Politics & Stuff

[lucio 5,370]

I think the whole topic is a lost cause. Islam was founded by a man just as "radical" as the guys we see today. Trying to make people in Europe move away from the religion will just result in more violence. We are just stuck with it , 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

6 minutes ago, Leif said:

Are you suggesting, that is isn't to produce something, when you indoctrinate it? You don't 'inherent' Islam from your family. You have the POV's of the cult shoved down your throat before you can even form a sentence. You are shamed if you don't follow Islam in the majority of Islamic households. And yet, the newer generation of Muslims go behind their parent's backs anyway, because they know themselves how stupid the entire cult is. 

If they can't take their own 'faith' seriously, I as an outsider certainly can't. 

The majority is Islamic households do not allow their offspring to make their own faith-related decisions, not without being banished, or pushed right down the pecking order of which child is the favourite. Islamic parents are the most abusive on earth. Not all, but again, the majority. They abuse their power of a weak, growing mind, then neglect to nurture their kids in a way to encourage free thinking. 

Again, what you're saying is not only irrational. It has zero evidence. 

"Islamic parents are the most abusive on earth."

Based on what exactly? Because you feel so? Have you got any stats of child abuse in Muslim majority countries vs Europe? Go on, look 'em up, come up with real evidence or don't make that sort of baseless Islamophobic comments.

 

No, of course people are not the product what they've inherited to believe. We are all 'indoctrinated' into all sorts of beliefs by our families, societies, times...etc. In a thousand years, most of what you and I believe about society, the universe...etc. even some scientific facts will most likely be considered absolutely ridiculous. 

But by far the most irrational part of that claim is the notion that Islam is a constant objective simply-graspable thing that has the same effect everywhere. Among the 1.6 billion currently living Muslims who overwhelmingly likely inherited their beliefs, the 'spectrum' of Islam varies more than the difference between say Islam and Christianity. From belief in reincarnation, to belief that Plato and Socrates were prophets, to praying by playing musical instruments, to not having ant religious clerks. Those are some of the difference between some sects that all belong to Islam (without even getting into Sufism). 

And that is all without getting into the difference in personal beliefs in any of those sects. My dad prays five times a day but does not believe in fasting in Ramadan. A friend of his likes to drink wine while reading the Quran at night. Learn more about the the history and diversity of Islam. Meet and try to connect with actual Muslims. In general, imagine people more complexly. 

[lucio 5,370]

Islamophobia does not exist

 

[Spike 12,049]

39 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

The 'Islamic world' is not a thing. Muslims don't live in a parallel world on their own  

The only correct finish to the sentence "All Muslim" I can think of is "are or were humans". That's it. I even have agnostic friends who identify as culturally Muslim.

'Apostasy' is punishable in Saudi Arabia. You can say whatever the fuck you want in Turkey or Lebanon.

And just because you don't know of any reformers doesn't mean that don't exists. Islam has had more reformers than any of the major religions. Shiaism is actually based on constant reform. 

You're conflating the conditions that force people into violence into the tool that is used to channel that violence.

Also, the reason Muslims on the internet don't comment about attacks like these is most likely because they fear they will be attacked by racists and bigots if they do.

You know what I meant, don't play the jokester. You say that but a nation like Pakistan is a world apart from Australia for example; culturally, ethnically, philosophically, religiously; that it may as well be a parallel world.

I didn't say 'All Muslim...', at all. In fact you are the one that has made more absolute claims than myself. We (at the very least, I) aren't speaking of people that culturally associate with Islam, I'm speaking of people that actually practise Islam. Just like if I were speaking about Jew or Christians, I'd make the differentiation between cultural and practising. A practising Jew is very different from a cultural Jew and the same applies to Muslims.

That is just Turkey and Lebanon, I've known people (Pakistani in this instance) that have practically turned into a pariah by their families for becoming Atheists, I didn't say it was absolute just that it does happen within Islam. Just from my experiences it happens to a slightly less severe degree with Judaism and Chrisitanity. 

I'd say Shiaism is more based on Ali and the Twelve Imams but whatever. How much have these reforms changed Islam on the whole (I actually don't know)? I was more in reference to Shiite (as that is the overwhelming majority), I can't think of any modern examples of someone breaking away from Orthodox Shiite to create a religion and culture that is compatible with western society. Of course there are exceptions to the rule and many Muslims integrate perfectly and Bosnian could even be considered a western society.

Maybe the reason some Muslims don't comment if because they don't care? Or perhaps the support it? Or perhaps they aren't really Muslims, just someone that culturally identifies as Muslim? 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

You know what I meant, don't play the jokester. You say that but a nation like Pakistan is a world apart from Australia for example; culturally, ethnically, philosophically, religiously; that it may as well be a parallel world.

I didn't say 'All Muslim...', at all. In fact you are the one that has made more absolute claims than myself. We (at the very least, I) aren't speaking of people that culturally associate with Islam, I'm speaking of people that actually practise Islam. Just like if I were speaking about Jew or Christians, I'd make the differentiation between cultural and practising. A practising Jew is very different from a cultural Jew and the same applies to Muslims.

That is just Turkey and Lebanon, I've known people (Pakistani in this instance) that have practically turned into a pariah by their families for becoming Atheists, I didn't say it was absolute just that it does happen within Islam. Just from my experiences it happens to a slightly less severe degree with Judaism and Chrisitanity. 

I'd say Shiaism is more based on Ali and the Twelve Imams but whatever. How much have these reforms changed Islam on the whole (I actually don't know)? I was more in reference to Shiite (as that is the overwhelming majority), I can't think of any modern examples of someone breaking away from Orthodox Shiite to create a religion and culture that is compatible with western society. Of course there are exceptions to the rule and many Muslims integrate perfectly and Bosnian could even be considered a western society.

Maybe the reason some Muslims don't comment if because they don't care? Or perhaps the support it? Or perhaps they aren't really Muslims, just someone that culturally identifies as Muslim? 

No, I really don't know what you mean. Pakistan is also a world apart from Turkey, which is a world apart from Somalia, which is a world apart from Indonesia culturally, ethnically, philosophically and even in some religious practices.

A Muslim is anyone who identifies as a Muslim. It's not up to me and you to decide who is a 'real Muslim' and who practices Islam 'correctly'. That's what ISIS and other extremist takfiri groups do. My point about agnostics who identify as culturally Muslim is that Islam is about a lot more than god and mohammed. It's the communities that people live in. 

If you really want to know, a pillar of Shiaism is "Ijtihad" which means to come up with new meanings and adjustments to Islam. Yes, it is based on Ali who was a revolutionary and the first major reformer of Islam. Hussein was probably the second. Look up people like Al Ghazali, Ibn Bajja (Avempace) and Avicenna if you're really interested. There are many sects inside Islam and even different 'sub-sects' called mathahib inside some of the main sects. Tens in total.

Yes, leaving Islam is very hard and often dangerous in some Muslim majority countries. But perfectly normal in others. I grew up in a family with two Muslim parents who had Darwin's origin of species on the same bookshelf as the Quran. It's largely cultural because as you said this is also present in almost any religion. There is nothing intrinsic about Islam that makes it more dangerous to leave than another religion. 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,733]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

There will never be reform or a modernisation if people don't breakaway and stand up. They never have and seemingly never will because apostasy is a grave sin in the Islamic world, leaving to complete social death and sometimes even physical death. 

What if Martin Luther did not speak up? 

What if Henry VIII never stood his ground?

Black people and Islam is a false equivalency. 

There will be reform when the time comes for it. Those men you mention did arise in a vacuum, there were cultural reasons why they made a stand to make change at that time. The same is obviously not ready for the radicalized elements of Islam. You can not give a kid all the answers on an algebra test, then put them in Calculus and expect them integrate correctly. You have to lay a foundation down, and the foundation has to grow through time. Nobody will ever accept ideas forced on them by people they don't feel are acting in good conscious to them though.

[Spike 12,049]

24 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

No, I really don't know what you mean. Pakistan is also a world apart from Turkey, which is a world apart from Somalia, which is a world apart from Indonesia culturally, ethnically, philosophically and even in some religious practices.

A Muslim is anyone who identifies as a Muslim. It's not up to me and you to decide who is a 'real Muslim' and who practices Islam 'correctly'. That's what ISIS and other extremist takfiri groups do. My point about agnostics who identify as culturally Muslim is that Islam is about a lot more than god and mohammed. It's the communities that people live in. 

If you really want to know, a pillar of Shiaism is "Ijtihad" which means to come up with new meanings and adjustments to Islam. Yes, it is based on Ali who was a revolutionary and the first major reformer of Islam. Hussein was probably the second. Look up people like Al Ghazali, Ibn Bajja (Avempace) and Avicenna if you're really interested. There are many sects inside Islam and even different 'sub-sects' called mathahib inside some of the main sects. Tens in total.

Yes, leaving Islam is very hard and often dangerous in some Muslim majority countries. But perfectly normal in others. I grew up in a family with two Muslim parents who had Darwin's origin of species on the same bookshelf as the Quran. It's largely cultural because as you said this is also present in almost any religion. There is nothing intrinsic about Islam that makes it more dangerous to leave than another religion. 

It is quite simple. By 'Muslim World' I just mean the collection of cultures, peoples, languages and philosophies that are inherently Muslim. I'd say nations like France, United Kingdom, United States of America belong to the 'Christian World' because that is the sphere of influence that Christianity has. You can't disagree that both religions have formed the basis of many nation's ideals. While there are many differences between Somalia and Pakistan, I'd wager that the shared belief in Islam creates a firmer connection than Pakistan and Iceland; just as Iceland would have a firmer connection with Spain than Somalia. That is all. I don't think the terms are mutually exclusive

I just can't agree. Culturally I'm probably more in line with Chrisitanity but would I say I'm a Christian? Not at all, because I do not believe in Jesus or God but I can abide by and appreciate many of the teachings. I just can't accept someone is a Muslim when they don't believe in Mohammed or Allah. I'm not deciding who is and who is not; I just think to actually be, one must believe .  While I respect that people believe there is more to Islam than just Allah and Mohammed and I believe that they can live in that manner if the choose to; when I refer to a Muslim I do refer to the people that follow that religion not matter how closely or loosely just as long as they believe. If someone tells me they are Muslim, then they are Muslim but that doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to believe or agree with them; just like they are under no obligation to adhere to my criteria of what constitutes a Muslim. To be a Muslim doesn't one have to submit themselves to the will of Allah?

I feel there is a disconnect with many people including yourself. When people say 'Muslim', I do not believe they mean anyone that identifies as a 'Muslim' but to the people that follow an Orthodox lifestyle to the 'T'. As in the oppressive imagery we seen and the worst people and cultures that have begun under Islam. When someone says they dislike Islam, I honestly believe they are in fact referring to post-Iran revolution Islam. That is just what I take away from it.

[Spike 12,049]

Sometimes I feel the violence by refugees and immigrants isn't caused by their belief in Islam but rather the fact they are from a 'failed state'. They corrupt mentality and culture is what causes them to act on their violent impulses. A violent society will create violent people. I feel like if the shoe on the other foot, Jews and Chrisitans would be the violent perpetrators. It does happen as well, I've read many reports on Christians slaughtering Muslims in 'countries' like the Congo.

When consecutive generations of young men know nothing but the violence and mayhem of the Gulf and Iraq Wars, how could they not be disenfranchised and hateful? How could they live knowing their way of life was destroyed by the West? Wouldn't they be filled with hate and rage by knowing that the West is responsible and the West lives in comfort and decadence? Of course they'd want to take it for themselves. Very few monsters are born, most are created. The Caliphate is an ideal to die for, an ideal to throw their lives away in a vain attempt to achieve something 'more'. It's just like Communism, it creates a fellowship of idealists that are blind to any other way of life. They'd rather fall on their sword than sheathe it. This isn't the first time this has happened and it won't be the last, young people throughout history will follow the golden flock in search of something 'more', to be a part of something greater than themselves. It is onyl human nature.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,733]

1 hour ago, lucio said:

Islamophobia does not exist

 

Thing is,even if what he says in the video have truth to them, what benefit is gained by alienating people who already feel marginalized by English society? At least from some ethnic minorities I have met it seems parts of Europe are still very very clear in making them outsiders. Even Assou Ekotto spoke about this when deciding to play for Cameroon, and his own mother was White.

[lucio 5,370]

11 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Thing is,even if what he says in the video have truth to them, what benefit is gained by alienating people who already feel marginalized by English society? At least from some ethnic minorities I have met it seems parts of Europe are still very very clear in making them outsiders. Even Assou Ekotto spoke about this when deciding to play for Cameroon, and his own mother was White.

I agree with you, accomodating Islam or trying to combat it will both end in failure. The alinenating factor is largely their issue though, Sikhs have become very British, its all about compatibility

The Islamic spread into India, lead to severe problems with Hindus, Buudhists, Sikhs. It just does not mix well

 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,733]

8 minutes ago, lucio said:

I agree with you, accomodating Islam or trying to combat it will both end in failure. The alinenating factor is largely their issue though, Sikhs have become very British, its all about compatibility

The Islamic spread into India, lead to severe problems with Hindus, Buudhists, Sikhs. It just does not mix well

 

And these groups are going to have to fight even harder for the muslims if we are honest because can the average person on the street looking to go after Muslims know the difference between one and a brown Hindu or Sikh? When the bell tolls on Muslims none of these groups are safe either. They are going to have to defend them until the very end.

 

When I tell family and others, mostly in Japan, about my Korean and Chinese friends in America and they flinch and pull back I have to let them know. The distinction doesnt exist outside the bubble they live in. The average white, or black, guy walking down the street cant tell you from any single one of them so if you come over here you better try to be on their good side because they are all you will have when a skinhead comes around

[BlueLyon 9,359]

Fucking Isis, America and Merkel. I doubt that in 2016, united countries couldnt stop Isis from all this bullshit, considering how much americans control people (snowden,...). Its well known that Isis would not exist without assistance of USA. It was arguably formed by help of Usa to disturb already problematic area in middle east, which caused mass migration to Europe, which allowed many terrorist move to EU without problem. Who can now blow and kill all the time in european cities. All this bullshit is set up. Paris, Berlin,...it was not an act of individual. USA only took advantage of idiots who would blow themselves in name of Islamic state. WAR, ARMS, all this shit brings by far the most money to USA, obviously they need to to find excuses and explanations why so much investment in military technology and oil. Sure without war in middle east, who the fuck would let Americans intervene in that area and continue with their military development. But they are smart fellas, so they aid terrorist with guns, who suddenly turn state in civil war. Perfect for USA to get involved, develop their industry of arms and make oil deals to make them richer and more powerful.

Oh and who the fuck was that one person that basicaly let millions of people arrive in EU? Merkel. Yeah. The one and only Obama's bitch. If you remember she is the one who wants to block Nord Stream 2 and why oh why, because if Russia creates further monopol over gas in EU, there will be less need to ask USA, But to start with, why the hell would USA supply europe with gas in the first place? Like, do they need to get involved in all the stuff thats non of their business? And yeah, Clinton vs Putin...another interesting topic. Thank fuck she didnt win elections.

Then there is the media. The propaganda. No one talks about what is realy going on, just its all ISIS fault, USA are the good guys,...

For every concequence, there is a cause. Consequences are seen all over europe, but the real causes remain hidden. 

Im very anti-racist and have absolutely nothing against any other race or religion, but IF this shit continues in EUROPE, I will first defend the europe and then migrants. They had war for ages down there and while many are normal people like us, the percentage of crazy suicide fuckers and fanatic believers is much higher than in europe. Its common sense that religions dont mix. Those people couldnt live in their own country and make peace. And they would do it here? Haha, only more violence and death will happen of inocent europeans.

There is a war down there. OK. Then fucking fight for your country for fuck sake. I know its not that simple, but for fuck sake, you cant fucking invade another continent like that. People are very naive if they think europe will remain safe. People forget that you need to look at situation after 10-20 years. All the migrants here will create generations and generations of generations that will overcome the europeans sooner or later at this rate. At one point islamists will be either equal or above native europeans. When they achieve that, haha then they can start demanding whatever they please and force it. Or start war through their ''fanatic believers''. Anglo-saxons didnt escape to france when vikings attacked them. Europeans didnt escape when germans invaded europe. They fought back. Help of USA was great aid, but the consequences are still seen today by USA involvement in EU politics. But wait, they have decades long war in middle east and people just got idea in one summer to leave their counties and move to fancy EU and live normaly or maybe even force their religion to us? Hell no. Thats a no go.

Close the borders, deport people back. I have had enough of the violent acts. If europe has to deport millions of people of islam, to save thousands of europeans, so be it.

It would not surprise me one bit if at one point europe entered war and obviously USA would come to the rescue in either way.

Sorry for long post, it just pissed me off to see people die again because of politics. Its not simple what I wrote, but its connected, the ISIS, USA, EU, migrations, terrorist attacks.

I know its 21st century and we live in advanced times, but whoever thought its ok to let islamists invade europe and ask for asylum...islamists will never live normaly here, and now neither will europeans. Sometime ago, when something like this happened (like in berlin) people would be shocked, outraged. Today, its just another day in europe.

Oh and religion...the biggest lie and excuse to start violence. Ok, support your god, but dont fucking hide by religion when you start violence. There is a reason why some religions like islam have such extremists, people who act like its year 1100. Christians had witch hunts and war against pagans, White people had slavery, but it all ended at some point because time goes forward. Yet islam, its still looks like time trapped 500 years ago. There is no possible discussion with their extremists.

 

 

[cosmicway 1,247]

3 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

Fucking Isis, America and Merkel. I doubt that in 2016, united countries couldnt stop Isis from all this bullshit, considering how much americans control people (snowden,...). Its well known that Isis would not exist without assistance of USA. It was arguably formed by help of Usa to disturb already problematic area in middle east, which caused mass migration to Europe, which allowed many terrorist move to EU without problem. Who can now blow and kill all the time in european cities. All this bullshit is set up. Paris, Berlin,...it was not an act of individual. USA only took advantage of idiots who would blow themselves in name of Islamic state. WAR, ARMS, all this shit brings by far the most money to USA, obviously they need to to find excuses and explanations why so much investment in military technology and oil. Sure without war in middle east, who the fuck would let Americans intervene in that area and continue with their military development. But they are smart fellas, so they aid terrorist with guns, who suddenly turn state in civil war. Perfect for USA to get involved, develop their industry of arms and make oil deals to make them richer and more powerful.

Oh and who the fuck was that one person that basicaly let millions of people arrive in EU? Merkel. Yeah. The one and only Obama's bitch. If you remember she is the one who wants to block Nord Stream 2 and why oh why, because if Russia creates further monopol over gas in EU, there will be less need to ask USA, But to start with, why the hell would USA supply europe with gas in the first place? Like, do they need to get involved in all the stuff thats non of their business? And yeah, Clinton vs Putin...another interesting topic. Thank fuck she didnt win elections.

Then there is the media. The propaganda. No one talks about what is realy going on, just its all ISIS fault, USA are the good guys,...

For every concequence, there is a cause. Consequences are seen all over europe, but the real causes remain hidden. 

Im very anti-racist and have absolutely nothing against any other race or religion, but IF this shit continues in EUROPE, I will first defend the europe and then migrants. They had war for ages down there and while many are normal people like us, the percentage of crazy suicide fuckers and fanatic believers is much higher than in europe. Its common sense that religions dont mix. Those people couldnt live in their own country and make peace. And they would do it here? Haha, only more violence and death will happen of inocent europeans.

There is a war down there. OK. Then fucking fight for your country for fuck sake. I know its not that simple, but for fuck sake, you cant fucking invade another continent like that. People are very naive if they think europe will remain safe. People forget that you need to look at situation after 10-20 years. All the migrants here will create generations and generations of generations that will overcome the europeans sooner or later at this rate. At one point islamists will be either equal or above native europeans. When they achieve that, haha then they can start demanding whatever they please and force it. Or start war through their ''fanatic believers''. Anglo-saxons didnt escape to france when vikings attacked them. Europeans didnt escape when germans invaded europe. They fought back. Help of USA was great aid, but the consequences are still seen today by USA involvement in EU politics. But wait, they have decades long war in middle east and people just got idea in one summer to leave their counties and move to fancy EU and live normaly or maybe even force their religion to us? Hell no. Thats a no go.

Close the borders, deport people back. I have had enough of the violent acts. If europe has to deport millions of people of islam, to save thousands of europeans, so be it.

It would not surprise me one bit if at one point europe entered war and obviously USA would come to the rescue in either way.

Sorry for long post, it just pissed me off to see people die again because of politics. Its not simple what I wrote, but its connected, the ISIS, USA, EU, migrations, terrorist attacks.

I know its 21st century and we live in advanced times, but whoever thought its ok to let islamists invade europe and ask for asylum...islamists will never live normaly here, and now neither will europeans. Sometime ago, when something like this happened (like in berlin) people would be shocked, outraged. Today, its just another day in europe.

 

 

 

Europeans are busy fighting one another and also reinstalling communist regimes.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

It is quite simple. By 'Muslim World' I just mean the collection of cultures, peoples, languages and philosophies that are inherently Muslim. I'd say nations like France, United Kingdom, United States of America belong to the 'Christian World' because that is the sphere of influence that Christianity has. You can't disagree that both religions have formed the basis of many nation's ideals. While there are many differences between Somalia and Pakistan, I'd wager that the shared belief in Islam creates a firmer connection than Pakistan and Iceland; just as Iceland would have a firmer connection with Spain than Somalia. That is all. I don't think the terms are mutually exclusive

I just can't agree. Culturally I'm probably more in line with Chrisitanity but would I say I'm a Christian? Not at all, because I do not believe in Jesus or God but I can abide by and appreciate many of the teachings. I just can't accept someone is a Muslim when they don't believe in Mohammed or Allah. I'm not deciding who is and who is not; I just think to actually be, one must believe .  While I respect that people believe there is more to Islam than just Allah and Mohammed and I believe that they can live in that manner if the choose to; when I refer to a Muslim I do refer to the people that follow that religion not matter how closely or loosely just as long as they believe. If someone tells me they are Muslim, then they are Muslim but that doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to believe or agree with them; just like they are under no obligation to adhere to my criteria of what constitutes a Muslim. To be a Muslim doesn't one have to submit themselves to the will of Allah?

I feel there is a disconnect with many people including yourself. When people say 'Muslim', I do not believe they mean anyone that identifies as a 'Muslim' but to the people that follow an Orthodox lifestyle to the 'T'. As in the oppressive imagery we seen and the worst people and cultures that have begun under Islam. When someone says they dislike Islam, I honestly believe they are in fact referring to post-Iran revolution Islam. That is just what I take away from it.

I get what you mean, I even agree with you, but ultimately people have the right to freedom of religious belief and that includes identifying as Muslim even if you don't believe in Allah. That is of course an extreme and rare case, but my original point was about the diversity of belief in Islam even about major things like Hijab, praying, fasting, social structures, civil and human rights and reforming religion. 

I do not doubt that what you mean by Islam is the violent jihadi strand that's all over the news. I genuinely believe that that is what most Western people mean. But that is incredibly dangerous. On one hand you have the (for want of better word) direct damage that is done to people who don't know much about Islam and Muslims except what little they hear on the news who will then think that anyone who identifies as a Muslim falls into that category or even people with mental illnesses who might want to go out and stop those dangerous Muslim they keep hearing about.

But even more damaging is the indirect damage as a result of conflating the two. Because while you mean violent jihadi Muslims, when people talk about a Muslim ban they are mostly banning ordinary people going about their lives, when people talk about Muslim refugees they are mostly talking about normal families trying to find safety away from war, when the US is bombing 8 different Muslim-majority countries they are mostly bombing farmers and herders. 

My point is the consequences of the debates in which people you and many are using "Islam" to denote violent Jihadi Islam is the incitement of violence against ALL who identify as Muslim (and some who even don't). It's like calling the banks and media 'Jews'. Even if you are not referring to everyday Jewish people you are still incing hatred and violence against them.

It's not that difficult to add "extremist" or "violent" or "jihadi" or "takfiri" before the word Islam but it does have a huge effect the entire debate. 

[BlueLyon 9,359]

2 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

 

Europeans are busy fighting one another and also reinstalling communist regimes.

True we had problems in the past. But its not like we attack one another these days. IRA and ETA two terrorist organisations both made treaty with governments. Now if you point at Russians, there were people in Ukraine who consider themselves Russian. Putin invaded Ukraine because of that. Its fucked up, but understandable.

Now sure europeans and USA should never get involved in middle east wars, but then again they were invited by their governments of Iran,...AND then there were bombings of civilians. True. Europeans surely dropped some bombs. And islamists then decide to return us, to revenge? HAHa, if they werent fucked up with their believes, they would end the war and civilians would be alive still. But they continue their wars.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

4 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

I get what you mean, I even agree with you, but ultimately people have the right to freedom of religious belief and that includes identifying as Muslim even if you don't believe in Allah. That is of course an extreme and rare case, but my original point was about the diversity of belief in Islam even about major things like Hijab, praying, fasting, social structures, civil and human rights and reforming religion. 

I do not doubt that what you mean by Islam is the violent jihadi strand that's all over the news. I genuinely believe that that is what most Western people mean. But that is incredibly dangerous. On one hand you have the (for want of better word) direct damage that is done to people who don't know much about Islam and Muslims except what little they hear on the news who will then think that anyone who identifies as a Muslim falls into that category or even people with mental illnesses who might want to go out and stop those dangerous Muslim they keep hearing about.

But even more damaging is the indirect damage as a result of conflating the two. Because while you mean violent jihadi Muslims, when people talk about a Muslim ban they are mostly banning ordinary people going about their lives, when people talk about Muslim refugees they are mostly talking about normal families trying to find safety away from war, when the US is bombing 8 different Muslim-majority countries they are mostly bombing farmers and herders. 

My point is the consequences of the debates in which people you and many are using "Islam" to denote violent Jihadi Islam is the incitement of violence against ALL who identify as Muslim (and some who even don't). It's like calling the banks and media 'Jews'. Even if you are not referring to everyday Jewish people you are still incing hatred and violence against them.

It's not that difficult to add "extremist" or "violent" or "jihadi" or "takfiri" before the word Islam but it does have a huge effect the entire debate. 

I agree Islam and extremist are completely different things. Most of islamic peole are casual everyday civilians like u and me.

The problem is media and propaganda. They teach people that these terrorists are islamic and they kill and bomb because of religion. Thats the problem. There are extremists in middle east who use religion as tool to create more extremists. Islam is not reason, but tool.

Much like christianity was used to hang witches ages ago.

The worrying part tho is people have moved to such advanced state where slavery, witchhunt, etc is obviosuly forbidden and unethic. Yet middle east still has same problems it had 500 years ago. There is a war going on and on and on without end.

The question is; you have 10 million of islam people entering europe who might die if you stop them. But out of those 10 million, there is 1% of people who are real threat to millions of europeans. What to do?

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,733]

2 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

I agree Islam and extremist are completely different things. Most of islamic peole are casual everyday civilians like u and me.

The problem is media and propaganda. They teach people that these terrorists are islamic and they kill and bomb because of religion. Thats the problem. There are extremists in middle east who use religion as tool to create more extremists. Islam is not reason, but tool.

Much like christianity was used to hang witches ages ago.

The worrying part tho is people have moved to such advanced state where slavery, witchhunt, etc is obviosuly forbidden and unethic. Yet middle east still has same problems it had 500 years ago. There is a war going on and on and on without end.

The question is; you have 10 million of islam people entering europe who might die if you stop them. But out of those 10 million, there is 1% of people who are real threat to millions of europeans. What to do?

You let them in and try to integrate them. Thats an easy answer for an easy question.

 

The tough part is answering how you integrate them.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

5 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

You let them in and try to integrate them. Thats an easy answer for an easy question.

 

The tough part is answering how you integrate them.

Well your answer is same thing as one would say that result of 5+5 is a number

For a group of people so big to integrate safely, we would need a complete control of borders and that would be only possible by making giant walls, controlled 24/7 surrounded by mine fields with entrances protected by several guards.That way, we might find about 1/3 of extremists. But what about those who look normal people and will bomb sth in 2 years? The countries itself would need to be under absolute surveillance including privacy of the people who arrived (because you cant point out extremist for who you have no background history and can pretend good guy for two years and then bomb paris), so we could strike them down before these individuals do anything stupid.

But yeah that is not possible.

So either you let them come in and this attacks will continue or you can close the borders period. There is no other way around. The damage has already been done tho. Those who intended to come to EU and bomb sth, are probably already in EU.