Support NeoGAF

[Darkangel]

So this sort of thing is normal in europe?


So happy to be in Canada.

Canada and the rest of the "New World" countries were colonized by immigrants. Europe on the other hand is the "Old World" with a native population, history and culture (Not to imply that the North American natives didn't have this, but you get my point). A white person living in China or Japan for decades probably wouldn't be seen as "Asian" either.

 

[Nivash]

Thank you for that. It seems like there's enough there to have had an effect on how people feel (and the shift towards SD), but as always the full picture is far more complicated than the first glance.

I'm not at all surprised to see politicians over-represented in crime stats. Some things will never change no matter where, when, or who you are.

Yeah, the complication is the problem. I only know about these things because I've spent years trying to understand the situation. Schools don't teach them, the media doesn't report about them. Ordinary people simply see an immigrant commit a crime and immediately jump to "if we never would have let him in this would never have happened!" Add that to the underlying xenophobia and there you go, more support for SD. It doesn't help that some types of "new" crimes (not completely truly new of course, but still) like riots, gang wars and group rapes have popped up in the same time and some people have connected these to immigrants being inherently violent.

As for the SD parliamentarians they are rather unique in their criminality though. Other politicians are usually white collar if anything - tax evasion, maybe the occasional case of fraud. But the SD parliamentarians are veterans who joined when SD was still a neo-nazi organisation 20 odd years ago. They have a lot more baggage, particularly with violence.

 

[...Scatter...]

And how do propose we do that? Should the US invade and set up local governments? It didn't exactly work out in Iraq - just the disarmament part is completely impossible at this point.

By leveraging regional diplomacy UAE, etc. and giving them financial incentives to do so. Eliminating funding for the war from outside sources is a great start.

 

[FrozenCell]

why not fix Syria instead?

 

[...Scatter...]

why not fix Syria instead?

Bingo

 

[not_so_special]

everytime there is a thread like this is funny to see people from the usa and canada triying to get the moral high ground

 

[Paganmoon]

Edit: nm.

 

[Walpurgis]

everytime there is a thread like this is funny to see people from the usa and canada triying to get the moral high ground

Why is that funny?

 

[mephel]

I've been wondering, if you take humanism out of the equation. Would you still take the immigrants?
I mean strictly from the logical point of "will this help me, my family or my country now or in the future"?

As far as I am concerned, I simply don't care, if my country allows more immigrants, so be it. (i will not be participating in any votes or demonstrations on any front) Any decision is very unlikely to change my life in any way.

But when I think about it within the limitations set above, I don't really see any positives for Europe. Maybe I am just uneducated on the subject. I think that every country should have complete reign over its borders.

 

[Walpurgis]

I've been wondering, if you take humanism out of the equation. Would you still take the immigrants?
I mean strictly from the logical point of "will this help me, my family or my country now or in the future"?

As far as I am concerned, I simply don't care, if my country allows more immigrants, so be it. (i will not be participating in any votes or demonstrations on any front) Any decision is very unlikely to change my life in any way.

But when I think about it within the limitations set above, I don't really see any positives for Europe. Maybe I am just uneducated on the subject. I think that every country should have complete reign over its borders.

More developed countries like those in North America and Europe have very low birth rates. Without immigrants, they end up with an old population and not enough workers to support them. Japan is facing this crisis right now.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

GCC countries are supporting Syrian refugees in Arabic countries
UN lauds UAE aid to 99,000 Syrian refugees

Jordanian Interior Minister hails UAE support for Syrian Refugees
UAE funds over 30 percent of health needs in Syrian refugee camps

This us one of the worst human tragedies, the question is why we are not supporting it's why we are not resolving and fixing.

 

[Lime]

why not fix Syria instead?

Stabilizing Syria is a Gordian Knot. Too may conflicting interests from all sorts of countries, it would never be possible to reach an agreement.

 

[Irminsul]

More developed countries like those in North America and Europe have very low birth rates. Without immigrants, they end up with an old population and not enough workers to support them. Japan is facing this crisis right now.

That arguments only works for skilled immigrants. In the case of Syria, that may actually be true for their refugees as well, but I very much doubt they are the solution to an ageing population in general.

 

[Kenshin001]

GCC countries are supporting Syrian refugees in Arabic countries
UN lauds UAE aid to 99,000 Syrian refugees

Jordanian Interior Minister hails UAE support for Syrian Refugees
UAE funds over 30 percent of health needs in Syrian refugee camps

This us one of the worst human tragedies, the question is why we are not supporting it's why we are not resolving and fixing.

They aren't offering to taking refugees in though.

The six Gulf countries - Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain - have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.

Zero. There is nothing stopping those GCC countries from taking in Syrian refugees and paying for their food and shelter. Obviously the Christian refugees won't want to go there for fear of persecution and discrimination but there is nothing stopping the Muslim refugees going there.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Wouldn't it be easier to just split Syria? Create a Syria 1 and a Syria 2 force them militarily to disarm and then each group can do what they do. Kind of like Korea without the haircuts?

Well, we'd need better names for a kick off

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

Whether your supporting AL Assad or against him, you can't deny how he mishandled the whole situation. I think the solution is to unify the Syrian Army again under the allegiance of Syria and not al Assad.
Someone who really failed at solving the issue and made it worse is unlikely to be part of the solution.

 

[Nivash]

It shouldn't matter if the recipient countries can profit from refugees or not. The right to asylum is a human right. Article 14, in fact. As regulated by the Convention relating to the status of Refugees to which all European nations are signatories. Most Middle Eastern nations aren't signatories (including Syria) but that shouldn't matter either. This is an obligation we have chosen and one we should honor.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Yes, Muslims kill a LOT of Muslims! They are indeed their own worst enemies. So Muslims should understand more than anyone else why others are a little wary of Muslims.

Did I say it started with ISIS people? No. You are a strawman king. Constantly implying nonsense and asking irrelevant questions.


Ease up on your anger . . . it is causing you to write sentences that can't quite be parsed. Yes, they often have governments that suck. And then you can help them knock off a dictator like Quadaffi but then are unable to form a better government and it devolved into a civil war between different Islamic groups. They knocked out Mubarak . . . and then replaced them with the Muslim brotherhood that started trampling on the rights of others and eventually got overthrown. And you know there are tons of Islamists just chomping at the bit to overthrow the Saudi Kingdom. So just getting rid of the leader doesn't fix things . . . I think a problem is . . . .


Here's my view . . . mixing church & state is just a fundamentally bad idea. People will NEVER all agree how a religion should be interpreted. So you will always have a minority of people who feel that god is being disrespected and treated improperly. And since we are talking about their god, it is serious business and thus allows for overthrow. It is best if religion is not part of the state. Let everyone practice their own religion exactly how they think it should be practiced. No imposition by the state of any religious views edicts.

And it is not like this is an anti-Islam thing . . . Europe was filled with terrible religious infighting for CENTURIES. Christians killing & torturing Jews. These Christians killing those Christians. There was still a full blown Catholic v. Protestant thing in Northern Ireland up until somewhat recently. And there are still period fights between religious groups. But moving to secular states and allowing everyone to worship privately however they wish has helped calm things down.



No, it was actually an Iranian Muslim that told me that. But here is Wiki's summary of his military career:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad


Let's take a look at Wiki again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Now sure . . . I know YOU have a different interpretation. But you don't get to define all of Islam.


You know who needs a lesson in the broader interpretations of Islam? You. You follow a hippie-dippie sect of Islam that is much mellower than Salafists & Wahabbists. And that's great. I wish there were more like you.

But I find it quite strange. You are like abused spouse to the faith. Tens of thousands of if Muslims would be fine if you got killed for being an apostate due to your particular interpretation of Islam . . . and yet you defend them. I find that quite odd.

And what about the great god of ultimate mercy, Allah? He's got some power, right? If your interpretation of Islam is so correct then why does Allah allow Islamic State to run around the desert raping little girls and chopping people's heads off? Why? As an atheist, I don't think Allah is a real deity and that some people who believe in Allah read the Quran and decided that this is the way it should be interpreted. Thankfully, their interpretation is a very small minority. How do you explain why Allah allows IS to exist?

I'm sure you've got some convoluted rationalization for it. Maybe it is the Djinn in the desert are causing it. I dunno. But I don't think you are going to be able to provide a good evidence and logic based explanation.

So we all have to agree to disagree. And that's cool. Just as long as no one steps on other people's rights. And that is what I worry about it due to the inherent combined religion/law/state view of much of Islam. Saudi Arabia has lots of laws that just don't work in Europe. Iran has lots of laws that just don't work in Europe.

I want to find a way that everyone can get along . . . gays, atheists, Muslims, women, novelists, Christian, lesbians, Hindus, Jews, cartoonists, etc. But one of those seems to get into conflicts with all the others . . . so I think it needs to get discussed and we all need to look for solutions.

CTRL-F Strawman and like clockwork you bring up the strawmen defending the ideology of ISIS as legitimate. I have to wonder if you really want moderates to prevail. But we will come back to the end for this.

Back to your points. Yes Muslims do understand they know ISIS like view and that it is wrong and their view is right as per the Holy Book itself. it is the people who have an understanding like you are prevalent and also make political decisions in west and thus become enablers to the ISIS view that there is a less degree of acceptance and a a higher chance of prejudice. it is because of how you view and others similarly view muslims and their faith broadly, people start to hate muslims even if they disagree with Islam for any reason.

I am not angry I am bemused because you openly lie and misinform repeatedly again and again and again even when shown your interpretation is proven wrong by the holy books and historical books themselves. After you are corrected you cycle the same misinformation again in a new thread, its amazing that you cant get the facts of religious views through to you and you keep clinging onto the factually incorrect interpretation which only support your point of view. People can see the hate a mile away.

Are you again using WIKI as your source?

Have you actually read an actual objective historical book on Islam rather than reading blogs and wikis and hardening your view.

let me show you a view from someone who is not even in my sect lest you start going in circles about using my sect's view about Jihad

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/un...misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9

WHAT JIHAD IS

The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving.
The arabic word for war is: "al-harb".
In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), "jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.
In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.
The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.
Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.

WHAT JIHAD IS NOT

Jihad is not a violent concept.
Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.
Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.
Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications

The irony is that you fall hook line and sinker for the very definition of Jihad made by those you rail against. Or maybe you didn't fall for it..

I find the line "you don't get to define Islam" cute, I don't get to define Islam. true I don't but you don't get to pursue your view as factual without any study of the faith. all you do is quote wiki links and blogs and wash your hands off. it is pure misinformation and malicious, nothing else. At least I studied my faith, what have you done? nothing. THAT, is a fact.

Next line you say I follow a Hippie sect of Islam. let all the people here see you view my view as hippie because in your brain you have hardened the view that the actual view is ISIS. you can spin in circles and say that's not right but every statement you have made is proof you view ISIS view as the true Islamic view despite you saying I don't define what Islam is, YOU spread misinformation that the ISIS view is the definition of Islam. quite ironic and hypocritical.

And now you come to the concept of God. If you read more than blogs and more than wiki you would at least have an inkling on the concept of God. If you had read the Quran you would know that God gives free will to man, If you had studied Islam you would know that it says goodness and evil comes from within men and it is up to people to apply the correct measure and God only sends reminders. he can intervene in many cases through prayer and such but if 1000s are being killed or 1000s of dying hungry it is up to man to do something about it. If you even opened the first page of Quran you would know God has given man the FREE WILL to do good. If he does not you blame God for it or man. petty.

As we have proven you don't know anything about Islam despite me educating you on every thread. you should know Saudi Arabia follows views of Wahhabism which was formed in the 18th century not the 7th and which was built on a political movement along with Saud to bring political rule in Saudi Arabia using religious clerical views to put people under the thumb of the rulers, this has spread to many other countries, for instance in Pakistan a variant of it is called Maudoodism but you wouldn't know that because we know why, (read above)


Now we come back to the first line I mentioned. You favorite use of the word straw-man. You say I am the straw-man King. Lets look at this. In every instance of Islamic ideology, who uses the ISIS view as valid. you. In every instance of Islamic ideology, who thinks my view is hippie, You. In every instance of Islamic ideology who suggests repeatedly that Saudi Arabia is a model Islamic country, You. See your argument is built on misinformation. the political incorrect word for that is you repeatedly misinform people despite being educated on past about what is valid. Now you can call my view partially valid and you can as you have said say that I don't get to define Islam. True, But I do get to call out the malicious intent and any form of subtle bigotry and misinformation to frame an argument that ISIS view is true Islam which you have shown that you do think is true. So this is not about strawman or anything, this is about correcting misinformation which we have all seen here as being spread to undermine an understanding between muslims and non muslims.

I want to find a way that everyone can get along . . . gays, atheists, Muslims, women, novelists, Christian, lesbians, Hindus, Jews, cartoonists, etc. But one of those seems to get into conflicts with all the others . . . so I think it needs to get discussed and we all need to look for solutions.

see this last line is your Achilles heel and a showcase of the bigotry, nomatter how subtle. You mentioned all the above and then you said ONE of those seem to get into conflict with all others. which means obviously for everyones sake he is talking about Muslims. He is saying Muslims don't get along with any of those. a blanket statement. You can all judge that statement. the irony of that statement is that it completely Ignores history.
1. Homosexuality as an act being forbidden but there were a large amount of homosexuals in middle east before the british took control. it was everything and it was looked upon in the same eyes as someone who eats pork. action was frowned upon people were ignored. but he wants you to focus on only last 30 years
2. Atheists are a newer concept in even western society, the number of atheists and their view is the same in all places including muslim countries and again compartmentalizing history to the last 30 years as all history. petty.
3. Women. he doesn't even know that Hadhrat Aisha and a number of women in Islam LED armies in Islamic history and only NOW in US do we have rangers going into the US army 1400 years later. Women have been leaders in Muslim communities for 1400 years and even againts extremism, Pakistan elected a woman twice and bangladesh elected a woman twice before most of the west had a woman leader. but that is recent, its even more prevalent centuries before that.
4. Novelists. Now we are reaching for straws
5. Christians. Christians have lived with Muslims for centuries despite 2 holy wars. Even the Holy Book says every Good christian goes to heaven but that is ignored because somehow that is a hippie version of Quran
6. Lesbians. Lesbians were even more freely acting on it than homosexuals in ME
7. Hindus. I lived in Pakistan for 18 years. India has nearly the 3rd biggest Muslim population and all of them are patriorts to the nation.
8. Jews. Jews and Muslims lived in harmony in modern day Israel for centuries. some jewish tribes were allied with Muslims against Meccans. the one jewish tribe which died enmasse was told by Muhammad. let me give you the punishment from the Quran, which is going free and having a treaty with Muslims and they said that IS a punishment, we would rather get the punishment from their own book Torah, which was death. and Now Muslims are blamed for a guilty verdict
9. Cartoonists. Cartoonists have been freely practicing in all muslim countries especially in the mughal times for centuries. I don't know how you are compartmentalizing recent events against the past 1400 years.

 

[Renekton]

why not fix Syria instead?

Maybe pour billions into legit fossil fuel replacements so everyone loses interest in the region, and then Saudi Arabia stops throwing money to sponsor crazy stuff.

 

[spekkeh]

Whether your supporting AL Assad or against him, you can't deny how he mishandled the whole situation. I think the solution is to unify the Syrian Army again under the allegiance of Syria and not al Assad.
Someone who really failed at solving the issue and made it worse is unlikely to be part of the solution.

The problem with Syria is that the problem is now not with Syria. Irrespective of the starting reasons and the fact that most Syrians are pretty moderate, their country has become a front line in the Shia/Sunni conflict. There seems to be no hope for the middle east right now until Iran and Saudi Arabia relinquish their claim of being the protector of the respective sect. Which I'm afraid will take a long time.

 

[Azih]

The problem with Syria is that the problem is now not with Syria. Irrespective of the starting reasons and the fact that most Syrians are pretty moderate, their country has become a front line in the Shia/Sunni conflict. There seems to be no hope for the middle east right now until Iran and Saudi Arabia relinquish their claim of being the protector of the respective sect. Which I'm afraid will take a long time.

This is not a 'both sides are the saaaame' situation.

On one hand Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom built through an alliance between a Sunni Arab tribe and an incredibly violently bigoted Wahhabi movement that hates, among a whole lot of other people, Shias. Unfortunately there are a lot of Shias in Saudi Arabia that happen to live where all the oil is. Saudi Arabia therefore is pathologically terrified of these Shias rising up against the central power structure which discriminates against them because of the Al-Saud reliance on the Wahhabis. And they are paranoid to the point of absurdity that Iran will be behind such an uprising. Saudi Arabia's entire foreign policy is built around the domestic need to keep its native Shias suppressed.

On the other Iran is a bit like the US in that Iranians really fundamentally don't care too much about what's going on in the region. They're preoccupied with themselves. They'd prefer to have allies rather than enemies of course but that's about it. They didn't do much about Bahraini Shias getting crunched under Saudi tanks. They're not really present in Yemen. They're not isolationist by any stretch and try to exploit and support friendly groups in other countries for sure but they're not nearly as belligerent as Saudi is.

Nobody's trying to convert anybody here. It's just different peoples suspicious of each other.

Edit: Except for the Wahhabis of course. They're not much for converting though either, more of a burn and pillage and kill everyone who disagrees deal with them. If the Al-Sauds wasn't dependent on them for their legitimacy than it could reform the Kingdom be more tolerant and inclusive of their Shia minority and wouldn't have to be as afraid of Iran as they are.

 

[Lamel]

Don't question Islam or say anything negative about Islam or you're a bigot. The religion is majorly screwed up but you can't say anything about it or the white knights come a running.

Yeah, try harder.

It's more like every thread featuring muslims eventually devolves into why Islam is terrible. Yes Islam should be questioned, criticized, and discussion should happen, but not in every damn thread; this thread is about the refugee crisis and you have xxBhaskarxx quoting the damn quran to push his usual agenda. There is PLENTY of criticism of Islam on GAF, spare me.

"White knights" lol wtf. If you don't fail to see how what Slovakia is doing is clear discrimination and bigotry, then you are a bigot, sorry. Yes if Arab nations are outright refusing to take in Christian refugees, that is bigotry too. Neither of these are okay. "But but but look at UAE they aren't taking any refugees! So Slovakia is justified!" - what trash logic.

This is a humanitarian crisis; you'd think people would be above their prejudices, especially on GAF, but I guess not. I can understand apprehension in European countries, because europe in general is shit at dealing with immigrants to begin with; America/Canada has had a much better time assimilating and providing opportunities for immigrants (though it is by no means perfect). And guess what, they can keep their religion and still function in western society. I actually find it a little funny, after all of European colonization and imparting european culture all throughout the world, europe is now getting worried about people from other countries coming in and ruining the land (Edit: I am mainly speaking of western euro countries, don't know the specifics on Slovakia regarding this).

Millions of people have become atheists so it can't be difficult for everyone.

So far in this thread you've suggested that refugees from a war torn land with little resources to survive:

1.) Find another place, if they can get to Slovakia, they can surely get somewhere else. (as if these people have the luxury of fucking choosing).
2.) Drop their religion. You did it at age 10, why can't they, right?

Honestly this is some of the dumbest shit I have heard.

I'd say it's as much about culture as it is religion.

What defines culture to you though? If you have a sizable portion of muslims (or any other immigrants) living in England, and they impart some of their cultural norms onto the land, is that bad? The culture of a country/area is defined by the people that live there - so if there is a different demographic of people living in the country, the culture will change accordingly. I feel like Europe has had a much harder time clinging onto the idea of "our culture" vs. "theirs" than America, where it is more of a mix of cultures from all over. There are still plenty of problems, obviously.

 

[xbhaskarx]

The six Gulf countries - Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain - have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.

Not surprising...

 

[Walshicus]

More developed countries like those in North America and Europe have very low birth rates. Without immigrants, they end up with an old population and not enough workers to support them. Japan is facing this crisis right now.

A lot of us are quite happy to continue with low birth rates and a reduced population.

 

[...Scatter...]

Well, we'd need better names for a kick off

It'd be like Thing 1 & Thing 2?! Maybe they'd end up friends in the end?

 

[G.ZZZ]

Why are people surprised? Those aren't western countries, those are insular eastern countries who are extremely ethnically homogenous. You'll be lucky to see a muslim or a black person there. Those aren't rich countries either. Those countries are poor, but extremely prideful and generally anti-west.

And suddendly they get huge migratory influx of people who basically have nothing and will drag the social system down in the water if they stay because those countries are already poor right now. People of different skin color, of different religion...People that largely need to be educated from the ground, given housing etc... It's not economically feasibly for those small, middle-of-the-pack economically speaking countries. The great recession still haven't left europe, many people already feel they have nothing anymore or that they have lost all that they worked for because higher powers decided it had to be so. It doesn't matter that you tell them "those people have less" because it never mattered.

Slovakia is just acting on its pride and history, and giving their history i can't feel to fault them. This is a far bigger problem that should be solved by a joint effort by the idiots who caused this shit, aka western europe and the usa.


Also, this isn't a problem that can be solved by moving all poor people in europe/usa. That just don't work, and would just make europe another middle east zone, with huge social inner conflicts , rise of religion nuttery in general and/or fascist states. The middle east issue has to be resolved, in a way or another.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Why are people surprised? Those aren't western countries, those are insular eastern countries who are extremely ethnically homogenous. You'll be lucky to see a muslim or a black person there. Those aren't rich countries either. Those countries are poor, but extremely prideful and generally anti-west.

And suddendly they get huge migratory influx of people who basically have nothing and will drag the social system down in the water if they stay because those countries are already poor right now. People of different skin color, of different religion...People that largely need to be educated from the ground, given housing etc... It's not economically feasibly for those small, middle-of-the-pack economically speaking countries. The great recession still haven't left europe, many people already feel they have nothing anymore or that they have lost all that they worked for because higher powers decided it had to be so. It doesn't matter that you tell them "those people have less" because it never mattered.

Slovakia is just acting on its pride and history, and giving their history i can't feel to fault them. This is a far bigger problem that should be solved by a joint effort by the idiots who caused this shit, aka western europe and the usa.


Also, this isn't a problem that can be solved by moving all poor people in europe/usa. That just don't work, and would just make europe another middle east zone, with huge social inner conflicts , rise of religion nuttery in general and/or fascist states. The middle east issue has to be resolved, in a way or another.

its 200 people. not 200,000

 

[FonkyByNature]

A lot of us are quite happy to continue with low birth rates and a reduced population.

Really ? what about cutting services, economic problems, your salary taking a major hit, being poor ? That's what would happen if birth rate is low, so you're saying you would be fine with that ? lol please. You know, immigrants are not all bad, some bring very good things to the country they immigrate.

I just can't believe some of the replies in this thread. The situation with Slovakia is simply racism. Saying we don't want muslims is disgusting. There's always good and bad apples no matter what you do. The situation should be dealt with confidence, clear rules and not with fear. If these countries don't want immigrants then make it clear for everyone and not descriminate some parts of it. Are we back to the Holocaust times ?

I'm a mixed slavic/african who used to be muslim but am an atheist now. How do you think i feel about this situation ? it's simply beyond retarded and backward.

I know there's an integration problem with most European countries but lets not act as this is some sort of a legit reason to exclude "some kind" of people. It's clear hate and we should call it.

 

[Walpurgis]

A lot of us are quite happy to continue with low birth rates and a reduced population.

You won't be when the majority of the population is composed of senior citizens that don't work.

 

[Walshicus]

You won't be when the majority of the population is composed of senior citizens that don't work.

Rather that than too many people taking up too many resources.

Depopulation solves a lot of problems.

 

[Napalm_Frank]

Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark: What's going on there friends? You're like the best kids in school in everything else. Why all the nationalistic nonsense?

Finland is facing very hard times economically due to the euro circus, refugees put further pressure on the economy. Fact is the people lose empathy pretty friggin fast when they know their standard of living is going to go down in the near future.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Couple that with the fact that some of the extreme stories about Da'esh turn out to be outright fabrications yet are accepted without fact checking

Such as?

My God. Holy shit. These are horrendous posts. Absolutely ugly and deeply horrible. The amount of shit that is wrong here is astounding. It's hard to even start responding to it.

Good gods, calm down please. You're ranting your outrage at a post that explicitly wrote, "Not that this would justify discrimination, mind.". I thought that writing something as clear and concise as that would blatantly show that I do not favour discriminating against religion?
I was simply addressing the difference between the two aspects, not saying that one is deserving of discrimination and the other one isn't. Let me make this 100% clear: I do not support religious discrimination, and I think what Slovakia is wrong and stupid. Ok?

Morrigan: Speculawyer said Muslims should understand why people are wary of MUSLIMS he didn't even make the standard of deflection of 'nothing against MUSLIMS. Hate ISLAM THO'

Speculawyer was not talking about discrimination, but behaviour (which can indeed be influenced by ideology, unlike race) in another, different discussion with someone else. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but your attempt at painting him a racist with your fallacious analogy is way off-target and that is what I was commenting on.

It's more like every thread featuring muslims eventually devolves into why Islam is terrible. Yes Islam should be questioned, criticized, and discussion should happen, but not in every damn thread; this thread is about the refugee crisis and you have xxBhaskarxx quoting the damn quran to push his usual agenda.

You are correct, this isn't the place. I apologize if I contributed to that derail.

"White knights" lol wtf. If you don't fail to see how what Slovakia is doing is clear discrimination and bigotry, then you are a bigot, sorry. Yes if Arab nations are outright refusing to take in Christian refugees, that is bigotry too. Neither of these are okay. "But but but look at UAE they aren't taking any refugees! So Slovakia is justified!" - what trash logic.

Agreed.

This is a humanitarian crisis; you'd think people would be above their prejudices, especially on GAF, but I guess not. I can understand apprehension in European countries, because europe in general is shit at dealing with immigrants to begin with; America/Canadia has had a much better time assimilating and providing opportunities for immigrants (though it is by no means perfect). And guess what, they can keep their religion and still function in western society. I actually find it a little funny, after all of European colonization and imparting european culture all throughout the world, europe is now getting worried about people from other countries coming in and ruining the land.

What kind of colonization and culture exporting has Slovakia done? If anything they were more on the receiving end, what with being occupied by the Ottoman Empire. Or are you generalizing all European nations and cultures and lumping Slovakia under one "evil colonialist European" umbrella? Seems pretty ironic from someone who was just ranting about bigotry and unfair generalizations. I mean Slovakia is still in the wrong here, but you're kind of lowering your moral highground here.

 

[Lamel]

What kind of colonization and culture exporting has Slovakia done? If anything they were more on the receiving end, what with being occupied by the Ottoman Empire. Or are you generalizing all European nations and cultures and lumping Slovakia under one "evil colonialist European" umbrella? Seems pretty ironic from someone who was just ranting about bigotry and unfair generalizations. I mean Slovakia is still in the wrong here, but you're kind of lowering your moral highground here.

You're right I should have clarified, I was speaking more generally towards the western European countries with that comment (UK, France). They have a lot of problems right now with immigration and culture being impinged by immigrants.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Rather that than too many people taking up too many resources.

Depopulation solves a lot of problems.

Nope. Europe needs better schools based on this thread.

 

[Hyperactivity]

It happens because, for example, being a Danish citizen and being a Dane are two different things. I'm Basque, and I could move to the Netherlands and eventually get the citizenship. That won't make me Dutch though, I will still be Basque. In Europe (and in Asia too) the identity of each country is strongly linked to one or several predetermined ethnic groups. The Americas, and particularly the US and Canada, are made up by people from everywhere, so it is essentially different.

everytime there is a thread like this is funny to see people from the usa and canada triying to get the moral high ground

I don't know, the USA has a ton of stupid shit, but whenever I see this sort of shit I'm glad for the melting pot environment here.

Depends on the person mostly. For example in my area there are plenty of people from Turkish descent who constantly wave the Turkish flag and praise Turkey while everything my country or its people does is seen as stupid. At those moment I think "just move back to Turkey", those are the people that I'll never view as Dutch citizens or even Europeans for that matter. But there are also plenty of people in my area who aren't from Dutch descent and don't throw around their country of origin at every chance they get, they integrate into society and respect our way of live. They don't force their way onto us. Those are the people I'll view as Dutch/European citizens. The majority of the "native" Dutch people around me share my thoughts.

So I'd say that it depends on the person you're for the most part. Of course there will always be a sour grape in between.

Newsflash, many immigrants feels proud of their old country while appreciating their new place. I don't get this shit. They have to be dutch and act like "Europeans" for you to accept them?

Gonna quote Rusty from the thread about him getting his citizenship, feel like it says what I'm trying to say better

After a long and tortuous immigration journey, I finally get to take oath and pledge my allegience to the flag of United States of America, and promise to serve her and even take up arms if I'm required to defend her. I am ready to do all that.

But giving up Indian citizenship...this is... difficult. India does not allow me to be a dual citizen. It feels like I am abandoning a part of me, a part that grew up reciting the Jana Gana Mana (and still can) in front of the tricolor flag that embodied the sky, the earth, and the chakra of Ashoka the Great to signify all of the life in between.

Dont get me wrong, I am absolutely elated at the prospect of taking oath and becoming a full American and I will love nothing more than taking the oath infront of stars and stripes. I just wish there was the concept of dual citizenship.

If in 50 years Germany is mainly french and the UK german and France spanish and Spain greek and Greece Tunisian in culture, than who cares? That's just the way it goes

 

[victreeb3l]

How do you act like an European?

 

[F1Fan]

Nope. Europe needs better schools based on this thread.

Nope, it's posters from other countries that really need better schools. The amount of disgust and blaming the EU for not doing enough is laughable, considering the EU is by far the leader in the amount of asylum seekers request.

For an example, according to latest statistics I could find, the EU gets 79% of all global asylum seekers applications.

Source 1
Source 2

And that's only looking at asylum seeker situation (Yes acceptance rate of application could be better, but in case people have not noticed a lot of EU nations are currently having severe economic problems themselves).

Not to mention that half a billion people in the EU have the right to move and live in another EU country any time it suits them. Yet here we are, people bashing the EU for not doing enough, yet when looking at the whole picture we are miles ahead of any other Western developed nation. People need to get some perspective.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

No, "depopulation solves a lot of problems" is a schooling failure and his/her econ instructor is either incompetent or crying right now.

 

[F1Fan]

No, "depopulation solves a lot of problems" is a schooling failure and his/her econ instructor is either incompetent or crying right now.

Again it depends what the problems are. Depopulation can solve some specific problems. Overpopulation can also create enormous problems. At the end of the day, a balance is needed for everything.

 

[Opto]

I feel like the conversation is bloated. Slovakia has the capability of taking in 200 refugees, but they don't want Muslims. Pretty sure that's discrimination

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I feel like the conversation is bloated. Slovakia has the capability of taking in 200 refugees, but they don't want Muslims. Pretty sure that's discrimination

Yeah it's ridiculous, it's not like it were 200 thousand, which could be a logistics nightmare (regardless of religion). Plus they explicitly said it was because of religion, so it's straight-up discrimination.

 

[SmokyDave]

I feel like the conversation is bloated. Slovakia has the capability of taking in 200 refugees, but they don't want Muslims. Pretty sure that's discrimination

Yeah it's ridiculous, it's not like it were 200 thousand, which could be a logistics nightmare (regardless of religion). Plus they explicitly said it was because of religion, so it's straight-up discrimination.

So now what?

Does a country not have a right to discriminate in these matters? Should all borders be opened unconditionally?

Yes, it is discrimination. Now who are you to tell these people that they aren't allowed to discriminate? Will you allow Slovakia to decide upon the immigration policies of wherever you live?

Tell people that they don't have the right to control their own borders by all means. Just don't be surprised when they're driven into the arms of parties that will purport to offer said control.

 

[Opto]

Yeah it's ridiculous, it's not like it were 200 thousand, which could be a logistics nightmare (regardless of religion). Plus they explicitly said it was because of religion, so it's straight-up discrimination.

 

[speculawyer]

CTRL-F Strawman and like clockwork you bring up the strawmen defending the ideology of ISIS as legitimate.

It is legitimate. It is legitimate Islam to them. Not to you. Not to me (since there is no 'legitimate Islam' in the view of an atheist). No matter how much you are unable to understand this concept, I will be forced to repeat it.

Yes Muslims do understand they know ISIS like view and that it is wrong and their view is right as per the Holy Book itself.

So IS thinks that they are wrong? This makes no sense. See above. No mattter how much it annoys you, IS are Muslims. I have to live with the fact that Stalin & Mao were atheists. You have to live with the fact that the Islamic State are, like their name, Islamic. Deal with it.

it is the people who have an understanding like you are prevalent and also make political decisions in west and thus become enablers to the ISIS view that there is a less degree of acceptance and a a higher chance of prejudice.

So you are telling me that discussing things with me is turning you towards ISIS? Is that a threat?

it is because of how you view and others similarly view muslims and their faith broadly, people start to hate muslims even if they disagree with Islam for any reason.

No, I endlessly parse things closely. But I deal with the truth whether I like it or not. You seem to want to just ignore truths that you find inconvenient.

Have you actually read an actual objective historical book on Islam rather than reading blogs and wikis and hardening your view.

Yeah . . . I've read much of Quran. I haven't read it all, I find these books quite boring. I don't sit around and read blogs but apparently you do because you keep citing from them.

let me show you a view from someone who is not even in my sect lest you start going in circles about using my sect's view about Jihad
http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/un...misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9

Do you even read what I write? Do you understand what I write? Why do I have to say the same things over and over and over again? I said:

Now sure . . . I know YOU have a different interpretation. But you don't get to define all of Islam.

Now if you want to say that 'jihad' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WAR OR VIOLENCE, then you are just willfully ignorant.

Even the thing you cite said that there is military Jihad. Sure . . . it supplemented it with endless backpedaling language because it is "The Islamic Supreme Council of America" and they know they have a hell of a PR problem in this country. But even they know they can't change what is in the Koran for anyone to read.

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Want more? Knock yourself out:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

Like the Tora or Old Testament, the Quran is filled with violence & cruelty. It is a product of its age. Bronze age warring nomad tribes. Accept it. That is reality. No amount of 21st century rationalizing is going to change that fact. Now I admire that you have done what the Jews have done and learned to largely ignore that ancient barbarity. But like it or not, much of that ancient barbarity is still being used to create laws today. It is being used to guide groups like Al-Qeada, ISIS, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Al-Nusra, etc.

What don't you grow a pair and go argue with them instead of arguing with an atheist? My views on Islam don't matter what Iota. It is fiction to me. But you seem incredibly upset about my views and spend time fighting with me. Go fight them.

I find the line "you don't get to define Islam" cute, I don't get to define Islam. true I don't but you don't get to pursue your view as factual without any study of the faith.

I'm sorry but the natural world is a place where ANYONE can observe facts and record them. That's the way science works. You seem to think that one cannot understand facts without being indoctrinated by a faith. That's nonsense.

all you do is quote wiki links and blogs and wash your hands off. it is pure misinformation and malicious, nothing else. At least I studied my faith, what have you done? nothing. THAT, is a fact.

Oh look, another lie. I read things. I deal in facts.

Next line you say I follow a Hippie sect of Islam. let all the people here see you view my view as hippie because in your brain you have hardened the view that the actual view is ISIS.

Liar. How many times have written that ISIS is a tiny minority sect. There is no such thing as an 'actual view', there are many different views. That's the way religion works . . . it is just like evolution. It spreads. The group gets geographically isolated. The information changes and you then get different views. And with a holy book to start from, you can get endless different views because anyone can pick up a book and interpret it. It is very interesting stuff how religion is just like biological life.

you can spin in circles and say that's not right but every statement you have made is proof you view ISIS view as the true Islamic view

Again another lie. I am an ATHEIST. I do not believe in religion. I think the ISIS view is a bunch of fairy tale nonsense. I think your view is a bunch of fairy tale nonsense. There is no 'true Islamic view' in my opinion, there are just a bunch of different Islamic views. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

YOU spread misinformation that the ISIS view is the definition of Islam.

Again, ISIS is a tiny minority of the Islamic population. Do you think repeating lies makes them true? I said that in very post you quoted.

And now you come to the concept of God. If you read more than blogs and more than wiki you would at least have an inkling on the concept of God. If you had read the Quran you would know that God gives free will to man, If you had studied Islam you would know that it says goodness and evil comes from within men and it is up to people to apply the correct measure and God only sends reminders. he can intervene in many cases through prayer and such but if 1000s are being killed or 1000s of dying hungry it is up to man to do something about it. If you even opened the first page of Quran you would know God has given man the FREE WILL to do good. If he does not you blame God for it or man. petty.

So Islam uses the same 'free will' excuse as the religions it copied from. I guess that makes sense, it is a nice way to absolve god from human evil. Of course it doesn't cover childhood disease, natural disasters, etc. and the rest of the Theodicy problem with the Abrahamic religions.

As we have proven you don't know anything about Islam despite me educating you on every thread. you should know Saudi Arabia follows views of Wahhabism which was formed in the 18th century not the 7th and which was built on a political movement along with Saud to bring political rule in Saudi Arabia using religious clerical views to put people under the thumb of the rulers, this has spread to many other countries, for instance in Pakistan a variant of it is called Maudoodism but you wouldn't know that because we know why, (read above)

You seem to read things but not get the point. Guess what . . . religion is tool used by leaders to manipulate people. That's the point. So if you don't want to be manipulated . . .

Now we come back to the first line I mentioned. You favorite use of the word straw-man. You say I am the straw-man King. Lets look at this. In every instance of Islamic ideology, who uses the ISIS view as valid. you.

You just can't control yourself can you? I am an atheist. There is no 'valid' view of Islam to me. There are just many different views.

In every instance of Islamic ideology, who thinks my view is hippie, You.

Please refresh my memory. What is the Islamic sect you follow?

In every instance of Islamic ideology who suggests repeatedly that Saudi Arabia is a model Islamic country, You.

Seriously dude . . . I am really questioning your ability to read and understand what the words mean. Again, I am an atheist. Comprehende? I don't believe in a 'model Islamic Country'. I just factually know that Saudi Arabia is 'an Islamic country'.

See your argument is built on misinformation. the political incorrect word for that is you repeatedly misinform people despite being educated on past about what is valid.

No . . . I deal in facts. Tell me where I have not dealt in factual information. And no, don't tell me that I am wrong in my definition of Jihad because it has many definitions AS YOU JUST TOLD ME! SHEESH.

Now you can call my view partially valid and you can as you have said say that I don't get to define Islam. True, But I do get to call out the malicious intent and any form of subtle bigotry and misinformation to frame an argument that ISIS view is true Islam which you have shown that you do think is true.

You must really believe that repeating a lie over and over and over again makes it true. Again . . . I am an atheist. I don't believe there is ANY 'true Islam'. The ISIS view is a minority view of Islam. Can you remember those words? Please?

1. Homosexuality as an act being forbidden but there were a large amount of homosexuals in middle east before the british took control. it was everything and it was looked upon in the same eyes as someone who eats pork. action was frowned upon people were ignored. but he wants you to focus on only last 30 years

Hey, that's great. So what is the legal status of homosexuals in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia?

2. Atheists are a newer concept in even western society, the number of atheists and their view is the same in all places including muslim countries and again compartmentalizing history to the last 30 years as all history. petty.

A new concept? Really? Perhaps you should pick up this thing called the 'Koran' or 'Quran' . . . it refers to an 'unbeliever' . . . you know, an atheist. *rolls eyes*




Seriously dude . . . you need to face some true facts that you don't like. And stop lying nonstop.

Try to understand things from someone else's point of view. I am able to put myself in your shoes. I understand that you don't follow the various other views of Islam. And as I said, that's great. I wish there were more like you. And I understand that you don't like ISIS.

But, you also have to accept reality whether you like it or not. The Quran says what it says and that includes a lot of ugly stuff. Don't take it personally . . . the Old testament is also filled with vile stuff. And anyone can pick up these holy books, read them, and come away with some TERRIBLE plans. Like Islamic State. Like Al-Shabab. Like Boko Haram. Like Al-Qeada. Like Al-Nusra front. That sucks. But that is reality. That is reality that millions of people have to deal with every day. So try to get it into your head that other people can come away with very rational fears about Islam. Fact based. Evidence based. Logical apprehension. You can't go around thinking that no one takes jihad as a call to violence. You can think they shouldn't. But you have to admit that an uncomfortably large number of people do.

Reality, deal with it.

 

[Opto]

So now what?

Does a country not have a right to discriminate in these matters? Should all borders be opened unconditionally?

Yes, it is discrimination. Now who are you to tell these people that they aren't allowed to discriminate? Will you allow Slovakia to decide upon the immigration policies of wherever you live?

Tell people that they don't have the right to control their own borders by all means. Just don't be surprised when they're driven into the arms of parties that will purport to offer said control.

A right to discriminate? I can't negate a nation's sovereignty. There's little I can do other than say "Slovakia? Oh that jerk pile. What a pile of jerks." Surprise, citizens of other countries can criticize another nation's policies.

I love, that in your mind, wanting a country to be less discriminatory will then make them xenophobic fascists

 

[speculawyer]

Nope, it's posters from other countries that really need better schools. The amount of disgust and blaming the EU for not doing enough is laughable, considering the EU is by far the leader in the amount of asylum seekers request.

For an example, according to latest statistics I could find, the EU gets 79% of all global asylum seekers applications.

Well, the EU is a nice place and you are very close to several wars & failed states. It is definitely a difficult time for Europe right now on the refugee front. I've been following the BBC and they have stories on the crisis nearly every day.


I'm wondering if climate change is contributing to this all.
In the northern hemisphere, refugees are going:
-North from North Africa & Mid-East to Europe.
-North from Central America to North America
In the Southern hemisphere, refugees are going:
-South from Southeast Asia to Australia
-South from Central Africa to South Africa

I wonder if climate change is hurting agriculture in the tropics, this causes civil strife, and then people go towards the polls.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

So now what?

Does a country not have a right to discriminate in these matters? Should all borders be opened unconditionally?

Yes, it is discrimination. Now who are you to tell these people that they aren't allowed to discriminate? Will you allow Slovakia to decide upon the immigration policies of wherever you live?

Tell people that they don't have the right to control their own borders by all means. Just don't be surprised when they're driven into the arms of parties that will purport to offer said control.

I mean, sure, people/entities have the right to be cowardly assholes, but we're just calling out the cowardly assholeness of the situation.

 

[Enosh]

If in 50 years Germany is mainly french and the UK german and France spanish and Spain greek and Greece Tunisian in culture, than who cares? That's just the way it goes

it's kinda hilarious that you quote someone as being proud of his former country and it's culture as a positive example and then go "who cares about that heritage and culture!"

 

[Opto]

If we let in the weird religious people, we'll become nazis!

 

[Maninthemirror]

It is legitimate. It is legitimate Islam to them. Not to you. Not to me (since there is no 'legitimate Islam' in the view of an atheist). No matter how much you are unable to understand this concept, I will be forced to repeat it.



So IS thinks that they are wrong? This makes no sense. See above. No mattter how much it annoys you, IS are Muslims. I have to live with the fact that Stalin & Mao were atheists. You have to live with the fact that the Islamic State are, like their name, Islamic. Deal with it.



So you are telling me that discussing things with me is turning you towards ISIS? Is that a threat?


No, I endlessly parse things closely. But I deal with the truth whether I like it or not. You seem to want to just ignore truths that you find inconvenient.



Yeah . . . I've read much of Quran. I haven't read it all, I find these books quite boring. I don't sit around and read blogs but apparently you do because you keep citing from them.



Do you even read what I write? Do you understand what I write? Why do I have to say the same things over and over and over again? I said:


Now if you want to say that 'jihad' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WAR OR VIOLENCE, then you are just willfully ignorant.

Even the thing you cite said that there is military Jihad. Sure . . . it supplemented it with endless backpedaling language because it is "The Islamic Supreme Council of America" and they know they have a hell of a PR problem in this country. But even they know they can't change what is in the Koran for anyone to read.



Want more? Knock yourself out:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

Like the Tora or Old Testament, the Quran is filled with violence & cruelty. It is a product of its age. Bronze age warring nomad tribes. Accept it. That is reality. No amount of 21st century rationalizing is going to change that fact. Now I admire that you have done what the Jews have done and learned to largely ignore that ancient barbarity. But like it or not, much of that ancient barbarity is still being used to create laws today. It is being used to guide groups like Al-Qeada, ISIS, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Al-Nusra, etc.

What don't you grow a pair and go argue with them instead of arguing with an atheist? My views on Islam don't matter what Iota. It is fiction to me. But you seem incredibly upset about my views and spend time fighting with me. Go fight them.


I'm sorry but the natural world is a place where ANYONE can observe facts and record them. That's the way science works. You seem to think that one cannot understand facts without being indoctrinated by a faith. That's nonsense.


Oh look, another lie. I read things. I deal in facts.


Liar. How many times have written that ISIS is a tiny minority sect. There is no such thing as an 'actual view', there are many different views. That's the way religion works . . . it is just like evolution. It spreads. The group gets geographically isolated. The information changes and you then get different views. And with a holy book to start from, you can get endless different views because anyone can pick up a book and interpret it. It is very interesting stuff how religion is just like biological life.


Again another lie. I am an ATHEIST. I do not believe in religion. I think the ISIS view is a bunch of fairy tale nonsense. I think your view is a bunch of fairy tale nonsense. There is no 'true Islamic view' in my opinion, there are just a bunch of different Islamic views. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


Again, ISIS is a tiny minority of the Islamic population. Do you think repeating lies makes them true? I said that in very post you quoted.


So Islam uses the same 'free will' excuse as the religions it copied from. I guess that makes sense, it is a nice way to absolve god from human evil. Of course it doesn't cover childhood disease, natural disasters, etc. and the rest of the Theodicy problem with the Abrahamic religions.


You seem to read things but not get the point. Guess what . . . religion is tool used by leaders to manipulate people. That's the point. So if you don't want to be manipulated . . .


You just can't control yourself can you? I am an atheist. There is no 'valid' view of Islam to me. There are just many different views.


Please refresh my memory. What is the Islamic sect you follow?


Seriously dude . . . I am really questioning your ability to read and understand what the words mean. Again, I am an atheist. Comprehende? I don't believe in a 'model Islamic Country'. I just factually know that Saudi Arabia is 'an Islamic country'.


No . . . I deal in facts. Tell me where I have not dealt in factual information. And no, don't tell me that I am wrong in my definition of Jihad because it has many definitions AS YOU JUST TOLD ME! SHEESH.


You must really believe that repeating a lie over and over and over again makes it true. Again . . . I am an atheist. I don't believe there is ANY 'true Islam'. The ISIS view is a minority view of Islam. Can you remember those words? Please?



Hey, that's great. So what is the legal status of homosexuals in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia?

A new concept? Really? Perhaps you should pick up this thing called the 'Koran' or 'Quran' . . . it refers to an 'unbeliever' . . . you know, an atheist. *rolls eyes*




Seriously dude . . . you need to face some true facts that you don't like. And stop lying nonstop.

Try to understand things from someone else's point of view. I am able to put myself in your shoes. I understand that you don't follow the various other views of Islam. And as I said, that's great. I wish there were more like you. And I understand that you don't like ISIS.

But, you also have to accept reality whether you like it or not. The Quran says what it says and that includes a lot of ugly stuff. Don't take it personally . . . the Old testament is also filled with vile stuff. And anyone can pick up these holy books, read them, and come away with some TERRIBLE plans. Like Islamic State. Like Al-Shabab. Like Boko Haram. Like Al-Qeada. Like Al-Nusra front. That sucks. But that is reality. That is reality that millions of people have to deal with every day. So try to get it into your head that other people can come away with very rational fears about Islam. Fact based. Evidence based. Logical apprehension. You can't go around thinking that no one takes jihad as a call to violence. You can think they shouldn't. But you have to admit that an uncomfortably large number of people do.

Reality, deal with it.

I think you have to deal with the reality that you purposely mislead people by promoting Isis view as the Islamic view when it is proven again and again that it is not through the holy book. You can scream and cry all you want about it but that doesn't mean Isis view is legitimate, to them and you it is legitimate but in factual terms it is not especially when you research the faith just a little, this much is pretty much known

No one is calling is non Muslims they just don't follow the Islamic faith as it is in the books themselves . Again if you or they study it a bit more without confirmation bias or ill intent in your and their heart you would know that the holy book is against their ideological makeup of Islam

What kind of gibberish is this when did I even say that your view is turning into Isis read what I wrote I said your view is waving the Isis flag nothing more nothing else

You don't deal with the truth you deal with reading news articles and blogs and using your bias against religion and creating the myth that Isis follows Islam as it should be followed, that's your truth which is subjective and not the reality truth for the world around Muslims for the most part

You don't read things you base everything on what you read in blogs, that's it , nothing more nothing less, you have not studied faith to make factual statements on it

Again, you have shown again and again that you view Isis view as so legitimate that you defend that view against the moderate view, it's like a competition to you when if you actually studied the faith you would know that the Isis view stands for everything against the holy book of Islam.

Actually I can guarantee you haven't read the Quran or you would know the context of at least something but you don't have the context of anything

Your view is that jihad has to do with a proactive war is it not. All the jihad of the sword says is when the religion is under existential threat by the sword from an outside entity whose intent is to eradicate religion , then the defense of the faith from irradiation is jihad, this is the same policy of every single country who defends its lands from an existential threat . How are you going to tell me that it Iran attacks Israel that Israel does not have the right to defend itself until Iran is subdued , I can guarantee right now that you will say yes they have the right to defend themselves till Iran is subdued but you will then flip the switch and say that very same concept cannot be allowed when the religion as a whole is under threat. This shows your lack of education on this subject and hypocrisy

The fact that you think Quran is as cruel as Torah and bible shows you have not read the Quran, Quran is very strict that when religion itself is under military threat as an existence then the remaining Muslims should defend it. It has the same concept of death penalty for treason like every other country, it has a very harsh stance against sexually molesting robbery and threat and its stance on adultery is only when public sex is involved and then only if it's seen my the the most honest and trustworthy 4 people of a society which is Islamic in the sense that wneither a Muslim nor a non Muslim is under any burden, this Islamic society cannot be achieved until all sects are united into one community and in one nation and that is nowhere to be found so by an immediate effect adultery in public cannot thus be applicable in any community or country or region. Again if you read the Qurwn you would know this and if you read the main supporting Hadith you would know this and if you read history you would know this. And again even if in centuries such an Islamic society does come about it is only applicable on those who swore on the Quran that they would not do it namely only the Muslims and if they still want to do it they don't have to do be Muslims anymore if they want to escape any punishemrn for public sex which again means that in such an Islamic society as per the Quran apostasy is fully allowed and no Muslim man woman or child can do anything to them they still have to respect them as people and let God decide for them as per the Quran but if you had read the Quran you would know this

Oh I do argue with radicalists but as a member here where there are no such people and active participant when I see misinformation I call people out on it as a student of my faith and yes I will repeatedly call out any misinformation you attempt to spread and sully the relationship between anyone here and Muslims

Everyone know you are an atheist yes but everyone can also see you are dishonest in the sense that you only defend the Isis view when the moderate view is presented, try to make it valid when it's proven it is not as per the holy book itself and I gave yo the benefit of the doubt before but it's a clear trend that even in the face of facts that Isis view is invalid due to them being completely against the holy book, you still keep defending your view and there is an idea in a lot of people minds why,

The only way to discredit a religion is to only showcase the invalid side as valid and frame the argument to make it seem to others that the bad interpretations are valid when in fact reality dictates and is proven that it is not nomatter how you spin it . This is the basis of your entire framework against Islam specifically, I know it and many others know it

See you repeatedly fall on the cross showing you have no knowledge about Islam because in that free will argument if you did you would know why disease happens and why natural disasters occur. There are two types of calamities, one that is brought on people and one that is tested on people. The one brought on the people are like The people of Noah and the people of thr pharaoh who recieved natural disasters and the other types of disasters which follow natural flow of things in nature and the test being that those who are happy and under no duress are tested how they fare as humans when they are the happiest , do they remain humble do they help others and those who are unhappy and under duress the test is if they remain steadfast and positive and help others even in duress, these examples of being good people in good and bad times are all tests from God because these times bring the natural character of people if they have learnt to be good if they can control their anger Ir they can control their desires to be evil, the bigger the passing the higher the Chance that any person be it happy or sad will enter heaven which is an infinitely longer life as a soul in the afterlife. This life being a blip in compared to the afterlife.

Again if you had studied faith you would know this as this is a very well known concept in Islam

It's cute that you say you have dealt with facts when everything you view about Islam is based on misinformation according to the holy book itself. Your view on jihad your view on the holy prophet as a warlord your view on what Islam says about non Muslims your view about anything related to Quran is pure hogwash

In fact while writing this I had a thought that just like Isis are misleading themselves by only accepting the false interpretations you are misleading yourself and others knowingly or unknowingly by only defending the false interpretations

Your defense of Isis is that it is their view and they consider it valid, do you want me to clap if that is their view ? Why are you legitimizing their view, oh wait we know why and so does everyone else now. And you proved my point on the Islamic nature of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Islam does not allow discrimination of homosexuals for being homosexuals and only has a punishment when the act of homosexuality is committed in public JUST like the punishment for heterosexuality in public, both in public are punishable yet Saudi Arabia and Iran punishes homosexuals for being homosexuals alone which alone makes them go against the values of the Quran and thus Islamic by name only not by character just like Isis are Muslims but their character is wholly unislamic