IMMIGRATION thread

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Baltics: No. Estonia's the only one that isn't a basket case.

Poland: Don't equivocate.

Georgia:

Funny that you gave Georgia the laugh. According to this, Georgia has 262 704 internally displaced people. Despite this and despite the (related) breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia has a functioning democracy; and is certainly in no state of disintegration. So there is empirical evidence that Georgia meets the bar I set for these countries.

No alienness, hence no difference in alienness.

Not sure what you are saying here. Syrians are, for example, not Kazakhs. If they migrate to Kazakhstan, they'll stand out. But they will find fellow Muslims there, which means intermarriage between Syrians and Kazakhs should be considerably more likely than intermarriage between Syrians and native Europeans. Hence, it is considerably more likely that Syrian migrants will assimilate in Kazakhstan than in Europe. But there is no guarantee that they will.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

Enables economic diversification. Do you really think they're that stupid they haven't thought of that...?

You present these countries as fragile, and their economy relies heavily on state-owned oil production. Once that oil runs out, they should become even more fragile, regardless of economic diversification (oil comes relatively effort-free). So when will they become robust states, and how?

and left it to the islamists

Nope, that was a much later development. Unless you would call the NTC for islamists; a group that stepped down peacefully after the first elections, anyway.

It also armed a population and caused a national security crisis in a stable country.

The only arming of Libyans that I am aware of, was in the Nafusa mountains by the French; and does not seem to be a huge amount. The war did not start there, anyway.

Qaddafi was no angel but most of my Libyan friends can tell you that life was 10x better back when he was around. they can tell you that stones weren’t hurled when they leave the house without a headscarf. Libya was happier, and especially women.

Yet Libyans under Gaddafi rose up. If NATO hadn't gotten rid of Gaddafi, we could have had another Syria and another country where IS was really strong. That would have been inconvenient - imagine two big fronts against IS rather than one.

A modern state with a seemingly grim future of water scarcity, oil, no native blue-collar working force, no real military. All you have to do is give it a slight push and it will fall over into the Persian Gulf towards their potential future overlords.

A miracle that anyone there sleeps well during the night given how precarious the situation there apparently is.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/...ees-countries/
http://america.aljazeera.com/article...-refugees.html

I don't see anything there contradicting what I wrote, namely that they don't get permanent residence.

What was bound to happen, not yet but will, renters go first. Germany can't handle Merkel's open invitation, so confiscation of private property is considered an option. http://www.welt.de/regionales/hambur...-moeglich.html

Other member states are not going to salute the next Messias, it's on you dear neighbours, and your lovely madchen, kinda getting out of hand for them allready ain't it

lol nice, ALL christian refugees in German refugee-centres are being bullied by muslim 'refugees', a solid 100%.. Don't ask for a link they never work.

Originally Posted by Viking

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.

Originally Posted by Viking

Yes, do look to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Georgia.

Poland is not ex-Soviet. Ex-Communist - perhaps. But it doesn't really matter. All of those have a far more ancient history than, say, the USA and their previous spell of independece was not that long ago. So their traditions of statehood (especially the Baltic ones) had just to be restored.

Originally Posted by Viking

Not sure what you are saying here. Syrians are, for example, not Kazakhs. If they migrate to Kazakhstan, they'll stand out. But they will find fellow Muslims there, which means intermarriage between Syrians and Kazakhs should be considerably more likely than intermarriage between Syrians and native Europeans. Hence, it is considerably more likely that Syrian migrants will assimilate in Kazakhstan than in Europe. But there is no guarantee that they will.

Although your and my suppositions will stay what they are - i.e. suppositions - I don't agree. Islam (as well as any religion in any post-Soviet state) isn't really that important in secular Middle-Asian countries. And except for it Arabs won't have anything in common with the Turkic (in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan) or Iranean (in Tadjikistan) population with their own unrelated languages and different cultures. Besides, there is a sizable Slavic population (especially in Khazakhstan) who will have still less in common (and will consequently display less welcoming attitude) with the would-be immigrants than the locals of other ethnicities.

Hear Hear Pat Condell http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments

only movie topside counts

Originally Posted by Viking

no state of disintegration.

That's a rather low bar, isn't it?

Not sure what you are saying here. Syrians are, for example, not Kazakhs. If they migrate to Kazakhstan, they'll stand out. But they will find fellow Muslims there, which means intermarriage between Syrians and Kazakhs should be considerably more likely than intermarriage between Syrians and native Europeans. Hence, it is considerably more likely that Syrian migrants will assimilate in Kazakhstan than in Europe. But there is no guarantee that they will.

Religion is not the key here. Inasmuch as they would be quicker or more likely to integrate, it would be because of, for instance, similar institutional culture and economic development. Indonesia is Muslim but it is demonstrably easier for Europeans to assimilate in Indonesia than it is for most continental Muslims.

Yet Libyans under Gaddafi rose up. If NATO hadn't gotten rid of Gaddafi, we could have had another Syria and another country where IS was really strong. That would have been inconvenient - imagine two big fronts against IS rather than one.

IS succeeded in Syria because they had a Baathist Iraqi command mixed with peninsular Al-Qaeda types, recruited foreigners from outside the Fertile Crescent area, and infiltrated communities which they understood on a personal level. They could not have accomplished in Libya what they did in Syria.

We all knew it would come some day and here it is:

Redicule is normal, you will find out soon enough what you brought in. German girls are already adviced to not dress to exposed near asylum centres because they could be raped, in asylum centres women are already raped all the time by highly educated 20/30 year old men. Mock all you want, you are going to learn the hard way anyway

Could be worse though, just learned that the Dutch government acknowledges marriages with childs if the country they come from do. Syria doesn't do that. Dhimmitude to the max. I feel sorry for the real refugees, the nightmare they fled from is welcomed with open arms.

Originally Posted by Viking

You present these countries as fragile, and their economy relies heavily on state-owned oil production. Once that oil runs out, they should become even more fragile, regardless of economic diversification (oil comes relatively effort-free). So when will they become robust states, and how?

Originally Posted by IMF

 Investments in physical infrastructure, and strengthening of the legal and regulatory environment to reduce the cost of doing business (including through free trade zones)

Dubai has built a modern infrastructure and instituted a business-friendly environment and regulations to promote the city as a trade and finance hub in the region. It launched projects in aluminum (DUBAL, now part of Emirates Global Aluminum), transportation (Emirates Airlines and two large airports), trade (Jebel Ali Port), finance (Dubai International Financial Center), and tourism (more than 500 hotels). During 2000–13 real GDP grew on average by about 9 percent per year, compared with a GCC average of 5.6 percent.

business-friendly environment, light regulations, modern infrastructure, and efficiency in project implementation showcase Dubai as a model for the region

There are also a lot of inter-state projects that will aim to further unify the GCC as an economic force.

Originally Posted by Viking

Nope, that was a much later development. Unless you would call the NTC for islamists; a group that stepped down peacefully after the first elections, anyway.

The only arming of Libyans that I am aware of, was in the Nafusa mountains by the French; and does not seem to be a huge amount. The war did not start there, anyway.

All a sham the damage was already done and Libya was shattered. All the weapons are in Islamist hands since NATO got involved. Turkey had a lot to do with it and the weapons fell into Islamist hands anyway with or without foreign training of these militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/wo...ands.html?_r=0

They were Islamists right from the get-go and have been infesting eastern Libya for years with pent-up aggression for the regime. LIFG and AQIM affiliates/admirers saw the spring as an opportunity to hijack everything mid-revolution rather than Egypt’s post-revolution hijacking. These are armed Islamists that were trained by Turkey and funded by pretty much everyone including ksa and qatar. Everyone turned against Ghaddafi in support of Islamist militias that were entrusted with regime change.

Yet Libyans under Gaddafi rose up. If NATO hadn't gotten rid of Gaddafi, we could have had another Syria and another country where IS was really strong. That would have been inconvenient - imagine two big fronts against IS rather than one.

This is not Syria, Qaddafi kept those rats in check. They couldn’t utter so much as a word back then until they got the sympathy of foreign countries who hated him. Total failure on all accounts it doesn’t matter what Libyans themselves did after the revolution, violent holes festering for decades were armed and ready. Ghaddafi could have cracked down on these movements if not for nato advocating total regime change, as if anything can possibly be guaranteed in a movement filled with affiliates of known transnational jihadi movements.

Actually, ISIS is already in multiple fronts including yemen, sinai, tunisia, algeria, and libya.

It's like in Iraq, where people thought replacing a secular nationwide vibe in support of sectarianism was a good idea.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

No need for that, they aren't that bad actually. I guess it's like what they say about how people start seeing the guy who won the lottery. I've never met a Brit that doesn't like the Gulf. Not to mention what London is now was straight up built by our lowly countries.

The entire Gulf looks like Satan's naval to me - no democracy, no freedom (religious or political), wealth inequality that make Europe look like Marx's dream, horrific oppression of women, criminalisation of the poor, non Muslims literally being worth 1/3 of a Muslim...

I realise that not all of that is true of every Gulf State but it still looks like hell from where I'm sitting.

Totally different topic. You were quick to run out of that one with doublespeak. I already proved to you they are the same.

I gave up when your definition of "Arab" became so wide it encompassed the Jewish Diaspora whether you realised it or not.

I appreciate the breakdown, but this is comparable to the middle east how? True, it's dangerous to "civil society at the local level" but I'm talking about state survival not manageable civil disturbances. Civil society is weak and restrained in the GCC, which makes it prone to the only civil society that can possibly be justified in such an environment - some form of political Islam. Some people would just be more enthusiastic and comfortable starting up a political Islamic program in another Arab country than they would in an alien country, it is more of a danger in the middle east than it is in Europe obviously.

I, for one, have no desire to see Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" become a reality but if the current situation is not managed effectively it becomes a genuine possibility, much more so than with the Afro-Caribbeans in the '60's.

I grew up/go to school here, but I am from the UAE and spent most of my life there. It's my home and I know it has problems.

And for this reason Europe should take in millions of immigrants? The Arab world is currently exporting its problems to Europe - why should we let it happen?

I will say that one thing I've noticed is that Europeans in general, again in general (and the ones I've met) all have disdain for Arabs for some reason. It shows, even with you. Oh well, I'm livin

An Englishman can't trust someone who doesn't drink - or someone who drinks and lies about it. All of the most disgusting people I have met, physically and morally, have been Arabs. Added to that you have political Islam and the mess that Arabs have made of the Middle East and the Levant through bad politics and miss-management.

It's not that I dislike Arabs generally, I don't have a huge personal experience by any means, it's that the vast majority of things I despise seem to be popular within Arab culture, or at least a section of it.

Agreed. They are far more welcoming than Europe, not a hint of widespread condescension.
The US has really done enough imo.

Pleople went to the US because Europe had no room, Europe has even less room but there's still some in the US. If it behoves Europe to take these people from the ME it behoves the US to take them from Europe.

no democracy, no freedom (religious or political), wealth inequality that make Europe look like Marx's dream, horrific oppression of women, criminalisation of the poor, non Muslims literally being worth 1/3 of a Muslim…

no democracy - the general consensus does not support democracy, not yet. our education is low but it’s getting better through spending.

no freedom - you have to be behind the regime yes, most are on the same page

wealth inequality - yeah this is huge for KSA and bahrain in particular, the rest of the countries compensated by setting really high wages and benefits for nationals. i get paid to go to school. everyone is also rich, and this is what really matters in the end as crazy as it sounds. you would understand if you grew up in this region. I think these nations need someone calling the shots just like Iraq needed someone like Saddam.

oppression of women - i honestly don’t see that besides in wahhabi nations, which are only two right now.

non-muslims being… - that’s true unfortunately. post-ww1 super-state super-people ideas that make us deplorable. this is very strong in the gulf but not to the extent of hating white people.

I realise that not all of that is true of every Gulf State but it still looks like hell from where I'm sitting.

if you ever do decide to visit the only ones worth considering are UAE and oman. i’d say these two also have the nicest people (towards foreigners and muslims alike) in the middle east. Morocco for culture trip.

I gave up when your definition of "Arab" became so wide it encompassed the Jewish Diaspora whether you realised it or not.

Hyperbole. I tried to tell you it’s not propaganda but a widely accepted historical view according to the academic sources I linked to.

And for this reason Europe should take in millions of immigrants? The Arab world is currently exporting its problems to Europe - why should we let it happen?

You’re pretending that this is all a result of Arab incompetence when it is the west cooperating with that incompetence that led to this. You have chips in the middle east and all of a sudden you want your money back.

Personally i have no problem with granting a selection of Syrians citizenship. I’m no ultranationalist unlike most gulf so i think we need these people because we are generally naive people, we need them. The regime sees this as a threat to them long-term so it's not happening. The ethnic tension that it would produce would be huge and would disrupt the current flow of wealth nationals enjoy. Add that to the fact that nobody in the west is really making an effort of making these so-called powerless countries take responsibility for it. Sorry but this is what makes your argument a fantasy afaic.

You also forget that many Syrians have pride and will not even want to be equal to us camel herders. There is racism ingrained in these societies. Syrians are uppity stingy conniving con artists and gulf people are dumb diaper head robe-wearing cultureless slaves. It's not THAT serious but it will be once you give out passports.

An Englishman can't trust someone who doesn't drink - or someone who drinks and lies about it. All of the most disgusting people I have met, physically and morally, have been Arabs. Added to that you have political Islam and the mess that Arabs have made of the Middle East and the Levant through bad politics and miss-management.

I drink. I know a lot of people that do and lot that don’t big deal. Politicized ideas is no reason to carry a grudge towards an entire people.

I also don't lie about it unless I'm at my grandma's house or some shit.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

no democracy - the general consensus does not support democracy, not yet. our education is low but it’s getting better through spending.

"Not yet" is relative - you may wish to look at Arab discourse at the turn of the last Century whilst still under Ottoman rule. You are of course correct that the lack of democracy is partly because they general populace not enamoured of it, and don't appear to understand the concept. Libya was a good example of this, there were real democrats in the country but many militias, particularly those out of Misrata, were calling for power based on the number of fighters they had, or had lost in the fighting.

Now, perhaps you can see why I don't want people like that in my country, because my country is weak in many ways. Civil society in the UK and much of Europe is already fractured, we're just about holding it together here but if you look at our history over the last fifty years we're in danger of entering systemic decline.

Like I said - fall of Rome - it only takes a generation.

no freedom - you have to be behind the regime yes, most are on the same page

To this I should have added "acceptance of maintaining or changing the regime through violence". We put a huge amount of effort into stopping suicide attacks here but we know that many of our current second generation immigrants want to kill us - that's why Europe is a major recruiting ground of ISIS.

wealth inequality - yeah this is huge for KSA and bahrain in particular, the rest of the countries compensated by setting really high wages and benefits for nationals. i get paid to go to school. everyone is also rich, and this is what really matters in the end as crazy as it sounds. you would understand if you grew up in this region. I think these nations need someone calling the shots just like Iraq needed someone like Saddam.

Much of the welfare in gulf states is subsidised by oil and it's not an arrangements Europe cares to mimic, or has the means to. We guarantee enough to keep body and soul together, not to live well. One of the most distasteful things about these immigrants is their clear sense of entitlement, their lack of gratitude for safe harbour and insistence that we let them reach Sweden or Germany, or even the UK.

oppression of women - i honestly don’t see that besides in wahhabi nations, which are only two right now.

Matter of perspective - I assume in most Gulf states that if a woman wears a knee-length skirt and has her their unbround there'll be mutter of "deserved it" if she's raped.

One thing I've come across talking to Turks, Arabs, and Africans is that a woman's hnour is protected by the men in her family, rather than by society in general. So a woman needs an escort in certain situations even in public lest she be assumed to be "fair game".

This is an idea we abandoned a century ago.

non-muslims being… - that’s true unfortunately. post-ww1 super-state super-people ideas that make us deplorable. this is very strong in the gulf but not to the extent of hating white people.

As I recall the Koran, or the Hadith, specifies that a Christian man's word is worth 1/3 of that of a Muslim man's in court - a woman's word is worth nothing - I believe this is actually a fact of law in states other than Saudi Arabia. The problem with this is obvious as soon as a Christian man tries to bring a prosecution against a Muslim for raping his daughter.

if you ever do decide to visit the only ones worth considering are UAE and oman. i’d say these two also have the nicest people (towards foreigners and muslims alike) in the middle east. Morocco for culture trip.

I doubt I'll ever make it to the Gulf, Libya and Syria were on my list but IS et al have destroyed a lot of the interesting stuff.

Hyperbole. I tried to tell you it’s not propaganda but a widely accepted historical view according to the academic sources I linked to.

Matter of perspective, and I think your perspective is outmoded by roughly a century.

You’re pretending that this is all a result of Arab incompetence when it is the west cooperating with that incompetence that led to this. You have chips in the middle east and all of a sudden you want your money back.

Me personally, I have no chips, and I never voted for a government that had chips - I was too young and then it was Labour you fought wars in the ME when I was an adult. Also, you have to consider that it's been a century and a lot of places in the Gulf have backslid. This is a major difference between the Gulf and the Levant, where there is historically a different, more Urban, society that has developed Civil Institutions.

You are correct that the US etc. has propped up some dictators but those dictators overthrew more moderate monarchs installed by the British who were more inclined toward a more open society. About the only post-WW1 monarchy from that settlement to survive is Jordan.

Jordan is also arguable the safest and most progressive country in he Middle East.

As a subject of Elizabeth Regina I'm biased though.

I drink. I know a lot of people that do and lot that don’t big deal. Politicized ideas is no reason to carry a grudge towards an entire people.

I also don't lie about it unless I'm at my grandma's house or some shit.

See - I don't get this. Isn't not consuming alcohol a major element of Islam, I get that it's not THE defining feature but I still don't understand how it is that so many Muslims in the ME seem to drink so much - certainly Muslims I have met in the UK generally don't.

"Not yet" is relative - you may wish to look at Arab discourse at the turn of the last Century whilst still under Ottoman rule. You are of course correct that the lack of democracy is partly because they general populace not enamoured of it, and don't appear to understand the concept.

The concept is understood but it is feared. This democratic peace theory destroyed Iraq. It requires changing of norms and the implications of that are unknown and should be feared across the middle east. Constitutional monarchy is the best one can hope for right now and it's the only realistic reform.

Now, perhaps you can see why I don't want people like that in my country, because my country is weak in many ways. Civil society in the UK and much of Europe is already fractured, we're just about holding it together here but if you look at our history over the last fifty years we're in danger of entering systemic decline.

Just because democracy may not be appealing to them at home doesn't mean they won't like it in an environment like Europe. The EU masses need to recognize that this is nothing more than gang culture and social isolation. Two Somali girls tried to join ISIS a few months ago in this state (colorado), but Islam is not the problem here. Yes it can be a source of violence for people with years of pent-up aggression or ignorance but condemning the belief system in its entirety is totally useless because fifty years from now the belief system will not be the same. 200 years ago my ancestors were worshipping the moon or venerating sacred trees while calling themselves Muslims, it keeps changing for better or worse.

Like I said - fall of Rome - it only takes a generation.

Crack down on the angry beards. They are the ones preaching the Islamization of the world and that the Syrian war is god's plan to biologically replace the infidel offspring with Muslim ones (this was actually the sermon in Medinah last week, again shows this is all ksa). They are successfully intimidating you, this is what they expect it's Jihadi trolling 101.

When Saudi Arabia becomes weak and its international standing lowered, they will harvest the rewards of students of this hate speech in Europe to maintain its religious power. Ideological leverage this is how they do it's been causing chaos on a regional level for 60 years.

To this I should have added "acceptance of maintaining or changing the regime through violence".

In Saudi probably, nowhere else I could think of. Violent human rights abuses are pretty unheard of, its mostly imprisonment and at the worst deportation. These people have families so you wouldn't want to alienate them, saying they broke the law and exiled them is already overboard.

We guarantee enough to keep body and soul together, not to live well.

When I look around I see the body doing well. People are happy and see the change over the years. It's interesting to witness what will become of it because right now it is the beacon of civilization in the middle east and I hope it keeps it up so everyone can eat their words. These countries have much to prove and one day hopefully they can distance themselves from the kingdom.

Matter of perspective - I assume in most Gulf states that if a woman wears a knee-length skirt and has her their unbround there'll be mutter of "deserved it" if she's raped.

Whoa. No. Cultural shaming on the rapist actually for being a thirsty loser with no pickup game.

One thing I've come across talking to Turks, Arabs, and Africans is that a woman's hnour is protected by the men in her family, rather than by society in general. So a woman needs an escort in certain situations even in public lest she be assumed to be "fair game".

This is a family thing. Rich people in Asia or the west have the same attitude. Kuwait and Oman don't care about this much, neither does the UAE as long as the family is okay with it.

As I recall the Koran, or the Hadith, specifies that a Christian man's word is worth 1/3 of that of a Muslim man's in court - a woman's word is worth nothing - I believe this is actually a fact of law in states other than Saudi Arabia. The problem with this is obvious as soon as a Christian man tries to bring a prosecution against a Muslim for raping his daughter.

1. Not the Qur'an

2. The Hadith tells me to drink camelpiss, I'd like to see all the clerics do this.

And I don't think what you said is true anyway.

Matter of perspective, and I think your perspective is outmoded by roughly a century.

Back up your updated perspective with sources.

installed by the British who were more inclined toward a more open society. About the only post-WW1 monarchy from that settlement to survive is Jordan.

Jordan is also arguable the safest and most progressive country in he Middle East.

But Britain installed all Gulf monarchs. I've been to Jordan, I love the people and the political system but that country is a joke in hindsight. It's just there. I think some British guy accidentally poured some coffee on the map and wala there it is JORDAN. Out of all the arbitrarily drawn borders...

See - I don't get this. Isn't not consuming alcohol a major element of Islam, I get that it's not THE defining feature but I still don't understand how it is that so many Muslims in the ME seem to drink so much - certainly Muslims I have met in the UK generally don't.

Those same people won't tell you that the companions of the prophet used to drink all the time before it was regarded as a sin, and even then Islam's birth still had Muslims that drink. I pray for a day that these people realize that these were laid-back dudes who were sinners and human, and they were not persecuted for it until uptight caliphs came along.

All you have to do to be a Muslim is declare your faith.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

Whoa. No. Cultural shaming on the rapist actually for being a thirsty loser with no pickup game.

They can have cultural shaming in their own country. Over here, we expect it to be backed by the law. No doubt there are other things than rape that are culturally shameful in the UK, but backed by the law in the ME. That's ok. They can have their world, and we'll have ours.

Don't get me wrong it is backed up by the law of course.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Poland is not ex-Soviet.

Yeah, well.

But it doesn't really matter. All of those have a far more ancient history than, say, the USA and their previous spell of independece was not that long ago. So their traditions of statehood (especially the Baltic ones) had just to be restored.

From an organisational point of view, there doesn't have to be much difference at all between regaining independence and establishing it.

Islam (as well as any religion in any post-Soviet state) isn't really that important in secular Middle-Asian countries. And except for it Arabs won't have anything in common with the Turkic (in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan) or Iranean (in Tadjikistan) population with their own unrelated languages and different cultures. Besides, there is a sizable Slavic population (especially in Khazakhstan) who will have still less in common (and will consequently display less welcoming attitude) with the would-be immigrants than the locals of other ethnicities.

This is beside the point, as should be obvious when I just wrote that Syrians ≠ Kazakhs. The point is that Syria has something in common with Kazakhstan, namely Islam as the dominant religion (Syria is/was a relatively secular state, anyway).

In non-Muslim Europe, there is even less in common. Still no language, still no ethnicity - and no religion, in common. There's almost nothing. In Kazakhstan, there is something; something not insignificant.

Originally Posted by Montmorency

That's a rather low bar, isn't it?

Given the context, it isn't. We could set the bar so high that no existing country would qualify; but there would be no point in that, either.

Religion is not the key here. Inasmuch as they would be quicker or more likely to integrate, it would be because of, for instance, similar institutional culture and economic development. Indonesia is Muslim but it is demonstrably easier for Europeans to assimilate in Indonesia than it is for most continental Muslims.

Any group with a high level of education (relative to the rest of the world) could integrate almost anywhere. Assimilation is another matter.

I have never heard of Europeans assimilating in Indonesia; could you elaborate?

They could not have accomplished in Libya what they did in Syria.

Bold statement. There are many scenarios I don't think you are giving serious consideration. Returning to this below.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

There are also a lot of inter-state projects that will aim to further unify the GCC as an economic force

Will this prove adequate to bribe the population from having political opinions?

All a sham

Not a sham, but the militias had most of the brute force power; not any government institution, including the military.

All the weapons are in Islamist hands since NATO got involved.

That's certainly not the case, but even a milder version of this statement is likely to be inaccurate, at best.

Turkey had a lot to do with it and the weapons fell into Islamist hands anyway with or without foreign training of these militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/wo...ands.html?_r=0

They were Islamists right from the get-go and have been infesting eastern Libya for years with pent-up aggression for the regime. LIFG and AQIM affiliates/admirers saw the spring as an opportunity to hijack everything mid-revolution rather than Egypt’s post-revolution hijacking. These are armed Islamists that were trained by Turkey and funded by pretty much everyone including ksa and qatar. Everyone turned against Ghaddafi in support of Islamist militias that were entrusted with regime change.

Then blame these countries for the arming, not NATO in general. One would have to ask how much of a difference these weapons made, anyway, considering that the rebels got control over military bases right from the start and could loot equiptment from these; including heavy artillery and tanks.

Ghaddafi could have cracked down on these movements if not for nato advocating total regime change, as if anything can possibly be guaranteed in a movement filled with affiliates of known transnational jihadi movements.

Gaddafi didn't manage to prevent half of the country from slipping out of his control in the first place - without any foreign intervention. The faith in this deluded narcissist seems rather misplaced.

Actually, ISIS is already in multiple fronts including yemen, sinai, tunisia, algeria, and libya.

Yes, they have smaller presences there. Imagine if Gaddafi's offensive failed to regain all territory, and the original war in Libya kept going on in parallel to IS' growth in Syria. IS could have united a lot of disillusioned Libyan rebels under their wealthy banner; now IS doesn't have much to offer in Libya in comparison.

Even if Gaddafi did manage to retake all lost cities (cities which, again, he didn't have to lose in the first place), cities could still be lost again with rebels regrouping (the more Gaddafi reconquered, the more his forces would be spread thin), perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.

I have never heard of Europeans assimilating in Malaysia; could you elaborate?

The Dutch language in Indonesia died shortly after independence. In fact, there is no longer a native ethnic-Dutch population in Indonesia. This is not the case simply because some native ethnic-Dutch left the region after the war and independence. It is because they mixed and assimilated so thoroughly that they simply stopped passing on their Dutch language and culture within a single generation.

Admittedly, the role played by population proportions is large. After independence, only a few tens of thousands of "full-blooded" Dutch remained in the long-term. There were already some hundreds of thousands of Indo-Dutch (i.e. "mixed"), but their assimilated identity had already been forming for centuries. Nevertheless, it is one of a few notable cases of entire European colonial populations 'going native', so to speak.

IS could have united a lot of disillusioned Libyan rebels under their wealthy banner

They could do that in Libya, even though they never even accomplished it in Syria - their backyard?

Even if Gaddafi did manage to retake all lost cities (cities which, again, he didn't have to lose in the first place), cities could still be lost again with rebels regrouping (the more Gaddafi reconquered, the more his forces would be spread thin), perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.

Islamists and jihadists have and have had a relatively-negligible presence in Libya. The conflict there is far more tribal than even one such as Syria's.

Dutch language died because almost all were killed, read up.

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

bwana blanka, white monkey

Originally Posted by Viking

Will this prove adequate to bribe the population from having political opinions?

No. But then you have Jordan.

Not a sham, but the militias had most of the brute force power; not any government institution, including the military.

Before they started getting funded by nato? No. When you arm islamists you best believe they’re gonna run with it forever. In Libya everyone and their dog knew who's boss as soon as it happened - Islamists, taking over your neighborhood and telling you its time to atone for the country's sins.

That's certainly not the case, but even a milder version of this statement is likely to be inaccurate, at best.

Islamists were the most organized armed groups, they were trained in turkey, and had the support of nato and its lackeys. Denying that this is a failed NATO operation is laughable at this point.

Then blame these countries for the arming, not NATO in general. One would have to ask how much of a difference these weapons made, anyway, considering that the rebels got control over military bases right from the start and could loot equiptment from these; including heavy artillery and tanks.

NATO in general. they wanted Gaddafi out:

1. Saudi Arabia always had a personal grudge, he hurt their pride. This was a dictator that was a huge threat to Iran, so for Saudi to cater to Iranian interest is a sign of imprudence and nato exploited this utter lack of political pragmatism by funding wahhabi islamists that al saud perpetuates. Here's an eerily foreshadowing verbal example of said grudge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYY_ws6axKo

2. You forget no-fly zones, BOMBING a sovereign state, publicly advocating for the removal of a sovereign, and arming of local insurgents and/or creating a situation where your weapons would fall into insurgent hands. NATO was at war with a regime and had a tactical alliance with islamist insurgents. Bashar Al Assad opposed this intervention might i add, despite his Iranian allies he recognized the aggressiveness of Turkey and Saudi, who have been constantly empowering Islamism in the region.

3. Those weapons made a huge difference just like the airstrikes made a huge difference. What also made a huge difference was the decision to internationally condemn qaddafi without highlighting the impending Islamist threat that oozed from this “revolution.” A sovereign was betrayed and on what basis that concerns any nato member or any other arab country?

Yes, they have smaller presences there. Imagine if Gaddafi's offensive failed to regain all territory, and the original war in Libya kept going on in parallel to IS' growth in Syria. IS could have united a lot of disillusioned Libyan rebels under their wealthy banner; now IS doesn't have much to offer in Libya in comparison.

Uniting Libyans? I don’t see any of this happening. You have to understand that Libya is a different animal.

Even if Gaddafi did manage to retake all lost cities (cities which, again, he didn't have to lose in the first place), cities could still be lost again with rebels regrouping (the more Gaddafi reconquered, the more his forces would be spread thin), perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.

Even if western media would still fail by showing these Islamists as freedom fighters it wouldn’t be a complete state of emergency with the regime being targeted domestically and internationally. When the president comes out and says “you have to go,” the political implications of that are dangerous as hell and you’ll find your neighbors start clowning on you/kicking you while your down until you fall. The west empowered these movements you're overestimating their influence prior to that.

Nonsense.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

The concept is understood but it is feared. This democratic peace theory destroyed Iraq. It requires changing of norms and the implications of that are unknown and should be feared across the middle east. Constitutional monarchy is the best one can hope for right now and it's the only realistic reform.

People only fear what they do not understand.

I'm not sure you understand, you seem to think that "Constitutional Monarchy" is different to democracy. It's not - I live in a democracy which is simultaneously a Constitutional Monarchy and under the Constitution the Monarch's power is absolute - the Saudi King wishes he was as powerful as my Queen who rules by the Grace of God.

Yet, we are a democracy.

Just because democracy may not be appealing to them at home doesn't mean they won't like it in an environment like Europe. The EU masses need to recognize that this is nothing more than gang culture and social isolation. Two Somali girls tried to join ISIS a few months ago in this state (colorado), but Islam is not the problem here. Yes it can be a source of violence for people with years of pent-up aggression or ignorance but condemning the belief system in its entirety is totally useless because fifty years from now the belief system will not be the same. 200 years ago my ancestors were worshipping the moon or venerating sacred trees while calling themselves Muslims, it keeps changing for better or worse.

So, socially maladjusted gang-bangers who are afraid of democracy? Are you sure that's how you want to paint Arabs?

Crack down on the angry beards. They are the ones preaching the Islamization of the world and that the Syrian war is god's plan to biologically replace the infidel offspring with Muslim ones (this was actually the sermon in Medinah last week, again shows this is all ksa). They are successfully intimidating you, this is what they expect it's Jihadi trolling 101.

*Strokes beard*

Seems to me, there are an AWFUL LOT of what you are calling extreme Islamists in Europea already - if there were so few to start with then I can't see how there would be any left in the ME with all the ones in Europe.

When Saudi Arabia becomes weak and its international standing lowered, they will harvest the rewards of students of this hate speech in Europe to maintain its religious power. Ideological leverage this is how they do it's been causing chaos on a regional level for 60 years.

When the Gulf States run out of oil everybody will suffer horribly - about rhe only up side would appear to be that with all the oil fields empty they won't be able to set them on fire.

In Saudi probably, nowhere else I could think of. Violent human rights abuses are pretty unheard of, its mostly imprisonment and at the worst deportation. These people have families so you wouldn't want to alienate them, saying they broke the law and exiled them is already overboard.

Syria, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Iraq, Iran...

Whoa. No. Cultural shaming on the rapist actually for being a thirsty loser with no pickup game.

So you're so regressive you think that rapists do it for sexual gratification? "Oh, you couldn't get her you had to rape her?"

That's worse!

This is a family thing. Rich people in Asia or the west have the same attitude. Kuwait and Oman don't care about this much, neither does the UAE as long as the family is okay with it.

In the West a woman's honour is protected by society in general, not by her father or husband - we have immigrants here who kill their daughters for perceived slights that even the most zealous and blindsighted European would consider minor.

1. Not the Qur'an

2. The Hadith tells me to drink camelpiss, I'd like to see all the clerics do this.

And I don't think what you said is true anyway.

From what I have read the Koran instructs you to refrain from gambling and intoxicants - which is why Muslims don't drink and why we no longer play Chess with dice.

Back up your updated perspective with sources.

I lost interest, from where I'm sitting your argument made no sense - I demonstrated that the original inhabitants of the Alluvial plane were neither Arab nor Semitic, I could dig up something showing the people in Caanan originally spoke a non-Semitic language, but would it matter?

But Britain installed all Gulf monarchs. I've been to Jordan, I love the people and the political system but that country is a joke in hindsight. It's just there. I think some British guy accidentally poured some coffee on the map and wala there it is JORDAN. Out of all the arbitrarily drawn borders...

We created Trans-Jordan to limit Jewish territorial expansion by dividing Palestine in half. Originally what is now "Israel" and "Jordan" would have been "Palestine" because Classicists drew that may and divided it into the old Roman provinces. Joradn is also not a joke, the fact that you think it is speaks volumes.

Those same people won't tell you that the companions of the prophet used to drink all the time before it was regarded as a sin, and even then Islam's birth still had Muslims that drink. I pray for a day that these people realize that these were laid-back dudes who were sinners and human, and they were not persecuted for it until uptight caliphs came along.

All you have to do to be a Muslim is declare your faith.

If you want Grace for your sins you might try Christianity, Islam is a religion of Kings and warriors and as such it is somewhat shorter on forgiveness.

People only fear what they do not understand.

I'm not sure you understand, you seem to think that "Constitutional Monarchy" is different to democracy. It's not - I live in a democracy which is simultaneously a Constitutional Monarchy and under the Constitution the Monarch's power is absolute - the Saudi King wishes he was as powerful as my Queen who rules by the Grace of God.

Yet, we are a democracy.

different norms. as for the king of saudi arabia, he is the most powerful figure in the country unlike your queen. this is why she visits him and not the other way around.

So, socially maladjusted gang-bangers who are afraid of democracy? Are you sure that's how you want to paint Arabs?

that’s not what i said, but i can see how you in particular would infer this.

Seems to me, there are an AWFUL LOT of what you are calling extreme Islamists in Europea already - if there were so few to start with then I can't see how there would be any left in the ME with all the ones in Europe.

trolling.

When the Gulf States run out of oil everybody will suffer horribly - about rhe only up side would appear to be that with all the oil fields empty they won't be able to set them on fire.

not funny. i don't think you understand how horrible that is, we have family in yemen. but even then, suffer horribly is exaggerating. your just talking.

Syria, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Iraq, Iran…

talking about the gulf

So you're so regressive you think that rapists do it for sexual gratification? "Oh, you couldn't get her you had to rape her?”

uhh…. wasn’t being serious dude. the point you initially made about rape is stereotypical rubbish.

In the West a woman's honour is protected by society in general, not by her father or husband - we have immigrants here who kill their daughters for perceived slights that even the most zealous and blindsighted European would consider minor.

so what? do you feel I should defend these immigrants or are muslims regressive monkeys for the rest of their lives…

From what I have read the Koran instructs you to refrain from gambling and intoxicants - which is why Muslims don't drink and why we no longer play Chess with dice.

so what?

I lost interest, from where I'm sitting your argument made no sense - I demonstrated that the original inhabitants of the Alluvial plane were neither Arab nor Semitic, I could dig up something showing the people in Caanan originally spoke a non-Semitic language, but would it matter?

but why should anyone (not just me) take your word for it about anything? who are you to deny sources with your own words like they’re gospel

Joradn is also not a joke, the fact that you think it is speaks volumes.

and what does that mean

All in all cynical and mean-spirited post.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

different norms. as for the king of saudi arabia, he is the most powerful figure in the country unlike your queen. this is why she visits him and not the other way around.

Doesn't the Saudi King have to answer to the Imans or whatever they are? Here the Bishops ultimately answer to the Queen. Legally the Queen makes the law, passes judgement and controls the Church.

Yet we live in a democracy. HM Queen has only visited Saudia Arabia once in 1979.

On the last King's visit to the Queen in Scotland: http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...ay--eJYX859rsl

So either you're ill-informed or you thought I wouldn't check.

There was also the time the Guards band played the "Imperial March" from Star Wars when his Highness arrived.

that’s not what i said, but i can see how you in particular would infer this.

No, that was in essence what you said, that these people fear democracy, are socially isolated and operate within a "gang culture". You may have meant something else, but that did not come across.

trolling.

You're dodging the point with an ad hominem - you want us to accept that the sorts of nutters we have in Europe are a minority in the Gulf and Levant, but the fact that they keep coming here AND they have created IS says otherwise.

not funny. i don't think you understand how horrible that is, we have family in yemen.

I was being completely literal - I have no faith in the Gulf States' ability to pacify their populations without oil money and about the only unside to that is that they will drain the wells and when it does all kick off we won't have burning wells ruining the climate of the planet for years.

talking about the gulf

Currently the Gulf is relatively quiet due to the aforementioned bribes being paid to the populace with oil money, I can't seem to keep up with your frame of reference though. One minute it's about the whole ME, then just the Gulf.

A good example of torture in the Gulf would be Oman though, although that was a few dcades back now (and the British helped with it).

uhh…. wasn’t being serious dude. the point you initially made about rape is stereotypical rubbish.

Again, "she was asking for it" is a claimpretty common to sexist pigs across the world, not just Arabs. Certainly, though, we hear a lot of it from Arabs and other Muslims here in the UK.

so what? do you feel I should defend these immigrants or are muslims regressive monkeys for the rest of their lives…

On the contrary I expect you to condemn them - I also expected you to condemn rapists but instead you make a joke of it.

so what?

So, if the Koran instructs you to do something, I was under the impression that was not negotiable - because the Koran is the infallible word of God as transmitted through His Prophet.

Correct me if I'm wrong - it's what I learned at school and university.

but why should anyone (not just me) take your word for it about anything? who are you to deny sources with your own words like they’re gospel

Who am I? A PhD candidate studying medieval Christian heresy with a side line the Classics who studied, among others, Alexander's Conquest of the Persian Empire and an amateur interest in Archaeology. I can also, as I said, read a map and a book. Give me a year and I'll write you a paper on all the people in the Levant who aren't really Arabs.

and what does that mean

It means that it's profoundly weird that when looking at Jordan, which is doing better than almost any other country in the region at almost everything, you decide to call it a "joke". You could have said it was an example for the other countries in the region to aspire to.

All in all cynical and mean-spirited post.

Stop excusing the failings of the people in the Middle East, a thousand years ago Babylon had street lighting and what was very nearly a public health service. You are basically characterising your own people as stupid and cowardly, unable or unwilling to realise that they have spent a century or so in a cultural and social backslide.

Reading your posts on this is like reading the posts of an American trying to deny a Public Health service would work in the US.

1979? Look up more recent visits, the difference is the king is head of state (does not answer to clergy) and the queen is good at being admired for uselessness.

No, that was in essence what you said, that these people fear democracy, are socially isolated and operate within a "gang culture". You may have meant something else, but that did not come across.

The people who resort to violence. Obviously.

You're dodging the point with an ad hominem - you want us to accept that the sorts of nutters we have in Europe are a minority in the Gulf and Levant, but the fact that they keep coming here AND they have created IS says otherwise.

They are students of salafism. Your problem is salafism. The poor, oppressed, or uneducated are easy targets.

Again, "she was asking for it" is a claimpretty common to sexist pigs across the world, not just Arabs. Certainly, though, we hear a lot of it from Arabs and other Muslims here in the UK.

They can go to hell then. This is not how I was raised or most people I know were, you can believe what you want.

On the contrary I expect you to condemn them - I also expected you to condemn rapists but instead you make a joke of it.

The point is your initial point about rape is false. How can anyone not be offended by that especially when it isn't true. Disgusting.

So, if the Koran instructs you to do something, I was under the impression that was not negotiable - because the Koran is the infallible word of God as transmitted through His Prophet.

There are trends in Muslim countries, you get your shit together once you get old, but even that is totally up to you in a non-salafi environment. The Qur'an has regulations on how to treat slaves when they were socially acceptable. It says that adultery is a sin but if you think majority actually adhere to this than you are dehumanizing plain and simple.

Who am I? A PhD candidate studying medieval Christian heresy with a side line the Classics who studied, among others, Alexander's Conquest of the Persian Empire and an amateur interest in Archaeology. I can also, as I said, read a map and a book. Give me a year and I'll write you a paper on all the people in the Levant who aren't really Arabs.

Putting aside the douchey response I hope you do write that paper and come to realize you're wrong, but maybe you'll run with it anyway I imagine.

Please don't list your credentials again, it's embarrassing. How incredibly pretentious. This is a message board.

It means that it's profoundly weird that when looking at Jordan, which is doing better than almost any other country in the region at almost everything, you decide to call it a "joke". You could have said it was an example for the other countries in the region to aspire to.

It certainly is an example to aspire to which is why I said I love Jordan's political system. Kuwait is also very interesting. Jordanians would strongly disagree with you that their country is doing better "at almost everything." Jordan and Jordanians have the best relationship with the gulf (definitely in the UAE most of all), but the country doesn't come close to the gulf. They want to make their country better and Dubai serves as a model for all Arabs.

Stop excusing the failings of the people in the Middle East, a thousand years ago Babylon had street lighting and what was very nearly a public health service. You are basically characterising your own people as stupid and cowardly, unable or unwilling to realise that they have spent a century or so in a cultural and social backslide.

I am baffled that you came to this conclusion doctor.

The Queen is both head of state and head of the clergy (Supreme Governor of the Church of England).

Also the British Queen is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and over a dozen other countries. The Queen is also the head of the Commonwealth of Nations which has over 2 billion people and a combined GDP about ten times that of Saudi Arabia. With some of the most developed and free citizens within those member nations.

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The Queen is both head of state and head of the clergy (Supreme Governor of the Church of England).

Also the British Queen is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and over a dozen other countries. The Queen is also the head of the Commonwealth of Nations which has over 2 billion people and a combined GDP about ten times that of Saudi Arabia. With some of the most developed and free citizens within those member nations.

As if they needed a queen for that, she is just a ceremonial muppet

Frags, what did we say about you projecting your monarchy's unpopularity onto others?

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Frags, what did we say about you projecting your monarchy's unpopularity onto others?

The same thing my mommy said about various things

Originally Posted by Fragony

As if they needed a queen for that, she is just a ceremonial muppet

Applicable to all monarchs and heads of religion.

However mileage does vary compare and contrast the current Pope with predecessors.

Saying that she has more power than Al Saud is a bit of a stretch, take a look at the net worth and who has an active participation in international relations.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

1979? Look up more recent visits, the difference is the king is head of state (does not answer to clergy) and the queen is good at being admired for uselessness.

I cannot see a record of a more recent visit by the Queen to Saudi Arabia, Prince Charles was the one who visited when King Abdullah died. You are also labouring under a miss-apprehension, the queen is not admired for being useless, but for doing nothing. Ever heard the phrase "walk softly and carry a big stick"?

She has in the past chosen a Prime Minister without reference to the House of Commons (that did not go well) and it 2010 she threatened to nullify elections and have them re-run after the parties spent a few weeks in deadlock.

She could, if she so wished, dismiss parliament or strip it of its executive function entirely and reduce it to a consultative body which drafted law.

Granted, there would be a revolt, but she has that legal power.

The people who resort to violence. Obviously.

Then you needed to preface that whole passage with "the people who resort to violence are..." if you don't want to be miss-understood.

They are students of salafism. Your problem is salafism. The poor, oppressed, or uneducated are easy targets.

Yes, I am aware, but a lot of the Imans who whip them up come from the Levant and the Gulf, and now you have IS so I think these extremists are more prevalent in the Gulf itself than you want to admit, or are aware of. If that were not the case then I have to wonder why the well of nutjobs has not run dry.

They can go to hell then. This is not how I was raised or most people I know were, you can believe what you want.

The point is your initial point about rape is false. How can anyone not be offended by that especially when it isn't true. Disgusting.

Levity regarding rape offends me. I am deeply suspicious of the claim that you don't have the "she was asking for it" problem in the Middle East given that it seems to be a view of many of the Middle Easteners I have met - not all or even necessarily a majority but still more than the Europeans I have met. Maybe only arseholes come to the UK.

There are trends in Muslim countries, you get your shit together once you get old, but even that is totally up to you in a non-salafi environment. The Qur'an has regulations on how to treat slaves when they were socially acceptable. It says that adultery is a sin but if you think majority actually adhere to this than you are dehumanizing plain and simple.

Putting aside the douchey response I hope you do write that paper and come to realize you're wrong, but maybe you'll run with it anyway I imagine.

Please don't list your credentials again, it's embarrassing. How incredibly pretentious. This is a message board.

You asked who I was, I answered, partly so that you know I'm not making pretensions to being a Middle Eastern Scholar or a Linguist, but you can take it the other way if you want.

It certainly is an example to aspire to which is why I said I love Jordan's political system. Kuwait is also very interesting. Jordanians would strongly disagree with you that their country is doing better "at almost everything." Jordan and Jordanians have the best relationship with the gulf (definitely in the UAE most of all), but the country doesn't come close to the gulf. They want to make their country better and Dubai serves as a model for all Arabs.

Doesn't Dubai still have debter's prison? Dubai is also famous here for the horrific treatment of Sub-Continental workers who live in conditions that have been compared to African slavery two hundred years ago - the country is also an absolute monarchy with no elections, people are put to death if convicted of homosexuality and imprisoned for kissing.

I am baffled that you came to this conclusion doctor.

Ah, no, I am still working on the PhD. Perhaps the problem is that what I see as failings you do not, and therefore we are talking at cross-purposes.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...0visits%20gulf

Yes, I am aware, but a lot of the Imans who whip them up come from the Levant and the Gulf, and now you have IS so I think these extremists are more prevalent in the Gulf itself than you want to admit, or are aware of. If that were not the case then I have to wonder why the well of nutjobs has not run dry.

I have a feeling the majority went to school in Saudi Arabia or regularly go to wahhabi-funded mosques. There is a distinction between the gulf and Saudi Arabia, different regimes. Oman doesn't care about which sect you belong to, you pray in the same place as shias whether you're a sufi or sunni. UAE is a federation that has cracked down on the brotherhood back in 2011 and is known to oppose Islamist movements or any prospect of wahhabism in the country, we were at war with wahhabis some 60-80 years ago along with Oman. Kuwait isn't known to spawn these people, Bahrain is a Shia-majority so certainly not either.

The gulf takes control of their Islamic institutions and monitor their mosques. Whatever type of people those mosques produce are generally a reflection of the state's worldview, and what you are witnessing in the UK is Saudi-Wahhabi zeal at its finest. Your mosques belong to them.

Doesn't Dubai still have debter's prison? Dubai is also famous here for the horrific treatment of Sub-Continental workers who live in conditions that have been compared to African slavery two hundred years ago - the country is also an absolute monarchy with no elections, people are put to death if convicted of homosexuality and imprisoned for kissing.

I don't know why the steps being taken to solve these issues aren't covered, locals speak about this often and nationals are actually ashamed of this, it's a serious issue. This doesn't change the fact that Dubai is a model for Arabs, that's why it's such a diverse city.

On paper it's supposed to be sharia, conservative Arabs and Muslims might hate Dubai. I was there a few weeks ago and kissing is a minor offense, but pda/public sex can lead to deportation. Homosexuals aren't executed, that is a lie.

See you say these things but there really isn't that much negativity to say about Dubai itself. I can list all of UK's shortcomings and that will blow it out of the water but I understand it. Also because I've actually been to the UK.