't jgive me what I asked for by the way, saying that I said something I didn't is called slander

I don't have the time to go search for it now. Maybe I'll get to it in the next few days, although one would think that you, being such a staunch opponent of immigration, would keep facts and figures at you finger tips.


Islam is not a race and you're not racist if you are concerned about millions of unregistered and unknown people spilling into your country.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Racism, like so many other terms, has broadened in meaning and includes hate of any group of different people, not necessarily just those with different skin colour.

But, okay, I'll play ball - is bigotry or chauvinism more to your liking?

Registration takes time, and it will be done eventually (a huge number has already been registered when they entered Serbia, it was Greece that didn't register almost anyone so they wouldn't appear as the first country refugees entered because then the rest of EU could theoretically just dump them all back to Greece) but it would be inhumane to keep refugees outside for weeks/months while they wait for registration, in Europe in November.

At least inform yourselves about basic facts before you start hating. But, if you did that, most of the problem would be solved.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem is the Islam you are importing. Every Muslim student association in Europe is funded by the Muslim Brotherhood, while every mosque is controlled by the Saudi clergy and its Shura council. Every Friday sermon and most university gatherings is rightwing Islam.

It’s baffling how people like Frag here overlook this Islamic politics game and just brush aside the whole thing when there’s no other solution besides containing this game yourself like the US has. Your people have done a fine job of colonizing and oppressing the private sphere in the past in other countries, do it on your own turf for once. Time to follow up on your humanitarian-pragmatic game.

Sometimes you need some fox news here and there to ease the process, lefty Islam gon pop up sooner or later. Oh look the UK is doing it already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank)

We do not oppress the residents of our own country, nor do we covertly infiltrate religious groups to bend them to society's will.

Quilliam has been around for a while, as have de-radicalisation programs.

The problem is inherent in the war we are fighting - Islamists want to destroy Europe - All Islamists are Muslims, many are born in Europe - we have to keep an eye on Muslims in Europe to try to identify people who are rasicals or who are being groomed - attempting to intervene in the grooming process has been know to accelerate it and create new radicals.

Many of the Muslims in Europe are poor, poorly integrated and lack the language skills or education to get on in our society. They are in serious danger, as a group, of becoming a distinct underlcass which means they become, as a group, a problem.

Now, wealthy well educated Muslims - likely similar to yourself - have no problem integrating, even if they don't drink, but they are a minority.

The people flooding Europe's Limes are fertile ground for radicalisation once they reach Europe because they will struggle to integrate and we lack the tools to help them - and a lot of them are former fighters and just flat our nasty to boot.

[Viking]

Returning to the topic of what a refugee is, this is what the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (http://www.unhcr.org/4d93528a9.pdf) says:


CHAPTER V – SPECIAL CASES

A. War refugees

164. Persons compelled to leave their country of origin as a result of international or national armed conflicts are not normally considered refugees under the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol.

In other words, coming from a war zone alone is not enough to qualify for refugee status under these papers.

[AE Bravo]

The problem is inherent in the war we are fighting - Islamists want to destroy Europe - All Islamists are Muslims, many are born in Europe - we have to keep an eye on Muslims in Europe to try to identify people who are rasicals or who are being groomed - attempting to intervene in the grooming process has been know to accelerate it and create new radicals.

Many of the Muslims in Europe are poor, poorly integrated and lack the language skills or education to get on in our society. They are in serious danger, as a group, of becoming a distinct underlcass which means they become, as a group, a problem.
This is accommodating Islamists though. Hardliners rely on “covert infiltration” and the only way to deal with them is to respond in kind. It’s a cancer and it’s not inherent in the war you’re fighting.

If you have no interest in getting more reasonable Muslim teachings to win the hearts and minds of your Muslim population than it’s no surprise that most of them turn to a life of even more struggle (jihadism). Counter-productive to the nation and stalls growth of a distinct European Islam loyal to European countries.

What tools are lacking to help exactly?

[Husar]

In other words, coming from a war zone alone is not enough to qualify for refugee status under these papers.

Which is funny because it says: "A. War refugees"

[Fragony]

I don't have the time to go search for it now. Maybe I'll get to it in the next few days, although one would think that you, being such a staunch opponent of immigration, would keep facts and figures at you finger tips.



Yeah, yeah, yeah. Racism, like so many other terms, has broadened in meaning and includes hate of any group of different people, not necessarily just those with different skin colour.

But, okay, I'll play ball - is bigotry or chauvinism more to your liking?

Registration takes time, and it will be done eventually (a huge number has already been registered when they entered Serbia, it was Greece that didn't register almost anyone so they wouldn't appear as the first country refugees entered because then the rest of EU could theoretically just dump them all back to Greece) but it would be inhumane to keep refugees outside for weeks/months while they wait for registration, in Europe in November.

At least inform yourselves about basic facts before you start hating. But, if you did that, most of the problem would be solved.

I see. Maybe it just isn't there

[HopAlongBunny]

Canada is stepping up to the plate.
Recently elected Liberal gov't pledges to take in 25,000 refugees before the end of the year.
Rather serious questions remain about whether it is feasible in the time allotted.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-syria-refugees-settlement-groups-1.3291959

[Fragony]

That's nice of them but it isn't going to really make a difference

[Viking]

Which is funny because it says: "A. War refugees"

Which implies that in order to become a war refugee, war in itself isn't adequate. As the document goes on:


165. However, foreign invasion or occupation of all or part of a country can result – and occasionally has resulted – in persecution for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the 1951 Convention. In such cases, refugee status will depend upon whether the applicant is able to show that he has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” in the occupied territory and, in addition, upon whether or not he is able to avail himself of the protection of his government, or of a protecting power whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of his country during the armed conflict, and whether such protection can be considered to be effective.

[Gilrandir]

You, on the other hand, demanded numbers for a statement of mine. It was an article which said that a university in Lvov was closed during Maidan. You asked me to provide numbers which didn't exist, how many students were home, how many went to Kiev. It wasn't important because it was a significant number, otherwise university wouldn't cancel its lectures.

You didn't have a clue then and apparently, you still don't.



Good. Now you admit that the numbers didn't (and apparently don't) exist. Yet you claimed that 1) ALL OF THOSE went to Maidan and 2) ALL OF THOSE were extremists/nazis. So you claimed things that have no proof. Now you use the word "significant" instead of "all" or "disproportionate quantity". It shows that NOW you have a clue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is accommodating Islamists though. Hardliners rely on “covert infiltration” and the only way to deal with them is to respond in kind. It’s a cancer and it’s not inherent in the war you’re fighting.

We are a liberal state - to an extent we are required to accommodate unsavoury opinions or our entire social edifice will crumble. We have already taken steps to censor divergent opinions, which is anathema to traditional British values.


If you have no interest in getting more reasonable Muslim teachings to win the hearts and minds of your Muslim population than it’s no surprise that most of them turn to a life of even more struggle (jihadism). Counter-productive to the nation and stalls growth of a distinct European Islam loyal to European countries.

The Muslim community, ultimately, has to sort itself out - you can't have a Christian/Secular/Atheist telling people what beliefs are an aren't allowed - that is not acceptable.


What tools are lacking to help exactly?

In has been realised, over the last ten years, that the non-Muslims in the country have very little understanding of Islam. Once upon a time the "Muslim Council of Great Britain" was seen as quite Liberal by non-Muslims in Britain but it is now understood that the MCGB is, in fact, quite right wing and has elements which may have been involved in subverting our secular education system to turn state schools in Muslim areas into Sharia schools.

Overall I have to say I've never encountered a group of "Left-Wing" Muslims in the UK, even in a university context,

[Husar]

Overall I have to say I've never encountered a group of "Left-Wing" Muslims in the UK, even in a university context,

Isn't that true for pretty much all religions that come from a time when left-wing, as we know it today, hardly existed?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Isn't that true for pretty much all religions that come from a time when left-wing, as we know it today, hardly existed?

Many Christians today support equal treatment for homosexuals, inter-faith marriage, believe that non-Christians go to heaven etc. Likewise many Jews and Sikhs.

By contrast you'll see that even apparently Westernised Muslims want their own schools, won't allow their children to mix freely - want to see women segregated.

I've certainly met more liberal Muslims, but as individuals only. Back when we were talking about the Hijab etc. there was a BBC program on the subject and what you saw there was that the majority of Muslim women wear some form of face covering BUT the women coming in to talk to them about how to deal with anti-Muslim abuse generally didn't.

A lot of the covered Muslim women talked about the need to be "demure" and how they were singled out for abuse because people knew - as Muslim women - that they wouldn't fight back.

[Husar]

Many Christians today support equal treatment for homosexuals, inter-faith marriage, believe that non-Christians go to heaven etc. Likewise many Jews and Sikhs.

None of them true believers according to the book.

[HopAlongBunny]

Obviously the Pope should declare a combined Crusade/Inquisition to wipe out the heresy.

[Husar]

My assumption is merely that the level of mass-religion is somewhat anti-proportional to the economic development of a country with a time delay as decadence and consumerism tend to let people forget their religious obligations. Of course exceptions prove the rule, as usual. Christians were religious for decades after the industrial revolution and most of our Muslims have only been here for a few decades at most. The rich leaders of countries have long been said to merely use religion as a tool, why would that be if their status and possibilities had not turned them into at least less strict believers? A true believer would not want to use his religion as a tool for manipulation, no?

[AE Bravo]

Many Christians today support equal treatment for homosexuals, inter-faith marriage, believe that non-Christians go to heaven etc. Likewise many Jews and Sikhs.
Acceptance of Islamism as it becomes mainstream in Europe defeats any incentive an immigrant might have to fully integrate. Treating places of worship and schools as foreign networks that you can’t touch leads to a further drift apart from the host. There’s no interest in engaging this culture, just alienating it. So apparently no commitment to the “integration” everyone’s crying about either.

Unlike most Muslims, they gave up on most of their religion. Tolerating things that go against your beliefs is not the same as embracing them. Every Christian I’ve met is Christian in name only.

By contrast you'll see that even apparently Westernised Muslims want their own schools, won't allow their children to mix freely - want to see women segregated.
I doubt it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Acceptance of Islamism as it becomes mainstream in Europe defeats any incentive an immigrant might have to fully integrate. Treating places of worship and schools as foreign networks that you can’t touch leads to a further drift apart from the host. There’s no interest in engaging this culture, just alienating it. So apparently no commitment to the “integration” everyone’s crying about either.

we don't inter fer with Churches, Temples or Synagogues either.

It's called Freedom of Religion.

It's a really big thing here - especially in the UK after our religious wars.


Unlike most Muslims, they gave up on most of their religion. Tolerating things that go against your beliefs is not the same as embracing them. Every Christian I’ve met is Christian in name only.

You're a Muslim that drinks.

Having said that, this is all a matter of perspective. a True Christian does not harm to others, loves all mankind, serves God and gives all his possessions tot he poor. From what I've read a true Muslim spends all his time converting others to Islam, by persuasion or by threat of violence.

For a given value of "true" of course because, in fact, there are several ways to interpret each religion, every religion, and writing off all Christians are false shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is about and what is actually written in the Gospel. In fact, the Gospel says you can spend your whole life apart from God so long as, when you die, you are with God.

Anyway, this comment makes me think you don't believe in "Left Wing" Islam yourself.


I doubt it.

Look up Operation Torjan Horse - there were two separate enquiries and both concluded that Muslim parents were trying to Islamise State Schools, and that the local Council was craven in confronting them about it.

I don't know what you consider "Left Wing" Islam but I have a suspicion that it's nothing like anything "Left Wing" in Europe, and that we have little or none of it here in any case.

[Fragony]

Good. Now you admit that the numbers didn't (and apparently don't) exist. Yet you claimed that 1) ALL OF THOSE went to Maidan and 2) ALL OF THOSE were extremists/nazis. So you claimed things that have no proof. Now you use the word "significant" instead of "all" or "disproportionate quantity". It shows that NOW you have a clue.

I never demanded any numbers I have no idea what he's talking about. Never heard of Maidan I don't know what Maidan is

You are probably mistaking me with someone else Sarmatrian

edit, sorry I see it wasn't directed at me

[Sarmatian]

Good. Now you admit that the numbers didn't (and apparently don't) exist. Yet you claimed that 1) ALL OF THOSE went to Maidan and 2) ALL OF THOSE were extremists/nazis. So you claimed things that have no proof. Now you use the word "significant" instead of "all" or "disproportionate quantity". It shows that NOW you have a clue.

Go pester someone else. If you didn't understand it during my two previous attempt to explain, you either dumb or a troll.

[Fragony]

Surprise, the Merkel completily changes her point, the Sweden does as well. Yes it are many. No it's your problem.

[Pannonian]

we don't inter fer with Churches, Temples or Synagogues either.

It's called Freedom of Religion.

It's a really big thing here - especially in the UK after our religious wars.



You're a Muslim that drinks.

Having said that, this is all a matter of perspective. a True Christian does not harm to others, loves all mankind, serves God and gives all his possessions tot he poor. From what I've read a true Muslim spends all his time converting others to Islam, by persuasion or by threat of violence.

For a given value of "true" of course because, in fact, there are several ways to interpret each religion, every religion, and writing off all Christians are false shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is about and what is actually written in the Gospel. In fact, the Gospel says you can spend your whole life apart from God so long as, when you die, you are with God.

Anyway, this comment makes me think you don't believe in "Left Wing" Islam yourself.



Look up Operation Torjan Horse - there were two separate enquiries and both concluded that Muslim parents were trying to Islamise State Schools, and that the local Council was craven in confronting them about it.

I don't know what you consider "Left Wing" Islam but I have a suspicion that it's nothing like anything "Left Wing" in Europe, and that we have little or none of it here in any case.

And in any case, even "true Christians" aren't particularly welcome in the UK if they try to impose their views on others. The UK is overwhelmingly secular.

[Pannonian]

Isn't that true for pretty much all religions that come from a time when left-wing, as we know it today, hardly existed?

And yet the British left can trace itself back to Christian causes. The anti-slavery movement is the best known. But other reformist movements also have their roots in "Christian" arguments (or so they were formulated). The late Bishop of Liverpool, David Sheppard, was a fervent liberal and socialist who lent his weight to various such movements. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the CofE is the acceptance of what used to be dangerously revolutionary reformist arguments as the taken for granted mainstream.

[Gilrandir]

a True Christian does not harm to others, loves all mankind, serves God and gives all his possessions tot he poor.



OMG! Almost all Popes of the past were not true Christians then. And most of medieval Europe neither.


Go pester someone else. If you didn't understand it during my two previous attempt to explain, you either dumb or a troll.

Calling names is the last (and symptomatic) resort when you find yourself beaten with your own weapon. Way to go!

[AE Bravo]

we don't inter fer with Churches, Temples or Synagogues either.
They're not funded by organizations affiliated with enemies of the state. Preachers in churches and synagogues don't regularly practice sedition either. This is a unique case, freedom of religion is being subverted by those who run places of worship.

You're a Muslim that drinks.

Having said that, this is all a matter of perspective. a True Christian does not harm to others, loves all mankind, serves God and gives all his possessions tot he poor. From what I've read a true Muslim spends all his time converting others to Islam, by persuasion or by threat of violence.
Drinking isn't a big offense, it is not prohibited in the Qur'an. Wasn’t banned until the eleventh century. I have no interest in converting anyone and I'm pretty Islam doesn't require me to.

The things you described as true to Christianity apply to all religions. The Bible is a bit more Old Testament is what I’m saying. It's clear that most Christians don't take their religion seriously and veneration/worship is becoming less important for them. Faith in its traditional form in Christianity has been on the decline.

Anyway, this comment makes me think you don't believe in "Left Wing" Islam yourself.
Of course I do, Syria not too long ago and Egypt. By left I don't mean do everything to make the religion less relevant.

Look up Operation Torjan Horse - there were two separate enquiries and both concluded that Muslim parents were trying to Islamise State Schools, and that the local Council was craven in confronting them about it.

I don't know what you consider "Left Wing" Islam but I have a suspicion that it's nothing like anything "Left Wing" in Europe, and that we have little or none of it here in any case.
That's only one incident, hardly enough to make the bold statement that westernized Muslims want their own separate sharia schools.

I bet there are a ****load of interfaith marriages, gay Muslims, and born Muslims that relate more to EU stuff but they're just a "minority" so they don't matter, because Islamists are just louder so they must be "mainstream" as well.

[Husar]

And yet the British left can trace itself back to Christian causes. The anti-slavery movement is the best known. But other reformist movements also have their roots in "Christian" arguments (or so they were formulated). The late Bishop of Liverpool, David Sheppard, was a fervent liberal and socialist who lent his weight to various such movements. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the CofE is the acceptance of what used to be dangerously revolutionary reformist arguments as the taken for granted mainstream.

So multiculturalism, gay rights, human rights and occupying banks have been staples of the British mainstream since Jesus' times?
And the British right nowadays wants to reinstate slavery because anti-slavery is only a leftist idea in modern Britain?
I'm a bit confused about what you're saying and how it would make my statement wrong.


OMG! Almost all Popes of the past were not true Christians then. And most of medieval Europe neither.

Yes, remember what Jesus said about rich men going to heaven and then look at all the riches the pope has...
And the bible also says many will claim to follow him but really won't, no?

[CrossLOPER]

Calling names is the last (and symptomatic) resort when you find yourself beaten with your own weapon. Way to go!
There was a guy around here back in about 2007 who refused to download Adobe Reader to read official documents to understand an argument. I suspect the frustration is similar to that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OMG! Almost all Popes of the past were not true Christians then. And most of medieval Europe neither.

Not whilst they were killing, no.


They're not funded by organizations affiliated with enemies of the state. Preachers in churches and synagogues don't regularly practice sedition either. This is a unique case, freedom of religion is being subverted by those who run places of worship.

And where preachers are shown to be funded by terrorists, or are stirring up hatred or inciting violence that can be dealt with.

What you're essentially saying is that the Imans in this country signed Faustian pacts with the Muslim Brotherhood etc. and now the Mosques have been taken over by radicals and hardliners. This view is reductive, it assumes that the majority of Muslims are extremely stupid and with believe whatever in Imax says AND it ignores the simple fact that moderate Islam in the UK is largely not listend to anymore.



Drinking isn't a big offense, it is not prohibited in the Qur'an. Wasn’t banned until the eleventh century. I have no interest in converting anyone and I'm pretty Islam doesn't require me to.


The things you described as true to Christianity apply to all religions. The Bible is a bit more Old Testament is what I’m saying. It's clear that most Christians don't take their religion seriously and veneration/worship is becoming less important for them. Faith in its traditional form in Christianity has been on the decline.

It is true that the established Churches are in decline, or were, but a lot of this can be seem as a reaction against two World Wars. My parents' generation believed that everybody would become atheists but most of my friends are Christian or agnostic. However, because of the big dip in the popularity of religion among the previous generation the established Church lost it's broad base of adherents and hence its influence.

So, today, Christians in my generation come to Christianity by reading the Bible rather than going to Church - then they often go find a Church they like. This means they're often relatively ignorant of the Church Fathers and later writers, and that they come to the religion with their own viewpoint and then ajust that to a group they feel comfortable with, rather than being part of a group and then interpreting the Creed in their own way.

Or, to put it another way, orthodoxy is mostly dead here and we have a lot of heretics.

As far as all religions believing that you should do no harm to others - that's a long way from being true. The Jewish God El in his original form was vengeful and wrathful and his harsh judgement reached down through the generations. He repeatedly ordered the massacre of entire peoples. Allah sent the Prophet on a mission to, essentially, conquer the world - something which assumes that killing for God in battle if righteous. Indeed, I'm fairly certain that in some instances the Prophet ordered entire populations massacred when they refused to convert and special consideration was only given to Christians and Jews.

Those are the better religions - most other religions have death-cults and endorse human sacrifice of either loved ones or enemies. Woden takes only warriors who have killed and died in battle to Valhalla, the Allfather has no use for peacemakers or farmers he needs only warriors for the Last Battle.

Christianity is a pacifistic religion, for all that Christians have rarely been pacifists. It is also a religion for servants and slaves, for all that Christians have tried to rule the world.


Of course I do, Syria not too long ago and Egypt. By left I don't mean do everything to make the religion less relevant.

What is "Left Wing" Islam though? Equal rights for women? Disregarding of headcoverings for the same? What about homosexuals? What's the stance on corporal punishement for children? Principles of government?


That's only one incident, hardly enough to make the bold statement that westernized Muslims want their own separate sharia schools.

14 schools, in one area. I suspect it was not isolated, but that the government has been trying to quietly identify other offenders. Also, I said "apparently Westernised" Muslims, not that all Westernised Muslims want Sharia schools - but that many who appear well integrated aren't, really.


I bet there are a ****load of interfaith marriages, gay Muslims, and born Muslims that relate more to EU stuff but they're just a "minority" so they don't matter, because Islamists are just louder so they must be "mainstream" as well.

I have no idea what "EU stuff" is - unless you mean fishing quotas - but yes there are of course interfaith marriages and gay Muslims. There was a documentary about Gay Muslims recently called "Muslim Drag Queens" and it was mostly about how they're ostracised and receive death threats.

Fact is, there are widespread problems with abuse of women and homosexuals, honour killings, forced marriages and female genital mutilations. We have special police task forces for the latter. Now, do I think that the majority of Muslims do these things? No, but I do think the majority are more in sympathy with the perpetrators than with me.

[Pannonian]

So multiculturalism, gay rights, human rights and occupying banks have been staples of the British mainstream since Jesus' times?
And the British right nowadays wants to reinstate slavery because anti-slavery is only a leftist idea in modern Britain?
I'm a bit confused about what you're saying and how it would make my statement wrong.


It's easy to get confused when you set out to be confused in order to win an argument.

1. PVC said that the devout Islamists, long championed by liberals as the opposite of the conservative Christians, actually has more in common with the far right than with the left.
2. AFAICS you then argued that it's no surprise that religions that stretch back before the existence of a left should be distinctly rightist.
3. I then pointed out that the British left has its roots in the CofE, which both stretches back before the existence of a left, yet has been distinctly leftist in the past couple of hundred years (when the left did exist).

Are you still confused? Do you want me to further break down these bullet points?

[AE Bravo]

And where preachers are shown to be funded by terrorists, or are stirring up hatred or inciting violence that can be dealt with.
Really? Because I see them on TV interviews and walking freely across the UK with their hate speech. IS sympathizers too.

What you're essentially saying is that the Imans in this country signed Faustian pacts with the Muslim Brotherhood etc. and now the Mosques have been taken over by radicals and hardliners. This view is reductive, it assumes that the majority of Muslims are extremely stupid and with believe whatever in Imax says AND it ignores the simple fact that moderate Islam in the UK is largely not listend to anymore.
Nope, it's how the system works. Saudi Arabia and the MB are two competing Salafi ideologies, the mosques in Europe are part of a racket and flow of money goes to the angriest beards. I mentioned earlier that basically all your student associations are funded by the brotherhood.

It's not "Faustian." It's business, and Saudi business is booming. I think saying that this must be because all Muslims are stupid is reductive, because these are the mosques they have access to and somewhere down the line they get turned for a lack of opposing viewpoints.

As far as all religions believing that you should do no harm to others - that's a long way from being true. The Jewish God El in his original form was vengeful and wrathful and his harsh judgement reached down through the generations. He repeatedly ordered the massacre of entire peoples. Allah sent the Prophet on a mission to, essentially, conquer the world - something which assumes that killing for God in battle if righteous. Indeed, I'm fairly certain that in some instances the Prophet ordered entire populations massacred when they refused to convert and special consideration was only given to Christians and Jews.
I can't argue with Old Testament god being vengeful and wrathful. However, the prophet was not sent down to conquer the world and he did not order entire populations massacred when they refused to convert.

This means they're often relatively ignorant of the Church Fathers and later writers, and that they come to the religion with their own viewpoint and then ajust that to a group they feel comfortable with, rather than being part of a group and then interpreting the Creed in their own way.
That's perfectly okay. I'm simply pointing out that Christianity has reached a point where its adherents feel free to shape it the way they want, no matter how radical the change is.

What is "Left Wing" Islam though? Equal rights for women? Disregarding of headcoverings for the same? What about homosexuals? What's the stance on corporal punishement for children? Principles of government?
All of those things. In order for any of that to happen or for Islamism to be fully extinguished, left leaning Islam would be to refrain from criticizing the earliest Muslims and all the prophets including Jesus and Mohammed. They were all human and had their flaws, there’s nothing wrong with saying that and I do say it to a fellow Muslim every time it’s brought up. The second step would be to accept that the stories in scripture did not actually happen the way they were written. Finally, no illusions of Sharia and a restrained society because this is not even close to how the first Muslim community lived, and wouldn’t be good either way. Islamic governance is anything that is for the people, like it was initially.

We've seen in the middle east that when all these thoughts are accepted we get secular societies that are closer to how Muslims in Medina lived than current Islamist states like Saudi and Iran.

Fact is, there are widespread problems with abuse of women and homosexuals, honour killings, forced marriages and female genital mutilations. We have special police task forces for the latter. Now, do I think that the majority of Muslims do these things? No, but I do think the majority are more in sympathy with the perpetrators than with me.
I suspect that has more to do with their xenophobia towards the west than religion, leading them to tighten grip on their women/families, which is validated by how the keepers of the two holy sites govern their country. Besides looking down on homosexuality, these are not credible Islamic practices.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Really? Because I see them on TV interviews and walking freely across the UK with their hate speech. IS sympathizers too.

As I said, we have a long-standing belief in the right to offend. Offensive opinions have to be aired to be tested and refuted.

Actual hate-speech is banned but that doesn't mean that every offensive viewpoint is, if it were we would be Iran - we tried that, didn't like it.


Nope, it's how the system works. Saudi Arabia and the MB are two competing Salafi ideologies, the mosques in Europe are part of a racket and flow of money goes to the angriest beards. I mentioned earlier that basically all your student associations are funded by the brotherhood.

It's not "Faustian." It's business, and Saudi business is booming. I think saying that this must be because all Muslims are stupid is reductive, because these are the mosques they have access to and somewhere down the line they get turned for a lack of opposing viewpoints.

This is where, at some point, greed and a pact with the Devil must have come in. Other religious congregations survive via donations from their congregations - I think there are a few Evangelical Churches that may recieve money from the US but that is uncommon and a large number of British Christians consider American Mega-Churches to be at best distasteful - so it's not an association most would cultivate. Now, I know that Muslims are supposed to tithe 10% of their wealth every year and it occurs to me that they should be able to give some of this to their Mosque to keep the Mosque going.

So - why the Saudi's and the MB? The most likely answer, it seems to me is a combination of already sharing those ideologies and wanting to have bigger and more magnificent Mosques.


I can't argue with Old Testament god being vengeful and wrathful. However, the prophet was not sent down to conquer the world and he did not order entire populations massacred when they refused to convert.

It seems to me that the Muslims under the Prophet expanded by war and did battle, and they killed all the men of the Banu Qurayza, who were Jews, for poorly understood reasons.


That's perfectly okay. I'm simply pointing out that Christianity has reached a point where its adherents feel free to shape it the way they want, no matter how radical the change is.

This is not new though, what is new is that we no longer torture or kill people for it.


All of those things. In order for any of that to happen or for Islamism to be fully extinguished, left leaning Islam would be to refrain from criticizing the earliest Muslims and all the prophets including Jesus and Mohammed. They were all human and had their flaws, there’s nothing wrong with saying that and I do say it to a fellow Muslim every time it’s brought up. The second step would be to accept that the stories in scripture did not actually happen the way they were written. Finally, no illusions of Sharia and a restrained society because this is not even close to how the first Muslim community lived, and wouldn’t be good either way. Islamic governance is anything that is for the people, like it was initially.

Hasn't the Koran always been a scared and inviolable text dictated to Muhammed by God, though? More to the point wasn't it all compiled by a single generation within the Prophet's lifetime?

That's much harder to argue against that Christian or Jewish scripture which has always been a poorly defined collection of individual books from different time periods and in different languages.


I suspect that has more to do with their xenophobia towards the west than religion, leading them to tighten grip on their women/families, which is validated by how the keepers of the two holy sites govern their country. Besides looking down on homosexuality, these are not credible Islamic practices.

You are probably right but theses are (almost) exclusively Muslim problems. I would identify 9/11 as the crucial event, prior to that there was no real interest in Islam in Europe. I learned about Yusaf Islam's conversion and the Five Pillars in school and a little about Muslim history but nothing about contemporary Muslim theology beyond the idea that they believed in the same God as Christians and Jews. In the late 90's up to 9/11 the educational practice was to emphasise the similarities from a Christian/secular perspective and to ignore differences.

Oh - I remember we did something on the Hijab, as well.

Anyway, I didn't come into contact with Islamic thought, really, until I got to university.

[AE Bravo]

Actual hate-speech is banned but that doesn't mean that every offensive viewpoint is, if it were we would be Iran - we tried that, didn't like it.
I'm not entirely sure that hate speech is banned. It seems like a haven for Islamists to present their politicized fundamentalist teachings. They're basically using freedom of speech to preach the opposite.

So - why the Saudi's and the MB? The most likely answer, it seems to me is a combination of already sharing those ideologies and wanting to have bigger and more magnificent Mosques.
MB is an organization that is filled with contradictions and ambiguities, operation Trojan Horse is a summary of their entire ideology. However "moderate" they may be, they still seek to draw a line between Muslims and the hosts that were kind enough to welcome them as citizens. Simply put, MB will present their ideology whatever way a potential beneficiary might like. Why wouldn't you take the money anyway? Pledging your loyalty to a political party is a small price to pay, especially in a country that gives little incentive for you not to.

MB is stealing citizens, while Wahhabis raise generations of terrorists. It's more adopting those ideologies than sharing them.

It seems to me that the Muslims under the Prophet expanded by war and did battle, and they killed all the men of the Banu Qurayza, who were Jews, for poorly understood reasons.
I would criticize the decision to exile the main Jewish tribes for breaking the constitution of Medina, but this no. Banu Qurayza collaborated with the enemies of their Muslim allies in the middle of an ongoing war, so they had it coming. They were intimidated by Mecca and saw Islam as a threat to Judaism, unlike other Jewish tribes.

It was in the middle of a war that Muslims didn't start, nuff said. The prophet was never the aggressor in his lifetime, always a realist defending his people. Also, Medina was a multireligious city and the tribe violated this creed and sought to oppress a popular movement.

This is not new though, what is new is that we no longer torture or kill people for it.
That doesn't change the fact that Christians have discarded the things that made their religion unique to begin with. I remember reading about Jesus destroying decorations at a Jewish temple for its vanity and corruption, yet this sort of thing flourished under the Catholic church. The difference is that as Christianity becomes more progressive, it becomes less true to its original commandments while as Islam becomes more progressive it reverts back to its pre-Caliphate pacifist tenets. Isn't there a verse on killing your neighbor if you see him working on Sundays...? I think there's more Old Testament to be found in The Bible than there is in Qur'an. It makes it impossible to take literally and that's why it's taken less seriously by its followers.

How does a Christian embody spirit of Jesus? Do most Christians try to live by his lifestyle? Or have they brushed aside what made the religion unique for the most part?

Hasn't the Koran always been a scared and inviolable text dictated to Muhammed by God, though? More to the point wasn't it all compiled by a single generation within the Prophet's lifetime?
I don't see how my statement challenges that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not entirely sure that hate speech is banned. It seems like a haven for Islamists to present their politicized fundamentalist teachings. They're basically using freedom of speech to preach the opposite.

Hate speach is banned, but due process of law makes that sort of thing difficult to enforce. Due process of law is, here, much more important than banning a specific preacher.


MB is an organization that is filled with contradictions and ambiguities, operation Trojan Horse is a summary of their entire ideology. However "moderate" they may be, they still seek to draw a line between Muslims and the hosts that were kind enough to welcome them as citizens. Simply put, MB will present their ideology whatever way a potential beneficiary might like. Why wouldn't you take the money anyway? Pledging your loyalty to a political party is a small price to pay, especially in a country that gives little incentive for you not to.

For me this sums up the difference between Muslim thinking and British thinking - here no Church would be allowed to take money from a political party to breach their particular version of Christianity. That's true even of the Church of England which has Bishops sat in the Legislature and recieves some government money - said Bishops are almost always a hindrance to the Government of the Day that has a hand in not only funding but also appointing them.


MB is stealing citizens, while Wahhabis raise generations of terrorists. It's more adopting those ideologies than sharing them.

I don't disagree with this. I would argue that the Saudi government likes to export these people from the ME so that there are fewer of them at home.


I would criticize the decision to exile the main Jewish tribes for breaking the constitution of Medina, but this no. Banu Qurayza collaborated with the enemies of their Muslim allies in the middle of an ongoing war, so they had it coming. They were intimidated by Mecca and saw Islam as a threat to Judaism, unlike other Jewish tribes.

It was in the middle of a war that Muslims didn't start, nuff said. The prophet was never the aggressor in his lifetime, always a realist defending his people. Also, Medina was a multireligious city and the tribe violated this creed and sought to oppress a popular movement.

It was still genocide, kill all the men, take all the women and children as slaves. The women presumably became wives and the children were either left as slaves or would have had to convert to Islam for any chance of freedom.

It's not excusable - there are other ways to deal with enemies, genocide is always carried out as a vindictive punishment and a warning to others.


That doesn't change the fact that Christians have discarded the things that made their religion unique to begin with. I remember reading about Jesus destroying decorations at a Jewish temple for its vanity and corruption, yet this sort of thing flourished under the Catholic church.

Firstly, the version you heard was wrong. Jesus went into THE Temple, his Father's House, with a whip and overturned the market stools and the tables of the money changers. What was happening was that people were buying goats and chickens to sacrifice in the temple rather than bringing their own and they were changing their Roman money in Shekels to donate to the Temple. So the sacrifices were not valid because they had no meaning to the individual and the money lender were taking a cut when changing the money and so profiting from others' supposed piety.

At a more basic level it's exactly like you walking into your father's house and finding a bunch of shysters holding a market, you'd kick them out.

This has nothing to do with the decoration of the Temple and indeed Jesus never said anything, so far as I can recall, about the extravagant decorations of the Second Temple - there's nothing in the Gospel to suggest he didn't approve.

As to the Roman Catholic Church, I can tell you with some authority that for as long as there has been corruption in the Church the Church has made efforts to stamp it out, the practice of selling benifices (Church posts) and of pluralism (holding multiple benifices) was a problem throughout the Middle Ages, there were bad Popes who encouraged it and Good Popes who tried to ban it put this never had anything to do with the decoration of churches.


The difference is that as Christianity becomes more progressive, it becomes less true to its original commandments while as Islam becomes more progressive it reverts back to its pre-Caliphate pacifist tenets. Isn't there a verse on killing your neighbor if you see him working on Sundays...? I think there's more Old Testament to be found in The Bible than there is in Qur'an.

First off, early Islam is not Pacifistic - the Prophet made war. As to killing someone on a Sunday, that certainly isn't in the Gospels or Acts for two reasons. Firstly, the Sabbath in the Gospels is a Saturday as in Islam and Judaism and this remains technically true for Christians - but Christians worship on a Sunday because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead. Secondly, Jesus says quite a lot about working on the Sabbath (Saturday) and what he says is that it's fine. He gives the example of lamb that has fallen into a water troth as I recall, and makes the point that you have to pull it our or let it die.

I just looked this up though - apparently there's a few things in Exodus 35, but the Law does not apply to Christians because Jesus fulfilled the Law and thereby negated it.

Christians believe in the veracity of Exodus and teach from it but are not bound by it because it was not written by Christian Disciples or Evangelists.


How does a Christian embody Jesus? Do most Christians try to live by his lifestyle? Or have they brushed aside what made the religion unique for the most part?

Excellent question.

The answer to "how does a Christian embody Jesus" or, more properly, follow Jesus is usually "badly" but Jesus said that's OK so long as we love God and each other.


I don't see how my statement challenges that.

Well, if it's a sacred and inviolable text then presumably it all happened as described. Which means the Prophet married a 9-year-old girl (yes I know he didn't sleep with her on the first night) and had the heads of every man in a Jewish tribe cut off an enslaved all their women and children.

I'm sorry but this guy can't be repackaged as a Pacifist or a liberal thinker - he was a warlord and a diplomat, and a very successful one, but he wasn't Jesus or the Buddha or even Ghandi.

[Husar]

It's easy to get confused when you set out to be confused in order to win an argument.

1. PVC said that the devout Islamists, long championed by liberals as the opposite of the conservative Christians, actually has more in common with the far right than with the left.
2. AFAICS you then argued that it's no surprise that religions that stretch back before the existence of a left should be distinctly rightist.
3. I then pointed out that the British left has its roots in the CofE, which both stretches back before the existence of a left, yet has been distinctly leftist in the past couple of hundred years (when the left did exist).

Are you still confused? Do you want me to further break down these bullet points?

No, thank you, I really did not understand what exactly you were saying, maybe I was just too tired.

As for the church of England, it is protestant, no? Didn't Protestantism come up around the same time as many of these (other) leftist ideas?
Although technically Protestantism was the attempt to get all these wrong rightist ideas out of Jesus' church which had been added later.

As for the early church fathers being some sort of standard as PVC says, remember that even the early churches were often criticized and corrected by Paul because they strayed from the right path, introduced their own ideas and had too much infighting etc. The catholic church apparently introduced a lot of things relatively early that were later criticized by the reformers as not being compatible with the teachings of Jesus. So I would actually say that the teachings of Jesus were rather leftist (not entirely, gay rights can hardly be found), but the way the catholic church and the majority of Christians implemented them for centuries was rather rightist. The old testament is also far more on the right with harsh punishments, strict rules etc. I would assume the CoE went with the protestant, more leftist views relatively early, but even today not all protestants are entirely leftist, a lot of movements seem to have stopped before gay rights and so on because this is really hard to justify when the bible says men laying with men is an abomination unto god.

[Pannonian]

No, thank you, I really did not understand what exactly you were saying, maybe I was just too tired.

As for the church of England, it is protestant, no? Didn't Protestantism come up around the same time as many of these (other) leftist ideas?
Although technically Protestantism was the attempt to get all these wrong rightist ideas out of Jesus' church which had been added later.

As for the early church fathers being some sort of standard as PVC says, remember that even the early churches were often criticized and corrected by Paul because they strayed from the right path, introduced their own ideas and had too much infighting etc. The catholic church apparently introduced a lot of things relatively early that were later criticized by the reformers as not being compatible with the teachings of Jesus. So I would actually say that the teachings of Jesus were rather leftist (not entirely, gay rights can hardly be found), but the way the catholic church and the majority of Christians implemented them for centuries was rather rightist. The old testament is also far more on the right with harsh punishments, strict rules etc. I would assume the CoE went with the protestant, more leftist views relatively early, but even today not all protestants are entirely leftist, a lot of movements seem to have stopped before gay rights and so on because this is really hard to justify when the bible says men laying with men is an abomination unto god.

What it shows is that religion, even that which pre-dates the existence of the left, does not necessarily preclude a left wing as modern Islam seems to. I am not a Christian, and I would not tolerate anyone trying to convert me to Christianity, but I hugely respect what the CofE has done for what nowadays would be called human rights, social justice, and the rest of the leftist package. And looking at what the CofE has done, I am disgusted with Islamism, which is the polar opposite.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As for the church of England, it is protestant, no?

No, not really - though it does have a Protestant wing. One might best describe it as nationalistic.


Didn't Protestantism come up around the same time as many of these (other) leftist ideas?

Proto-Protestantism arrived in the 1360's with Wyclif in England. Protestantism isn't really Left or Right Wing as we understand it today, what it is is a reform movement. Protestantism became a seperate branch of Christianity from the Catholic church because the latter oppressed and tried to eradicate the former due to various political considerations which made the Catholic Church unwilling to reform at that time.


Although technically Protestantism was the attempt to get all these wrong rightist ideas out of Jesus' church which had been added later.

As noted, Protestantism was one of a number of reform movements, for a number of reason it ended up outside the Church triggering centuries of intermittent religious conflict such as had not been seen previously.


As for the early church fathers being some sort of standard as PVC says, remember that even the early churches were often criticized and corrected by Paul because they strayed from the right path, introduced their own ideas and had too much infighting etc

The Church fathers all post-date Paul. You are thinking of Paul's letters and his disagreement with Peter. Paul was popular once the Church Romanised because he was a Roman but he was not the main source that the Church Fathers like Origin took their cue from.

Bear in mind that there was no formal declaration on what books actually constitute the authorised Bible until the Protestants, and then the Catholics decided they needed to be able to argue about it.


The catholic church apparently introduced a lot of things relatively early that were later criticized by the reformers as not being compatible with the teachings of Jesus. So I would actually say that the teachings of Jesus were rather leftist (not entirely, gay rights can hardly be found), but the way the catholic church and the majority of Christians implemented them for centuries was rather rightist. The old testament is also far more on the right with harsh punishments, strict rules etc. I would assume the CoE went with the protestant, more leftist views relatively early, but even today not all protestants are entirely leftist, a lot of movements seem to have stopped before gay rights and so on because this is really hard to justify when the bible says men laying with men is an abomination unto god.

This is a hideous over-simplification. Basically, concepts of Left and Right do not apply as you understand them - at various points Catholic and Protestant Churches have been more or less tolerant to each other. Until the last century I would say that, hands down, the Roman Catholic Church pre-1400 was probably the most tolerant Christian Church in history. After 1400 everybody starts to dig in with their opinion, then the Reformation goes horribly wrong and the princes start lining up on either side and you get the various Wars of Religion up until the Enlightenment.

[Gilrandir]

Yes, remember what Jesus said about rich men going to heaven and then look at all the riches the pope has...


I believe (but can't wager on that) that all the riches that the Pope has are not his personal ones but rather belong to the Holy See Inc., so he kind of rents them while he is in his office. When he steps down (as Benedict XVI did) he is left with what he had had before. Same like POTUS doesn't own the White House, but uses it at his discretion while being in office.


There was a guy around here back in about 2007 who refused to download Adobe Reader to read official documents to understand an argument. I suspect the frustration is similar to that.

I don't undersatnd whose frustration you mean. But the mentioned guy's reluctance is quite understandable to me. Once I succumbed to the temptation and installed a new version of Adobe Reader - and couldn't watch any videos full screen on my computer. So I had to delete the new one and search for the older one, and that took quite a time and effort. Perhaps he had faced the same choices and opted for the one I didn't take.


Not whilst they were killing, no.

Then let's introduce a new confession - intermittent Christians. Those stop being Christians in the moment of killing and resume the faith wiping the blood off their sword.



Christianity is a pacifistic religion, for all that Christians have rarely been pacifists.


And cannibals to boot. How can you otherwise term that ceremony during which wine turns into blood (of Jesus) and bread into flesh (of Jesus) both of which the faithful are to consume?



What is "Left Wing" Islam though? What about homosexuals?


1. I heard that homosexualism was a popular practice among Muslims:
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hQuHFPKp8L0C&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=ghulam+homosexual&source=bl&ots=geQoxV9Idu&sig=dBX4llKlsdhVvUJBxbPvsBGoTY4&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwA2oVChMIheDipamDyQIVh9wsCh22fg2M#v=onepage&q=ghulam%20homosexual&f=false
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=4IrDw_6EAMoC&pg=PT95&lpg=PT95&dq=ghulam+slaves+homosexual&source=bl&ots=5HA-L6DDao&sig=DsjBeQ_lU2AsXy2DBUcvZdMf-Ng&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMIutjN5KmDyQIVQbAsCh1gygaY#v=onepage&q=ghulam%20slaves%20homosexual&f=false
2. Women are always homosexual (or bisexual), so what can we do with them in islam as well as elsewhere:
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/women-are-bisexual-or-gay-but-never-straight-study-says--WkDRFZmCOg
3. Leftist =/= champion of gay rights. In the USSR homosexualism was a crime, but no one denies that Communists belong to the Left.




The Church fathers all post-date Paul. You are thinking of Paul's letters and his disagreement with Peter. Paul was popular once the Church Romanised because he was a Roman but he was not the main source that the Church Fathers like Origin took their cue from.


When I read of Paul's adventures I had an impession that he was a rather obnoxious person - he was evicted from almost every city where he tried to preach, while such things are rarely happened/ were mentioned when others did the same.

[Husar]

I believe (but can't wager on that) that all the riches that the Pope has are not his personal ones but rather belong to the Holy See Inc., so he kind of rents them while he is in his office. When he steps down (as Benedict XVI did) he is left with what he had had before. Same like POTUS doesn't own the White House, but uses it at his discretion while being in office.

That does not change much as he uses the riches and as a cardinal or bishop he also lives a relatively rich life. It is the influence of the money and riches and the greed in accumulating them in the first place that is the problem. Things such as selling forgiveness for your sins for money. It may be a bit better nowadays, but during the middle ages, the time we were primarily talking about IIRC, it was pretty bad. The current pope seems like a relatively humble man though.

[Fragony]

Really modest I heard, his living quarters are supposedly really small with little more than a bed and some very basic furniture

[CrossLOPER]

I succumbed to the temptation and installed a new version of Adobe Reader - and couldn't watch any videos full screen on my computer. So I had to delete the new one and search for the older one, and that took quite a time and effort. Perhaps he had faced the same choices and opted for the one I didn't take.
Perhaps he had a similar unfamiliarity with technology in general, but that wasn't the point. Or maybe it was. I think this situation explains my point perfectly.

[AE Bravo]

Hate speach is banned, but due process of law makes that sort of thing difficult to enforce. Due process of law is, here, much more important than banning a specific preacher.
So because it is difficult to enforce there is no reason to bother with hate speech. Not good.

I don't disagree with this. I would argue that the Saudi government likes to export these people from the ME so that there are fewer of them at home.
Exactly. The thought of how KSA may exploit this when its intl relations standing becomes less important is terrifying. They placed themselves in a position to manipulate a huge portion of EU population.

It was still genocide, kill all the men, take all the women and children as slaves. The women presumably became wives and the children were either left as slaves or would have had to convert to Islam for any chance of freedom.

It's not excusable - there are other ways to deal with enemies, genocide is always carried out as a vindictive punishment and a warning to others.
There was hardly any other way to deal with them and they violated their own city's constitution. Many simply wanted to be slaves for a better life, they were commonly adopted in accordance to Islam as well.

I don’t see how he could’ve handled this war any other way. All Muslims would have been put to death and society would revert back to slavery and hardwired tribal hierarchy. He ensured the survival of his people after years of persecution, humiliation, torture, and demonization.

The prophet made war to ensure the survival and establishment of this message. Islam has been all about peace and they had to suffer injustice for years before they were forced into war. It was so pacifist nobles tried to constantly provoke them into violence, even shoving a spear up a female convert in front of her son, which was the prophet’s close friend. Like I said Islam has always been about the people, if the majority hadn’t been Muslim than it would’ve disappeared without a fuss.

Bani qurayza were also very stupid because they chose saad ibn muaz as their judge, a former ally who was wounded in a battle against them, instead of the prophet who might have given them reprieve. The term "genocide" didn't exist. Basically they got screwed over by their ally and it was their full responsibility.
So that being said every prophet is unique in his own right. If muhammad is david or solomon than jesus is abraham or noah. People calling muhammad a warlord or pedophile just do it to spite islam and the trouble fundamentalists cause. Doubt theyd see him the same way if it was any different.

Firstly, the version you heard was wrong.
Yeah I knew I got it wrong, vague memory of that story. Most of what I know about Jesus is from Reza's "Zealot" book, besides the Bible and Qur'an. Still can't help but feel that the former has been more perverted and institutionalized historically, and that's why it's not taken as seriously.

The answer to "how does a Christian embody Jesus" or, more properly, follow Jesus is usually "badly" but Jesus said that's OK so long as we love God and each other.
So then what’s the significance of being a Christian? Why subscribe to Christianity if that’s all it takes? If that’s all it takes than I am a Christian also if I believed in trinity.

Well, if it's a sacred and inviolable text then presumably it all happened as described. Which means the Prophet married a 9-year-old girl (yes I know he didn't sleep with her on the first night) and had the heads of every man in a Jewish tribe cut off an enslaved all their women and children.

I'm sorry but this guy can't be repackaged as a Pacifist or a liberal thinker - he was a warlord and a diplomat, and a very successful one, but he wasn't Jesus or the Buddha or even Ghandi.
Why not? It can be true without being historically accurate.

No mention in scripture of the prophet marrying a 9 year old girl or rolling heads for that matter. They weren't intimate until about ten years after. He served his people well and brought them a message that led to great success, made a better society. Gandhi was a racist.

[Brenus]

"even Ghandi." Err, read about Ghandi more than the Western legend, and you might find out few uncomfortable truths, as what he believed, what he preached, his sexuality and his "pacifism" (see war 1971 with Pakistan).
"The problem was that Gandhi was not a secular leader: The Mahatma was a devout and rather obsessive Hindu mystic, and he fashioned his Congress Party in a distinctly Hindu fashion. Its shape, tone and language ended up defying his principles, to tragic effect. “By his use of Hinduism as a political tool,” the historian Mr. French concluded in a 1997 book, “Gandhi unwittingly opened a Pandora’s box that has yet to be closed. … Gandhi alienated many Muslims, and ultimately helped to bring about the rise in fortunes of the Muslim League.”

[Husar]

http://www.nalandainternational.org/index.php/85-article-catergories/all-articles/847-putin-doshi


As for “democracy”, Putin said it best: “Am I a democrat? Of course I am. Absolutely. The problem is that I’m all alone, the only one of my kind in the whole world. Just look at what’s happening in America, it’s terrible—torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without trial or investigation. And look at Europe—harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas used in one capital after another, demonstrators killed on the streets… I have no one to talk to since Gandhi died.” I suppose he is humorously putting himself in the company of Mahatma Gandhi. If Tolstoy was the role model of Gandhi, Gandhi has become the role model of both Gorbachev and Putin. Dr. Deepak Chopra, a friend of President Gorbachev, I believe, will confirm that Gorbachev, who was responsible lifting the Iron Curtain unifying Germany, was influenced by spiritual leaders of India including Mahatma Gandhi.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

Perhaps he had a similar unfamiliarity with technology in general, but that wasn't the point. Or maybe it was. I think this situation explains my point perfectly.

Perhaps it does. But we don't know what were the motifs behind that guy's decision. Maybe for him the chance to harm his computer outweighed the possibility to win in a senseless argument with total strangers, which was likely to bring him as much as moral satisfaction.




I don’t see how he could’ve handled this war any other way. All Muslims would have been put to death and society would revert back to slavery and hardwired tribal hierarchy. He ensured the survival of his people after years of persecution, humiliation, torture, and demonization.

The prophet made war to ensure the survival and establishment of this message. Islam has been all about peace and they had to suffer injustice for years before they were forced into war. It was so pacifist nobles tried to constantly provoke them into violence, even shoving a spear up a female convert in front of her son, which was the prophet’s close friend. Like I said Islam has always been about the people, if the majority hadn’t been Muslim than it would’ve disappeared without a fuss.

Bani qurayza were also very stupid because they chose saad ibn muaz as their judge, who was their ally, instead of the prophet who might have given them reprieve. The term "genocide" didn't exist. Basically they got screwed over by their ally and it was their full responsibility.



Putin offers quite similar arguments to justify what he was and is doing to Ukraine.

[CrossLOPER]

Maybe for him the chance to harm his computer outweighed the possibility to win in a senseless argument with total strangers, which was likely to bring him as much as moral satisfaction.
How do you harm your computer with Adobe Reader?

[drone]

How do you harm your computer with Adobe Reader?

Adobe products are rife with security vulnerabilities. They added so many bells and whistles to Reader that it has become a vector for infection.

[Husar]

I only use the app version sometimes, it has hardly any bells and not a single whistle. ~D
The standard reader I don't like either, it also used to be rather slow and cumbersome.

[AE Bravo]

I admit that was quite the whitewash :laugh4:

But its important to make the distinction between the messenger and the politician. The message is the same and the best thing to ever happen to the arab people. Also not forgetting that many other prophets were sovereigns and not necessarily pacifists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So because it is difficult to enforce there is no reason to bother with hate speech. Not good.

OK, maybe you don't understand "due process", or you're being wilfully obtuse.

Hate speech is banned, but due process means that you have to do a certain amount of it before you can be prosecuted and convicted. As a result you will see a certain amount of hate-speech on Britain's streets before the perpetrator is arrested.

Even so, I see a lot more of it, from all quarters, on US TV than UK TV so I'm not sure what you're saying there.


Exactly. The thought of how KSA may exploit this when its intl relations standing becomes less important is terrifying. They placed themselves in a position to manipulate a huge portion of EU population.

Well, worst case Europe suffers an anti-Muslim pogrom. This would be terrible but is a long way from the imagined "European Caliphate" that the Far Right fears. The reason for that is that the backlash will start long before Muslims become anything like a majority. In fact, it has already started and it getting worse as Muslims become more visible through their customs and dress.

I suppose I feel very detached over it as a European and as a Christian I feel it's just very tragic.


There was hardly any other way to deal with them and they violated their own city's constitution. Many simply wanted to be slaves for a better life, they were commonly adopted in accordance to Islam as well.

There are a multitude of different ways to deal with a defeated people, although I'm not even sure this particular Jewish tribe weren't just made an example of. I have read that they simply refused to fight for or against Mohammed.

In any case - here are some options Muhammed had.

Clemency - that is the generous mercy shown by the victorious King as a sign of his power. This was an old concept that goes back at least to the Persian Kings and was frequently employed by them and by Roman Emperors.

Christian Mercy (I don't know another word for it) - the gracious mercy shown without any precondition. This one is at least as old as Alaric I and his sack of Rome when he spared all the Churches and the Christians therein. Maybe this isn't an option under Muslim Theology when dealing with Jews but it has been used historically.

Banishment - They violated the peace of the city - send them out.

Decimation - kill one in ten of the enemy, spare the rest or just sell them into slavery.

Enslave the entire populace - was done several times historically, notably by the Spartans to the Helots.

Ransom - We English like this one, so did the Danes. The idea is you pay according to the transgression.

Pretty sure I could come up with others if I thought about it harder. The point is that Muhammed elected to carry out the most Draconian punishment short of actually killing everyone.


I don’t see how he could’ve handled this war any other way. All Muslims would have been put to death and society would revert back to slavery and hardwired tribal hierarchy. He ensured the survival of his people after years of persecution, humiliation, torture, and demonization.

It's not what he did during the battle, it's what he did during the peace that followed. Once victorious he carried out a terrible vengeance. At the behest of Gabriel and hence God irrc.


The prophet made war to ensure the survival and establishment of this message. Islam has been all about peace and they had to suffer injustice for years before they were forced into war. It was so pacifist nobles tried to constantly provoke them into violence, even shoving a spear up a female convert in front of her son, which was the prophet’s close friend. Like I said Islam has always been about the people, if the majority hadn’t been Muslim than it would’ve disappeared without a fuss.

Well, they didn't disappear - did they? They fought a war to not only survive but to overpower their rivals. Now there's nothing wrong with that in the grand scheme of things until you say "Muslims are all about peace". The early Christians were repeatedly and systematically persecuted over centuries but they did not rise up and overthrow the Roman Empire, eventually they became so numerous that an Emperor converted to Christianity.

Now, admittedly once Christianity got into the upper classes it did carry our pogroms and purges against other religious groups but the early Christians from Jesus up to the late 3rd Century at least were willing to die rather than fight back. Those people were genuinely "all about peace". There are, to this day, Christian sects which are entirely pacifistic and that is very clearly the Christian ideal as preached by Jesus.

If you want to argue some philosophical superiority of Islam go ahead but you won't get anywhere arguing that Muhammed was a "man of peace" because he clearly wasn't. Men of peace do not make war.


Bani qurayza were also very stupid because they chose saad ibn muaz as their judge, a former ally who was wounded in a battle against them, instead of the prophet who might have given them reprieve. The term "genocide" didn't exist. Basically they got screwed over by their ally and it was their full responsibility.

No - the Muslims are responsible and most especially Muhammed as their leader. Surely as God's Prophet he could have chosen to be lenient in any case? The fact that he killed all the men and enslaved everyone else must mean God endorsed this course of action

This is what I'm saying though - this is the model for Muslims, a man who destroys an entire tribe and his follows say "serves them right".

Also, remember that although "genocide" the term may not have existed the concept certainly did and was surely known in Arabia from their contacts with Persians and Romans.

This is not the "Religion of Peace" unless peace means killing all your enemies until there's no one left who opposes you. To be fair, that's a valid strategy and one I probably would have endorsed for a warlord or chieftain when I was a Pagan.


So that being said every prophet is unique in his own right. If muhammad is david or solomon than jesus is abraham or noah. People calling muhammad a warlord or pedophile just do it to spite islam and the trouble fundamentalists cause. Doubt theyd see him the same way if it was any different.

Well - remember that only Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet - Jews see him as a heretic who deserved to die for offending God and Christians see him as God.

Aside from that there's a long and rich theological literature in all three religions that has tried to answer the question of whether Prophets really are distinct actors in their own right or just the hands of God on Earth. For myself I would say that while prophets have free will it would necessarily seem to be restricted. A Prophet, per definition, enacts God's will and in the Old Testament when Saul refuses to kill all the Amalekites, leaving their livestock and their King alive, Samuel tells him God has rejected him.


Yeah I knew I got it wrong, vague memory of that story. Most of what I know about Jesus is from Reza's "Zealot" book, besides the Bible and Qur'an. Still can't help but feel that the former has been more perverted and institutionalized historically, and that's why it's not taken as seriously.

I can assure you the Bible, more specifically the Gospels, are taken very seriously by Christians and fairly seriously by non-Christians.

In any case you not only got the story wrong you completely missed not only the point Jesus was trying to make but also the significance of the story within the narrative of the Gospel and what it says about Jesus' own identity.


So then what’s the significance of being a Christian? Why subscribe to Christianity if that’s all it takes? If that’s all it takes than I am a Christian also if I believed in trinity.

I might as well say that Islam is just a slightly repackaged version of Judaism - Muhammed's life even parallels Abraham's to an extent.


Why not? It can be true without being historically accurate.

Only if it's allegorical.


No mention in scripture of the prophet marrying a 9 year old girl or rolling heads for that matter. They weren't intimate until about ten years after. He served his people well and brought them a message that led to great success, made a better society. Gandhi was a racist.

Well, I'd like to think he had all their heads cut off - it's preferable to most other ways of killing people. I looked up Aisha - I apologise as I had misremembered, 9 is the usually age given for the consummation of the marriage, 6 or 7 being the age of marriage. Later sources record he married her at 9 and the marriage was consummated at age 12, which seems more likely.

Marriage at such a young age to such an old prince is usually for political reasons rather than a love match, though they were supposedly happy enough.

My point is not that Muhammed is a monster, my point is that his conduct in his life is fairly unremarkable. He leads his people, he makes war and peace, he takes slaves, he releases captives etc.

Maybe God really does want us all to be Muslims but I don't think the story of Islam is all that distinctive and Islam mostly spread, especially at first, through conquest followed by conversion which was promoted by discriminatory practices.

[Fragony]

Yeah, das habben sie gewust. Estimated costs for Mutti Theresa, 20.000.000.000. Well not for her of course. Most immigrants are not highly educated as is is furiously screamed by the downwithusbrigade. Isn't it about time to send Merkel with a selfhugjacket to a controlled enviroment with padded walls?

[Gilrandir]

How do you harm your computer with Adobe Reader?

Perhaps my phrasing was not accurate. I meant my experience when I lost the ability to watch videos full screen after updating my Adobe Reader.

[Papewaio]

Maybe one day the child of an EUer and one of this wave of immigrants will be the next Steve Jobs.

[Greyblades]

An overrated hack who steals credit for other people's ideas?

[Fragony]

Maybe one day the child of an EUer and one of this wave of immigrants will be the next Steve Jobs.

Well, perhaps not. It's a leftist lie that these are highly educated people, most can't even read. We got no use for goatherders we hardly eat goat. They only just rolled of the mountain and are WAY behind

We should have had a lot of Steve Job's by now already in the 50 years we had mass-immigration. In the Netherlands before this wave it has costed 180 billion euro, 8 billion a year. Zero benefit, people from the eastblock actually work.

[Gilrandir]

Maybe one day the child of an EUer and one of this wave of immigrants will be the next Steve Jobs.

I'm sure jobs is what they look for in Europe.

[Husar]

Well, perhaps not. It's a leftist lie that these are highly educated people, most can't even read. We got no use for goatherders we hardly eat goat. They only just rolled of the mountain and are WAY behind

Couldn't find a more stereotypical stereotype?


We should have had a lot of Steve Job's by now already in the 50 years we had mass-immigration. In the Netherlands before this wave it has costed 180 billion euro, 8 billion a year. Zero benefit, people from the eastblock actually work.

How about a link to where you got the numbers from? I could only find numbers about the UK which are flawed because the net contributions of their children born in the UK were not taken into account as immigration contribution since they were born in the UK...

And how are they supposed to make money if people like you just won't hire them regardless of qualification just because of their name or face?

[AE Bravo]

There are a multitude of different ways to deal with a defeated people, although I'm not even sure this particular Jewish tribe weren't just made an example of. I have read that they simply refused to fight for or against Mohammed.
They conspired against them. The reason this tribe in particular wasn't banished like the other Jewish tribes (Nadir and Qaynuqa') was because the trial was carried out on their terms and they failed.

No - the Muslims are responsible and most especially Muhammed as their leader. Surely as God's Prophet he could have chosen to be lenient in any case? The fact that he killed all the men and enslaved everyone else must mean God endorsed this course of action
The last part is not necessarily true. In the context of seventh century Arabia it was justice. They were given freedom over their own judgement and going back on that would have rendered the whole process and city law null. Do you blame Jews for the Jewish revolts preceding Christ btw? Judas of Galilee?

A Prophet, per definition, enacts God's will
Moses killed, Joseph broke apart his family, Saul and Solomon waged war. Makes more sense that their main purpose is showing their mistakes that people can learn from. Different methods of enacting God's will.

Only if it's allegorical.
I think it's safe to say it's allegorical. If they weren't, than the Bible takes the cake in terms of historical fiction.

My point is not that Muhammed is a monster, my point is that his conduct in his life is fairly unremarkable. He leads his people, he makes war and peace, he takes slaves, he releases captives etc.
This is what makes him interesting. Muhammad was never the "messiah" or the "prophet," he was always called the messenger of Allah and the grounded culmination of this line. The totally "clean" prophets are always the most bland, except for the messiah Jesus. His politics and personal life weren't immune to criticism. It was already established there was a clear distinction between the man - the messenger and the message itself. This was a man who managed to create a morally superior society while he was alive.

As revolutionaries they all have blood on their hands.

[Papewaio]

An overrated hack who steals credit for other people's ideas?

Do better.

Point is Steve Jobs was half Syrian. So nutured in the right environment ie surrounded by engineers as was young Steve Jobs with HP. And the next boom idea home PC, home 3D commercial grade material printer, home ???. And out of the immigrants I'm sure you will get some hard working migrants.

Where I work in IT three quarters of the engineers are first or second generation Aussies. Integration done right is a boon.

Anyhow EU broke Libya with the bombing with no Marshall-like plan in place. You break it you bought it.
Syria the EU has been supporting the rebels which has allows ISIS to grow unchecked. You break it you bought it.

This is just recent events no need to add in Iraq, or British Colonial rule or Ottoman Empire. Just focus on the events that have happened in the last five years.

If a situation warrants bombing a dictator it also warrants looking after the people fleeing the same dictator.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They conspired against them. The reason this tribe in particular wasn't banished like the other Jewish tribes (Nadir and Qaynuqa') was because the trial was carried out on their terms and they failed.

The last part is not necessarily true. In the context of seventh century Arabia it was justice. They were given freedom over their own judgement and going back on that would have rendered the whole process and city law null.

Yeah - I just don't get it - or rather I do but I don't really buy it.

Seems to me Muhammed won the battle, he could do whatever he wanted. This tribe didn't trust Muhammed - which isn't necessarily unreasonable - and so selected another man to judge between them. This judge proscribed the worst punishment short of extermination.

Muhammed could still have shown them mercy but he chose not to.


Do you blame Jews for the Jewish revolts preceding Christ btw? Judas of Galilee?

You mean the Zealots?

Well, they were around during the time of Christ, Christ even had a former Zealot as a follower, but the Jewish revolt came roughly three decades after Christ's death. If you're asking if I blame the Jews throughout the Empire then no, but I think that those who went to war against Rome are responsible for their own actions just as the Roman legionaries are responsible for destroying the Temple.

As this relates to Muslims, weren't all Muslims more or less part of Muhammed's tribe at this time? Presumably the Muslims were under his command, under arms, and they did the killing.

If you are asking if the Muslims today are responsible then, no, that would be idiotic. However, you clearly endorse the actions of those early Muslims so I have to assume you approve of the punishment.


Moses killed, Joseph broke apart his family, Saul and Solomon waged war. Makes more sense that their main purpose is showing their mistakes that people can learn from. Different methods of enacting God's will.

For my birthday Montmercy sent me an essay on Pharaoh's refusal to let the people go and free will. In the case of Moses, he kills someone, flees into the desert and then becomes a prophet and one of the most visible avatars of God's will, what he does he does at the behest and with the power of the Lord.

Scripture records that both Saul and Solomon failed God - you could interpret their waging of war as a failure because they were unable to find another solution - or perhaps the Temple scribes glossed over things - we know they glossed over early Jewish polytheism.


I think it's safe to say it's allegorical. If they weren't, than the Bible takes the cake in terms of historical fiction.

Well, then one might as well say that Muhammed never existed and it's just a story - that's a popular belief among Atheists.

The Koran is different to the Bible in a number of ways, the Koran is essentially one book, not many, one man's biography supposedly transcribed during his lifetime. There's no reason to believe the narrative is in any way allegorical.


This is what makes him interesting. Muhammad was never the "messiah" or the "prophet," he was always called the messenger of Allah and the grounded culmination of this line. The totally "clean" prophets are always the most bland, except for the messiah Jesus. His politics and personal life weren't immune to criticism. It was already established there was a clear distinction between the man - the messenger and the message itself. This was a man who managed to create a morally superior society while he was alive.

As revolutionaries they all have blood on their hands.

Actually, both the terms "Prophet" (Speaker) and "Messiah" (Anointed) describe Muhammed perfectly. He was, according to the Islamic tradition, the one appointed by God to give people the correct instruction and way of living that most please God.

Note that Jesus is far from unique in being called "Messiah" because that appellation was applied by the Jews to Prophets and Kings they believed to be chosen by God - including the Persian Cyrus the Great.

My point, in any case, is that Muhammed is presumably the model for a Muslim man (correct me if I'm wrong) and, as a Christian, I find little to recommend him compared to other men.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do better.

Point is Steve Jobs was half Syrian. So nutured in the right environment ie surrounded by engineers as was young Steve Jobs with HP. And the next boom idea home PC, home 3D commercial grade material printer, home ???. And out of the immigrants I'm sure you will get some hard working migrants.

Where I work in IT three quarters of the engineers are first or second generation Aussies. Integration done right is a boon.

Steve Job was not raised by his Syrian father, indeed he never met him - he refused to even contact him. Steve jobs got his Job at Atari fraudulently by passing Steve Wozniak's work off as his own. Later Atari gave him a job based on Woz's work. Jobs couldn't do it so he palmed it off on Woz. Atari gave Jobs a bonus for every chip cut out of the design - $100 each. The bonus was $5000, Jobs told Woz he'd pay him half but Woz got $700. Steve Wozniak only found out he'd been ripped off ten years later.

So, in other words, without Steve Jobs Steve Wozniak might have been a tech genius at Atari where his talents would be appreciated.

This rather raises the question of whether we need another Steve Jobs, ever.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11991098/Migrant-crisis-Donald-Tusk-warns-that-Schengen-is-on-brink-of-collapse-latest-news.html

So, Sweden has re-introduced border controls and now Donald Tusk fears the collapse of the Schengen area.

This is what happens when you try to fix multiple countries to a single currency and border zone without a shared government.

[Fragony]

I needed to clean my screen, immigrants complain about the food, I wonder why http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/11/haags_openlucht_azc_nu_al_groo.html

last pic, yes that yoghurt tastes bad

[Sarmatian]

And who said Steve Jobs was a great man?

He's the consumerism poster boy - created something no one really needed and no one can live without it now. He's the quintessential capitalist anglosphere champion.

[Papewaio]

You really need to work on your confirmation bias and reading comprehension.

"Point is Steve Jobs was half Syrian. So nutured in the right environment ie surrounded by engineers as was young Steve Jobs with HP. And the next boom idea home PC, home 3D commercial grade material printer, home ???. And out of the immigrants I'm sure you will get some hard working migrants."

I'm not arguing for great men nor genes. Just like the entrepreneurs lauded in generations before like auto manufacturers or oil barons they are products of new oppourtunities and environment. Yes they do make the best of the oppourtunities, but they did not create the environment that allowed them to succeed.

My argument is that the right environment is STEM not religion and the right opportunity the next boom idea will make some young people look like genius entrepreneurs the opposite is also true dump people into an extremist religious school and their next boom idea will involve a strap on vest and attacking those who don't agree with them.

TL;DR In short environment and standing on the shoulders of giants makes greatness or great tragedy. Individuals still need to decide and take responsibility for their actions but the environment is a powerful lever to be used as they are trained fit to do so.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You really need to work on your confirmation bias and reading comprehension.

"Point is Steve Jobs was half Syrian. So nutured in the right environment ie surrounded by engineers as was young Steve Jobs with HP. And the next boom idea home PC, home 3D commercial grade material printer, home ???. And out of the immigrants I'm sure you will get some hard working migrants."

I'm not arguing for great men nor genes. Just like the entrepreneurs lauded in generations before like auto manufacturers or oil barons they are products of new oppourtunities and environment. Yes they do make the best of the oppourtunities, but they did not create the environment that allowed them to succeed.

My argument is that the right environment is STEM not religion and the right opportunity the next boom idea will make some young people look like genius entrepreneurs the opposite is also true dump people into an extremist religious school and their next boom idea will involve a strap on vest and attacking those who don't agree with them.

TL;DR In short environment and standing on the shoulders of giants makes greatness or great tragedy. Individuals still need to decide and take responsibility for their actions but the environment is a powerful lever to be used as they are trained fit to do so.

Yeah, but Steve jobs didn't really invent most of the things he's credited with, other people did and he took the credit. The point is that Steve Jobs may actually have been a net-detriment by sitting on Steve Wozniak, the man who really WAS the father of the Home Computer.

[Papewaio]

So we should start importing more Poles?

Well their lady dancers are very popular...

[Papewaio]

Yeah, but Steve jobs didn't really invent most of the things he's credited with, other people did and he took the credit. The point is that Steve Jobs may actually have been a net-detriment by sitting on Steve Wozniak, the man who really WAS the father of the Home Computer.

Reading comprehension is still screwed PFH...
"the next boom idea will make some young people look like genius entrepreneurs"

Woz is the ideas man that makes some entrepreneurs look like a genius... Looks like. Again not arguing that a Chinese Emperor is the key inventor of such and such or a CEO is the driving force. It's the unsung shoulders of those below.

However reading Woz's accounts it does seem he was too introverted to spread his ideas. For every lion you need a ringmaster.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So we should start importing more Poles?

Always, men and women.

[HopAlongBunny]

The USA largely created the present conditions, thus they should accept the bulk of the refugees ~;)

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/3/noam_chomsky_to_deal_with_isis

[Sarmatian]

Advising people against alcohol and gambling???

What a hellish crime.

[Greyblades]

It's like the muslim world discovered 4chan pranks.

[Kralizec]

Some losers walk around in crossing guard jackets, and don't get convicted for it because they've not violated any laws? Just advertised their opinions in an annoying manner? This is shocking.

Not sure what you're getting at.

[Husar]

At least they didn't kill any children.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-found-guilty-free/story?id=19653300

:-)

[Fragony]

You can dismiss this as jusf being annoying, and easily kill any argument i got against it, but you can't change what I really think

[Idaho]

You can dismiss this as jusf being annoying, and easily kill any argument i got against it, but you can't change what I really think
No one can change what you think Frag, as you are totally bats**t crazy :laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Seems more like a stupid media stunt than evidence of Islamists patrolling the streets with any real authority.

[Fragony]

Not so crazy imo

[Beskar]

Strike for Trump, 2016.

[Idaho]

We are surrounded by advertising, street preaching, government information announcements. Adding another, fairly benign, and incredibly brave, to be fair, extra voice on the streets doesn't make any difference to me.

Although I can imagine it sends all you orgahs fighting the great war of civilisations into orgasms of indignation :laugh4:

[Shaka_Khan]

We don't have any Sharia police in the United States. The US sidewalks aren't the kind of place where one would want to stay too long while annoying too many people.

[Fragony]

We don't have any Sharia police in the United States. The US sidewalks aren't the kind of place where one would want to stay too long while annoying too many people.

Not here either, but salafist influence is growing though (more liberal islam as well)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Strikes me the Germans should have been able to prosecute these guys for intimidation - if they can't their legal system is broken.

Or the prosecutors are not prosecuting them under the correct law.

[Montmorency]

Intimidation? You must be joking.

Show me an English or British statute that you think allows for or could conceivably allow for the prosecution of such actions as "intimidation". I do not think there is any such.

[Sarmatian]

Bah, when I was traveling around US for a few months, more than once activist groups stopped me and tried to force me to listen to their agenda. Sometimes it was about veterans, sometimes about how only their own particular brand of Christianity will save my soul and so on.

If that is a crime, we'd have to jail all traveling salesmen, Jehovas Witnesses, PETA activists.

Based on the article, there was no violence or threat of violence, so no harm done.

[Fragony]

Did they call themselves police? Makes a difference

[Sarmatian]

I don't know. The article claimed they wore orange jackets with the words "Sharia Police" on them, and linked to a youtube video of their "patrol", but on the video there are three guys and no one wears an orange jacket, and police isn't written on them.

[Fragony]

I don't know. The article claimed they wore orange jackets with the words "Sharia Police" on them, and linked to a youtube video of their "patrol", but on the video there are three guys and no one wears an orange jacket, and police isn't written on them.

Clearly is in the link in the post Strike posted, from the bbc of all. There is only one law here and that is our law, their religious law belongs somewhere else. Why are they even here. Just go away.

what's next, painting my house in their color of choice, fuck them, go rape your sheep and herd your women, or was it the other way around I tend to be confused about what's what

[Kralizec]

Strikes me the Germans should have been able to prosecute these guys for intimidation - if they can't their legal system is broken.

Or the prosecutors are not prosecuting them under the correct law.

If they intimidated or threatened people in their orange jackets, I'd assume that the prosecutors would have used that and it would have been a clear-cut case.

I'll try to find a more detailed article because I'm interested in what the prosecutors case actually was. Apparently it was about unlawful use of uniforms, trying to pass themselves of as having legal authority or somesuch.
On the surface though they seem to be nothing more than annoying activists, except that their message is a vile one.

[Greyblades]

Recently I have been on a bit of a reactionary streak, and I say reactionary not conservative because I have been "acting in reaction to". I have reacted to an increasingly convincing argument that politicians, liberals and otherwise, are ignoring, lying and in outright denial about a growing number of elephants in an increasingly cramped room. It was a multitude of things really but none of it had been absolute.

Throughout it had all been in response multiple things that can be handwaved away as not a big deal. Like the actions of reverse racist or reverse sexist idiots on twitter, tumblr and reddit, the machinations of deranged wannabe civil rights protestor students or, most concerning of all, political pandering to previously mentioned retards. All of them can be dismissed as unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Recently Idaho posted this:


Ambulances, police. Can't is a shade too grey, but they avoid area's that are enriched with people with culture when they can. Ambulances refuse to go there unles they get police protection. You know that's true, don't pretend you don't know it. It isn't just England where there are self-acaimed sharia-police monitoring the street and people are just hostile, problem is everywhere where islam is.

Fact free post. Where are these places and who can't go. I want some basic factual support for this.

I seconded this and when noone responded I went looking for myself. I found this:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain

I had heard the claims by Bobby Jindal and Donald Trump but nether of them had given much in the way of proof that hadnt been sourced from something like a daily mail article, which I had stupidly considered as being either always wrong or at least unusable as a source. Besides, British politicians on both sides of the aisle had roundly denounced such notions and the only thing they'd publically share views on are the NHS, if they both say they're wrong it cant be that bad.


In January 2014, the chief inspector of the police forces in England and Wales, Sir Tom Winsor, told (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/article3978826.ece)the London Times that "some parts of Britain have their own form of justice" and that crimes as serious as honor killings, domestic violence, sexual abuse of children and female genital mutilations often go unreported. He added (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3979078.ece):


"There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve the police at all. I am reluctant to name the communities in question, but there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves. There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called. They never hear of any trouble because the community deals with that on its own. It's not that the police are afraid to go into these areas or don't want to go into those areas. But if the police don't get calls for help then, of course, they won't know what's going on."

Ah.
Well it's just one guy, he could be wrong or delusional-

In September 2005, the high-profile black chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, said in a speech that multiculturalism was dividing rather than uniting British society. He also warned of the emergence of "fully fledged ghettos" based on race and religion. Speaking after Hurricane Katrina exposed the black underclass in the American city of New Orleans, Phillips said (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/19/race.socialexclusion):


"The fact is that we are a society which, almost without noticing it, is becoming more divided by race and religion. We are becoming more unequal by ethnicity… There are some simple truths which should bind us together."

Phillips added that some districts are becoming "literal black holes into which nobody goes without fear and trepidation and from which nobody ever escapes undamaged." He warned that this situation risks culminating in a "New Orleans-style Britain of passively coexisting ethnic and religious communities, eyeing each other over the fences of our differences." He concluded:


"We are sleepwalking our way to segregation. We are becoming strangers to each other and leaving communities to be marooned outside the mainstream."

Well it's just words, they could just be scare mongering.


Tower Hamlets and other parts of East London have been the focus of repeated attempts by Islamists to impose Sharia law on members of the public.

Extremist Muslim preachers — sometimes referred (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386558/Tower-Hamlets-Taliban-Death-threats-women-gays-attacked-streets.html)to as the Tower Hamlets Taliban — have issued (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html)death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html)with posters declaring: "You are entering a Sharia controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced." And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims has been vandalized (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386364/Censored-Bikini-advert-blacked-spray-paint-Muslim-extremists-object-women-swimsuits.html)or blacked out with spray paint.

Ah, well it's just the Daily Mail.


The Sunday Telegraph uncovered (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8570506/Police-covered-up-violent-campaign-to-turn-London-area-Islamic.html)more than a dozen other instances in Tower Hamlets where both Muslims and non-Muslims have been threatened or beaten for behavior considered to be a breach of fundamentalist "Islamic norms." Victims said that police ignored or downplayed outbreaks of hate crime, and suppressed evidence implicating Muslims in them, because they feared being accused of racism or "Islamophobia."

One victim, Mohammed Monzur Rahman, was left partially blind after being attacked by a mob in Cannon Street Road, Shadwell, for smoking during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. "Two guys stopped me in the street and asked me why I was smoking," he said. "I just carried on, and before I knew another dozen guys came and jumped me. The next thing I knew, I was waking up in hospital."

Well the Telegraph's not much better.


The owners of restaurants and shops in Brick Lane in Whitechapel, a popular area of London, have been warned (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3948391.ece)that they faced 40 lashes if they continued to sell alcoholic products.

The Times. It's probably a one off.


In Leytonstone in East London, the former Home Secretary John Reid was heckled (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367571-radical-shouts-down-reid-on-muslim-brainwashing.do)by the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen who yelled: "How dare you come to a Muslim area." A four-minute video of the incident can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kU2_iBCf34).
Two off.


Muslim gangs have also been filmed (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3555/sharia-law-london)loitering on London streets and demanding that passersby conform to Sharia law. In a series of videos, the self-proclaimed vigilantes — who called themselves Muslim London Patrol — are seen abusing non-Muslim pedestrians and repeatedly shouting "this is a Muslim area."

One video records the men shouting: "Allah is the greatest! Islam is here, whether you like it or not. We are here! We are here! What we need is Islam! What we need is Sharia!"

The video continues:


"We are the Muslim Patrol. We are in north London, we are in south London, in east London and west London. We command good and forbid evil. Islam is here in London. [Prime Minister] David Cameron, Mr. Police Officer, whether you like it or not, we will command good and forbid evil. You will never get us. You can go to hell! This is not a Christian country. To hell with Christianity. Isa [Jesus] was a messenger of Allah. Muslim Patrol will never die. Allah is great! Allah is great! We are coming!"

In January 2015, twelve of the men were given (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-30961345)Antisocial Behavior Orders ("Asbos"), forbidding them from "forcing their views on others" for a period of three years. Their spiritual mentor is a British-born Islamist agitator named Anjem Choudary (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4745/anjem-choudary), whose parents migrated from Pakistan.

Ok this looks bad but they arent banning non muslims from walking the streets.


In 2009, the Birmingham Mail reported (http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/the-area-of-birmingham-that-are-no-go-areas-for-white-237564)that native British working class Brummies [colloquial term for the inhabitants, accent and dialect of Birmingham] feared that parts of their city had become no-go areas for them. The article cited research carried out by the UK Department of Communities and Local Government, which questioned residents from the Castle Vale neighborhood about their feelings on immigration.

The report highlighted concerns that white people were not welcome in parts of Birmingham at night, and quoted an anonymous male contributor who described an area with a high "Asian" population where a road sign was sprayed with the phrase: "No Whites after 8:30." He said:


"Perhaps I need to work harder in understanding the different cultures and things like that, but there's things that I see when I'm driving around Birmingham that shouldn't be happening.

"There's these areas that have completely been took over... and you do feel very uneasy. Not just me, and I only drive into these areas, never actually walk into these areas, I just wouldn't. Just in case I did do something that I... because of their culture or their religion it was a threat or it was an insult or something, because we don't understand."

In 2011, the magazine Standpoint published the first-hand account (http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3650/full)of a British clergyman's wife who had just returned to London after living in Birmingham for the past four years. She wrote:


"For four years, we lived in inner-city Birmingham, in what has been a police no-go area for 20 years. We know that because some plain-clothed cops told us when they asked to use our vicarage as a stake-out to bust drugs rings that pervade the area. Even during this time we saw the area change. When we arrived, the population was predominantly Pakistani. Now Somalis are there in equal number. Most of the run-down Irish pubs were turned into mosques during our time.

"One day he [her husband] was chatting to a man with a passing resemblance to Lawrence of Arabia, who had just arrived from Antwerp—one of an increasing number of Muslims who are arriving here with EU passports. He asked him why he had come to Birmingham. He was surprised at the question: 'Everybody knows. Birmingham—best place in Europe to be pure Muslim.' Well, there must be many places in Europe where Muslims are entirely free to practice their faith, but I suspect there are few places in which they can have so little contact with the civic and legal structure of a Western state if they choose.

"To a London reader, born and bred with multiculturalism, I know that my stories may come across as outlandish and exaggerated… When I recently told a friend how a large Taliban flag fluttered gaily on a house near St Andrew's football stadium for some months, her cry of 'Can't you tell the police?' made me reflect how far many of our inner cities have been abandoned by our key workers: our doctors and nurses drive in from afar, the police, as mentioned before, have shut down their stations and never venture in unless in extremis—they and ambulance crews have been known to be attacked—even the local Imam lives in a leafier area."



Well it's not like they're trying to seceed or anything.


In July 2011, "Muslims Against Crusades," a group founded by Choudary, launched (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2278/britain-islamic-emirates-project)a campaign to turn twelve British cities — including what it calls "Londonistan" — into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate outside British jurisprudence.

The Islamic Emirates Project named the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London, as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.

Muslims Against Crusades (proscribed in November 2011) is one of the many reincarnations of the Muslim extremist group al-Muhajiroun, which was banned in January 2010. A study (http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Disrupting-Extremists.pdf)published by the London-based Henry Jackson Society in September 2014 found that one in five terrorists convicted in Britain over more than a decade have had links to al-Muhajiroun.

An investigative report (http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/al-muhajiroun/summary/)published by the British anti-fascism group Hope Not Hate in November 2013 concluded that al-Muhajiroun was "the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history."

Is that good enough for Idaho? No. But it'll be interesting to talk about.

Well, now that the issue of no go zones has been confirmed as being real, though not entirely as wide spread as americans may think, I wonder if the next few posts will be relevent discussion, reasonable attempts to dissuade or debunk, desperate assertations of "not all muslims" and "the christians are just as bad", or just "tl;dr lol".

[a completely inoffensive name]

My full response is in the making, but for the time being I will just say lol all muslims since the christrians are just as tl;dr.

[Husar]

Sometimes, when I do not feel like reading an entire post or article, I just google the author and begin to find things like this:

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.de/2011/10/soeren-kern-lol.html

Apparently he likes to copy the work of others, yet is represented as an expert. The Gatestone Institute I looked up before, it is also an anti-islamic fringe site that is trying to pass off as serious.
As for no-go-areas, define what that is. There arecertainly some neighborhoods where the immigrant-inhabitants are not very nice to the police or even the "locals", those should obviously not exist. You can however also go to the wrong area in the US and get robbed by a mexican gang with crosses on their necklaces, is that also a "muslim no-go-area" or is that better? And when orthodox jews in Israel attack Christians and/or their churches, does that mean it's a "muslim no-go-area" or does that count under valid cultural diversity? I'm not entirely sure about the definitions and aim of the topic here.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/photostory-israeli-extremists-attack-nazareths-most-famous-christian-church-goes-virtually
http://www.jpost.com/Christian-News/Israeli-Church-leaders-blame-anti-Christian-attacks-on-government-inaction-410508
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11786802/Burning-of-Christian-churches-in-Israel-justified-far-Right-Jewish-leader-says.html
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/06/ultra-orthodox-jews-throw-stones-at.html

Again, do I support the existance of such behavior or the fact that the governments do not always do enough to stop it? Eh, who would?
Should we allow our societies to have areas where noone dares to go? Certainly not... So why do they exist almost anywhere and why do people only complain when they are created by muslims? When did we have the last thread about "Fix the Harlem-no-go-zone already!!!111"? Or does Harlem count as valid cultural diversity?

[Greyblades]

I wasnt actually expecting someone to deflect that hard. It is rather sad really.

[AE Bravo]

That's easy. I can concede that. Maybe we have the same image of the elephant.

What's your solution?

*crickets*

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's easy. I can concede that. Maybe we have the same image of the elephant.

What's your solution?

*crickets*

Reduce the number of police cars and increase the number of foot patrols.

Police Foot patrols reduce crime whereas cars merely catch criminals.

The most important thing in these areas is to ensure the law is enforced. If you can force the immigrant groups to accept that the law is present you can make them fear it and encourage them to appeal to it rather than mob justice.

And yes - everyone should fear the Law.

[Fragony]

That's easy. I can concede that. Maybe we have the same image of the elephant.

What's your solution?

*crickets*

I kinda get annoyed when people ask what the solution is, there isn't one. Political correctness has always been the problem.

[rajpoot]

Again, do I support the existance of such behavior or the fact that the governments do not always do enough to stop it? Eh, who would?
Should we allow our societies to have areas where noone dares to go? Certainly not... So why do they exist almost anywhere and why do people only complain when they are created by muslims? When did we have the last thread about "Fix the Harlem-no-go-zone already!!!111"? Or does Harlem count as valid cultural diversity?

People complain more when it gets done by Muslims because Islamist terrorism is an unmatched global problem right now. Or at least so the media reports lead everyone to believe.
Is it always justified? Probably not. But when was the last time an incident took place outside of Israel that could even remotely be termed as 'Jewish terrorism'? Or for that matter an incident outside of India that could be called 'Hindu terrorism' or 'Sikh terrorism'?
I guess it's just that such Muslim ghettos have a higher chance of producing violent extremists than ghettos of any other community. As to why that is, is another issue.

[Pannonian]

People complain more when it gets done by Muslims because Islamist terrorism is an unmatched global problem right now. Or at least so the media reports lead everyone to believe.
Is it always justified? Probably not. But when was the last time an incident took place outside of Israel that could even remotely be termed as 'Jewish terrorism'? Or for that matter an incident outside of India that could be called 'Hindu terrorism' or 'Sikh terrorism'?
I guess it's just that such Muslim ghettos have a higher chance of producing violent extremists than ghettos of any other community. As to why that is, is another issue.

And such ghettos in Belgium were the breeding ground of at least some of the Paris attackers, while it's a known strategy for returnees to relocate to safe houses to plan and prepare such attacks. Crying discrimination is a bit dumb when you're separately putting in place all the pieces that allow for easy attack by ISIS, whilst refusing to see the whole picture that you're putting together.

[InsaneApache]

I mentioned an anecdote of something that happened to me a few years ago. I was walking home from visiting my wife in hospital, when a car full of 'asian' youths pulled up beside me and started hurling obscenities at me.

"Whites aren't allowed around here" just about sums it up as politely as I can.

Is that good enough for Idaho? Probably not. Then again he doesnt live where I do.

Whats the answer? I hav'nt a clue.

[Idaho]

The OP shows the very well reported exploits of a 30-50 strong group of people. Once called Al Majaroun, previously called Hisbutahir, and now called any number of things. They are total nutcases. They are operating in the East end 20 years ago doing the same things. It wasn't so newsworthy then. Over the last 20 years they have done loads of this stuff. More than is reported in the OP. Still doesn't impress me. And the fact that they are tolerated in the area is a sign of how inconsequential they are, not how effective they are.

I reckon I could walk round the east end of London every day for a year and do little more than laugh at them. It's a dramatic and exciting story and is eagerly received by a certain audience.

IA - you are intimidated by some young men in your area. That is unpleasant, and I personally would have picked up a brick and put it through the car window. I wouldn't, however, have come to the conclusion that we are living in end times. Get some perspective.

[Idaho]

Most of the news sources in the OP are second hand, anonymous or historical. I fail to see any evidence of no go zones. Except in the febrile imaginings of journalists and right wingers.

We don't have an actual place that's a no go zone still. Just rumours that there is one, and shadowy references to where it might be.

[rajpoot]

They do seem to exist in Sweden. (http://swedenreport.org/2014/10/29/swedish-police-55-official-no-go-zones/)
I remember Kadagar mentioned it in his 'goodbye' thread.


IA - you are intimidated by some young men in your area. That is unpleasant, and I personally would have picked up a brick and put it through the car window.

I was irresistibly reminded of this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLdIKlXl3ZA

[Greyblades]

Is that good enough for Idaho? No. But it'll be interesting to talk about.
Called it.


They do seem to exist in Sweden. (http://swedenreport.org/2014/10/29/swedish-police-55-official-no-go-zones/)
I remember Kadagar mentioned it in his 'goodbye' thread.

Wow, I knew it was bad but I under the impression they were unofficial;


Islam expert Andrew C. McCarthy has offered (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397110/what-bobby-jindal-gets-about-islam-and-most-people-still-dont-andrew-c-mccarthy)a lucid clarification of what no-go zones are and of what they are not:


"[N]o sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.

[Greyblades]

gah, double post.

[Idaho]

You found a range of disparate and unclear examples on a topic of great media attention, all spread across many years. Damn right it's not good enough. Maxim of the scientific method: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your evidence isn't even ordinary.

[Idaho]

Andrew C. Mccarthy is a right wing nutjob. A self serving, book toting reactionary ball bag whose opinions I trust as much as Anjem Choudary's.

[Husar]

I wasnt actually expecting someone to deflect that hard. It is rather sad really.

I was expecting a more detailed answer so I could explain what part you misread, but it seems that we will just have to agree that you misread.

Also define "deflect" in this context, as I'm not entirely sure what it refers to.


People complain more when it gets done by Muslims because Islamist terrorism is an unmatched global problem right now. Or at least so the media reports lead everyone to believe.
Is it always justified? Probably not. But when was the last time an incident took place outside of Israel that could even remotely be termed as 'Jewish terrorism'? Or for that matter an incident outside of India that could be called 'Hindu terrorism' or 'Sikh terrorism'?
I guess it's just that such Muslim ghettos have a higher chance of producing violent extremists than ghettos of any other community. As to why that is, is another issue.

Unmatched how? Does it kill more people per day than cancer?
As for the comparison to other communities, did you adjust for socioneconomic factors?
It is true that at the moment the muslims seem to spawn lots of terrorism, but as Fragony says, nothing we can do.

[Greyblades]

You found a range of disparate and unclear examples on a topic of great media attention, all spread across many years. Damn right it's not good enough. Maxim of the scientific method: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Even Husar admits the existance of quote 'neighborhoods where the immigrant-inhabitants are not very nice to the police or even the "locals"' yet you find this Extraordinary?

Testimony from experts, quotes from sufferers, news reports of events and situations, all good enough for most but it's something you dont want to hear, so you dismiss it. What would be sufficient evidence for you? Video?

The article which I doubt you gave a glance outside what I quoted has an entire section full of them:


A video showing a group of Muslim men attacking a white couple in Walsall, situated just eight miles from Birmingham, can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0YNjwW33I0). A video showing Muslim youth attacking white girls in Ashton-under-Lyne in Greater Manchester can be viewed here (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=263_1370971628).

A video showing Muslim youth attacking police in East London with rocket fireworks can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5THwEXDttg). A video showing Muslim youth interrupting a television interview in Burnley in Lancashire can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxefcCwgKNU). A video showing a Muslim threatening to kill a man filming street preaching in England can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLU9SH6qYdQ).

A video showing Muslims attempting to enforce Sharia law on the streets of London can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2y5n-hAnUE). A video showing Muslims attacking an American student after walking around East London drinking a bottle of beer can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOup_lNa1E4).

Or perhaps you would like a documentary from our very own BBC?:

A BBC documentary about "white flight" in the East London Borough of Barking and Dagenham can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6FqM6lEf4A). A BBC Panorama documentary about separation and segregation between Muslim Asians and white Britons in Blackburn in Lancashire can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZuzRSYSsqo), here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epbbEqvXOU8)and here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TQ3IrhY6dc). BBC reports on "white flight" in Luton can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilKIeag1HUc)and here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAi78m0pd44).

A one-hour BBC documentary about extremism in Luton can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgKMI1wV0ps). A 20-minute documentary, entitled "London's Holy Turf War" can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tEpjmFH9g). A 25-minute documentary about rising tensions between Asians and West Indians can be viewed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUODVXIIKwQ).

[Fisherking]

Andrew C. Mccarthy is a right wing nutjob. A self serving, book toting reactionary ball bag whose opinions I trust as much as Anjem Choudary's.

That is a matter of belief not supported by the data. Rather ad hominem attack which renders your argument invalid.

Use a bit of reason and logic for a change. Particularly if you try to cloak your self in maximums.

[Fisherking]

And now for something completely different: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlSknRlQSqs

[Idaho]

You've linked to lots of videos of young men acting like a***h*les, but still not heard the name of an area that is "no go for non Muslims". Still waiting.

[Greyblades]

Also define "deflect" in this context, as I'm not entirely sure what it refers to.

Ignoring the article's contents to bash the author, going into a thread about one topic and whining that it isnt talking about another. Admitting you didnt even read the evidence being proffered yet expecting to be taken seriously when you dismiss them. These are frequent devices used to do what we call: derailing the conversation.

I was verbally bollocked for doing it several times over the last half decade in this very forum, I am very dissapointed that you would be stooping to them just because you dislike the subject.

You might as well keep your mouth shut, it would add the same amount to the conversation.

[Idaho]

I enjoyed being the lone voice against the afghan and Iraq invasions for reasons that are now obvious.

I enjoy being the lone voice against the current surge of ignorance and bubbling xenophobia.

[Fragony]

I don't enjoy being right really, but this was all predictable, and predicted

[rajpoot]

Unmatched how? Does it kill more people per day than cancer?
As for the comparison to other communities, did you adjust for socioneconomic factors?
It is true that at the moment the muslims seem to spawn lots of terrorism, but as Fragony says, nothing we can do.

Actually according to stats from 2002 the thing that kills most people is one or the other form of cardiovascular disease (I would've put my money on road accidents but hey...)
But that would only be a reasonable comparison the day a cardiovascular disease totes an AK47 and a suicide vest and kills hundreds of people according to a well planned attack.

As for socioeconomic factors, like I said the 'whys' are a completely different discussion. I'm sure there are many many reasons which would indirectly point towards how these people were wronged and mishandled in some way or another by someone or maybe were a result of unavoidable circumstances. But none of that excuses the current state of affairs.
And I agree, nothing can probably be done about it at this point of time. But nonetheless acknowledging that there is a problem is necessary.


I enjoy being the lone voice against the current surge of ignorance and bubbling xenophobia.
If you're talking about this thread in particular I'd say you're being a little harsh....is it xenophobic to discuss a problem supported by facts?
I've always been for tolerance and I'd be the first person to speak up if someone paints the whole religion with a single brush, but you cannot deny facts point to something being amiss.

[Fisherking]

You've linked to lots of videos of young men acting like a***h*les, but still not heard the name of an area that is "no go for non Muslims". Still waiting.

No, I only linked to one video of a guy crossdressing to prove a point.

British Police seem to think there are no-go areas or areas where one need heightened awareness, so I suggest asking an officer on the street. Pretending they don’t exist will not make them go away.

I wouldn’t call it xenophobia. That is a fear of all foreigners. Most people I have run across are more specific than that. They are mistrustful of Muslim immigrants. It wasn’t the case until the immigrants themselves began to call for Sharia Law to override their national or local laws. Something they rather brought upon themselves.

Of course there is some reason for concern in that if you believe in any form of civil liberties. Oh, and the concepts of Jihad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERou_Q5l9Gw

[Idaho]

Still no non-Muslim no go areas.

I want a postcode even. Somewhere that I can speak to people I know nearby. Our places I can review census records.

[Fisherking]

Still no non-Muslim no go areas.

I want a postcode even. Somewhere that I can speak to people I know nearby. Our places I can review census records.

So far as I can tell, it is the belief of police forces in several European Nations. It can neither be proven or disproven with available data. Police say there are and politicians say there aren’t. If you weigh the argument on likely truthfulness it leaves politicians at a distinct disadvantage.

If you are insistent on real firsthand research to prove or disprove it, as I said, contact a police officer in a likely area. Cities operating Sharia Courts might be a good starting place.

[Pannonian]

The OP shows the very well reported exploits of a 30-50 strong group of people. Once called Al Majaroun, previously called Hisbutahir, and now called any number of things. They are total nutcases. They are operating in the East end 20 years ago doing the same things. It wasn't so newsworthy then. Over the last 20 years they have done loads of this stuff. More than is reported in the OP. Still doesn't impress me. And the fact that they are tolerated in the area is a sign of how inconsequential they are, not how effective they are.

I reckon I could walk round the east end of London every day for a year and do little more than laugh at them. It's a dramatic and exciting story and is eagerly received by a certain audience.

IA - you are intimidated by some young men in your area. That is unpleasant, and I personally would have picked up a brick and put it through the car window. I wouldn't, however, have come to the conclusion that we are living in end times. Get some perspective.

I'm probably unlike you, in that I've actually walked around the east end of London. I didn't fear for my life the last time I did so, nor would I fear for my life if I do so today. However, in combination with the known radicalisation of Muslim youths around Europe, and the known ISIS strategy of forming bases away from the host state's eyes from which to plan terrorist attacks (and indeed, had already carried out one such successful attack), then it would be negligent and idiotic in the extreme to pooh pooh such concerns, in concert with all the other stuff going on.

[Pannonian]

That is a matter of belief not supported by the data. Rather ad hominem attack which renders your argument invalid.

Use a bit of reason and logic for a change. Particularly if you try to cloak your self in maximums.

Idaho enjoys ad hominems when it doesn't affect his capacity to preach on what's going in east London from his home in Exeter. It's especially biting when he preaches thus to someone who actually lives in east London, unlike him.

[Idaho]

So far as I can tell, it is the belief of police forces in several European Nations. It can neither be proven or disproven with available data. Police say there are and politicians say there aren’t. If you weigh the argument on likely truthfulness it leaves politicians at a distinct disadvantage.

If you are insistent on real firsthand research to prove or disprove it, as I said, contact a police officer in a likely area. Cities operating Sharia Courts might be a good starting place.

It's something reported second hand by media keen to inflame and dramatise. I'm sure they have no problem finding someone with rightist leanings in the British police force to oblige them.

Shariah "courts" are common enough in this country. But are usually just places for religious advice. Orthodox jews have similar.

[Idaho]

Idaho enjoys ad hominems when it doesn't affect his capacity to preach on what's going in east London from his home in Exeter. It's especially biting when he preaches thus to someone who actually lives in east London, unlike him.Oh go on then. I tried to resist, but you've baited me into it. I lived in East London (Hackney) for 7 years. I visit London about once a month. I know it pretty well.

[Beskar]

There are a few 'best avoid' areas I know of, but it has nothing to do with ethnic diversity or Muslims. They are generally cripplingly deprived areas where industry has collapsed, stricken with poverty, experience high-crime rates, high rates of physical and mental health issues, and lost of prospects. It is also home to a transient population who move around, usually coming in from big cities like Manchester.

Unfortunately, it is not that the people are 'bad' or 'evil', it is a sorry state where they try to survive and make something of their lives by trying to find meaning or desire to live by desperate measures such as psychoactive substances.

[Pannonian]

There are a few 'best avoid' areas I know of, but it has nothing to do with ethnic diversity or Muslims. They are generally cripplingly deprived areas where industry has collapsed, stricken with poverty, experience high-crime rates, high rates of physical and mental health issues, and lost of prospects. It is also home to a transient population who move around, usually coming in from big cities like Manchester.

Unfortunately, it is not that the people are 'bad' or 'evil', it is a sorry state where they try to survive and make something of their lives by trying to find meaning or desire to live by desperate measures such as psychoactive substances.

Social deprivation should be addressed. But we shouldn't ignore the more immediate problem of the known strategy of ISIS to exploit such conditions to plan and execute terrorist attacks. It's happened already, and there is every indication that they're planning more, and no indication that they're stopping. To say that it's the general fault of society is to foster inertia and do nothing, which is to maintain the environment that these enemies (and they're deserving of that description) rely on. Social deprivation is a threat to society, but to deny the specific threat of Islamists in these conditions is to allow them free rein in the immediate term, which is what they want and what we don't want.

[AE Bravo]

Reduce the number of police cars and increase the number of foot patrols.

Police Foot patrols reduce crime whereas cars merely catch criminals.

The most important thing in these areas is to ensure the law is enforced. If you can force the immigrant groups to accept that the law is present you can make them fear it and encourage them to appeal to it rather than mob justice.

And yes - everyone should fear the Law.
That is literally a cop out. You’re shifting responsibility to neglected sectors of the community. Thugs live on fear and fear mongering, especially ones that are an existential threat to the country. I’ve said this before all this does is result in a tweeked out Muslim version of NWA that will follow the ol European strategy of harboring hatred until that pent up aggression blows up in your face. It’s easy to say “more foot patrols” but that is unlikely to prevent a social movement with grievance narratives based on fact. You can accuse Muslims all you want of viewing everyone else as “sub-human” but there is a great impact on these communities after they see the UK assisting in the disintegration of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now in Yemen supporting the coalition forces. Whether it's your ancestral homeland or just seeing people sharing your beliefs dying, there are big reasons for the state of victimhood since they are marginalized communities.

This is exactly what orgs like IS want, whose transnational strategy is nothing but deliberately making life harder for Muslims abroad.

People should be protected by the law.

[Sarmatian]

Your evidence isn't even ordinary.

His evidence isn't even evidence.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is literally a cop out. You’re shifting responsibility to neglected sectors of the community.

No, I'm throwing responsibility back onto the Police. It's their job to enforce the law and, more importantly, kepp the peace.


Thugs live on fear and fear mongering, especially ones that are an existential threat to the country.

How do you stop thugs? You create en environment in which they cannot operate. Enforcing the law is the cornerstone of the modern state, it's what allows me to walk down an unlit alley at night.


I’ve said this before all this does is result in a tweeked out Muslim version of NWA that will follow the ol European strategy of harboring hatred until that pent up aggression blows up in your face. It’s easy to say “more foot patrols” but that is unlikely to prevent a social movement with grievance narratives based on fact. You can accuse Muslims all you want of viewing everyone else as “sub-human” but there is a great impact on these communities after they see the UK assisting in the disintegration of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now in Yemen supporting the coalition forces. Whether it's your ancestral homeland or just seeing people sharing your beliefs dying, there are big reasons for the state of victimhood since they are marginalized communities.

The fact that we are bombing IS in Syria is no excuse for someone to refuse to obey the law in the UK. We do not marginalise Muslims in this country, they marginalise themselves by not learning English (despite money set aside to help them) and living in ghettoes.


People should be protected by the law.

And to be protected by the law you must obey it - which means you must fear it.

I fear the law - I fear prison - it's why I go out of my way not to break it rather than just doing what I think is right.

[Beskar]

I fear the law - I fear prison - it's why I go out of my way not to break it rather than just doing what I think is right.

Don't sell yourself short, PFH, I am sure that isn't the only reason stopping you in not breaking the law.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't sell yourself short, PFH, I am sure that isn't the only reason stopping you in not breaking the law.

Of course not, but it's the thing that will always stop me. That's the point - the Law is something you follow all the time, and it applies to everyone. About 90% of the time (at least) I would automatically follow the Law but in certain circumstances I might act differently but for the Law.

For example - If someone abused a child or raped a friend of mine I'm fairly sure I could kill them and live with it - and if it was my own child I almost certainly would. However, the Law says that if I follow through with that I go to gaol, separated from my family.

The Law is about enforcing the same standards of behaviours on everyone. If there are parts of a country where the writ of the Law runs thin then that must be corrected first.

[Pannonian]

Of course not, but it's the thing that will always stop me. That's the point - the Law is something you follow all the time, and it applies to everyone. About 90% of the time (at least) I would automatically follow the Law but in certain circumstances I might act differently but for the Law.

For example - If someone abused a child or raped a friend of mine I'm fairly sure I could kill them and live with it - and if it was my own child I almost certainly would. However, the Law says that if I follow through with that I go to gaol, separated from my family.

The Law is about enforcing the same standards of behaviours on everyone. If there are parts of a country where the writ of the Law runs thin then that must be corrected first.

Also, the acceptance across England, since Henry Tudor at least, that there is but one state in England, whose rules are independent of any holy book. I have no great desire to turn the clock back 500+ years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Also, the acceptance across England, since Henry Tudor at least, that there is but one state in England, whose rules are independent of any holy book. I have no great desire to turn the clock back 500+ years.

Oh no, that's nonsense.

Our laws are based on the Protestant interpretation of morality - it's only in the last two centuries that Catholics and Jews have become full citizens.

Modern Britain is a product of Queen Victoria's government, who re-wrote history to give us a myth we were always like this.

Hell, 350 year ago we were basically a theocratic "Republic" much like modern Iran.

[I of the Storm]

I vaguely remember the incident. Had a media presence of about a week back then but not a major issue. AFAIK the prosecutors wanted to go for unauthorized use of uniforms and violations of assembly laws, none of which have been found valid. Argumentation was along the lines of: "hey, christian groups are doing basically the same thing sometimes". Which is correct, technically they didn't do anything else than admonish people to abstain from drinking an gambling, which is not a crime.

The vests and the "police" word were provocative, though.

Nevertheless, I think it's wiser to not make a major issue out of this. Fine them for misdemeanour or a minor breach of the law and that's it. If you press major charges against singular occurences like that, you give them major importance. Acquittal = minor importance. That's the court's logic I suspect.
If that would become a widespread issue or if they'd incite to violence, now that would be a completely different issue. But as of now, all they did was telling people "hey, drinking and gambling is bad for you. Why don't you come to our mosque next friday instead?" and wearing silly vests. Once.

[Idaho]

Oh no, that's nonsense.

Our laws are based on the Protestant interpretation of morality - it's only in the last two centuries that Catholics and Jews have become full citizens.

Modern Britain is a product of Queen Victoria's government, who re-wrote history to give us a myth we were always like this.

Hell, 350 year ago we were basically a theocratic "Republic" much like modern Iran.

You are a marvel PVC. You put a load of nonsense further up, then you post something incisive like this. It's like the lucid moments of a drunk.

[Idaho]

Social deprivation should be addressed. But we shouldn't ignore the more immediate problem of the known strategy of ISIS to exploit such conditions to plan and execute terrorist attacks. It's happened already, and there is every indication that they're planning more, and no indication that they're stopping. To say that it's the general fault of society is to foster inertia and do nothing, which is to maintain the environment that these enemies (and they're deserving of that description) rely on. Social deprivation is a threat to society, but to deny the specific threat of Islamists in these conditions is to allow them free rein in the immediate term, which is what they want and what we don't want.
The danger with your priorities is that you relegate social deprivation and attack those people that ISIS profile - the socially deprived. Further alienating them and strengthening the hand of extremist recruiters.

[Pannonian]

The danger with your priorities is that you relegate social deprivation and attack those people that ISIS profile - the socially deprived. Further alienating them and strengthening the hand of extremist recruiters.

Why do we need to allow ISIS a free rein whilst dealing with social deprivation? It's not like we can't afford to do both at the same time. In any case, we can deal with extremist recruiters by blocking the import of foreign clerics and blocking the return of madrassees. Homegrown Muslims who don't look abroad for illumination don't tend to be a problem, as they're just as British as anyone else. It's those who follow foreign clerics and those who decide to study in religious schools abroad (or worse) who cause problems.

[Fragony]

Yeah not being invited for your birthday is quit a kick in the nuts