-
Posts
-
If refugees seek to come here as victims of terror, then the usual rules should apply. As far as I’m concerned, wee should be putting up a lot more of them – refugees are welcome to Britain in my book.
I don’t know what the right thing to do with refugees is. If they can become integrated and productive members of society then there is an argument for them to be allowed. But genuine refugees have a lot of physical and mental health problems, and require a lot of resources to become productive. Resources I don’t know we can justify while the NHS is having the problems that it is.
On the crucial argument, you still haven’t made your point. Germany and France have very different conditions than those applying in the UK. France has a traditionally large Muslim population going back to the aftermath of the Algerian War, and radicalisation has proceeded apace with the segregation and radicalisation of the banlieues. It is very easy for people from the Middle Eastern countries affected by war to slip in there and to find friends; Belgium, between Germany and France, is an ammunition dump for people wanting to commit acts of terror. Germany has along had a policy of welcoming gastarbeiter, with a large population of Muslims from Turkey (in particular) often terrorised by neo-Nazi gangs. Britain has a very different makeup and circumstances whihc have made terror attacks more easy to thwart.
You would have to show me evidence that neo-nazi violence is common in Germany, I have only really seen cases of Antifa, and other such groups doing this on a large scale.
I don’t think your assesment of terroist motivations is very accurate though. In the case of the Berlin attack, Germany has not participated in any of the middle east conflicts, and Tunisia was a French territory historically. So it makes little sense to attack Germany when he could easily have traveled to France instead. These people don’t make the most rational decisions.
The important point you haven’t confronted is the fact that british terror crimes have been committed by British terrorists. Pakistani immigration was brought under strict control in the early 1970s after a series of immigration laws passed by Tory and Labour governments (the Race Relations laws were passed at the same time to assuage liberal discontent over the (sometimes explicit) racial nature of these laws. Banning people from coming from Islamic countries (visitors, too???) will be very marginal, and may be totally useless in stopping this
Even if it is marginal, there is very little cost involved for us as far as I can see. But if there is an attack by a foreign national, would you change your view on this? Or would you continue to deny that it is even a posibility, as you are now.
Far more useful in the short term in the short-term is effective policing, and in the longer term working with the Islamic community, including young people to counter extremism.
I agree with this, but it is very difficult to work with the Islamic community in the current political climate, if such a community even exists. The media is obessed with claiming that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, but also critizing it is islamophobic, which makes it very hard to have a constructive conversation.
you can’t really stop homophobia as such, which is a rife among white people.
This was true maybe 5 years ago, but in my experience it is nearly dead here now. The only homophobic ‘attacks’ I have recieved for a long time have been from religious people (mainly muslims, fundementalist christans are very rare now and I don’t know any outside of my girlfriend’s family).
All your mighty 1 whole argument, has been refuted countless times, you just mix the same words up to rehash that same 1 argument. You are a Christian fundamentalist, far right in ideology and disguise yourself as a “liberal”. You don’t budge an inch and you have an answer for everything and a solution to nothing.
I am confused as to why you keep accusing me of being Christian. I’m an athiest, and I have never believed in any God.
Am I right wing? Center right I would agree, far left certainly not.
I don’t think my arguments have been refuted, Scep only says they won’t be as effective as I believe them to be. Nobody else has really said anything about the,
The Brexit vote, and Trump’s election, must have sparked a lot of right-wing fantasies, BB. What was once regarded as so horrendous that it was out of the question has suddenly loomed into the realm of frightening possibility.
ISIS are going to send (and recruit) more people to Europe on terror attacks. They’ll slip through however tight a net is cast until they achieve their end of winning all Muslims to their view (and yours) that Islam and non-Islam are at a deadly war with each other.
You try to make it seem like I’m frothing at the mouth with excitement about what I’ve typed here coming to fruition; I’m not, it’s just something that needs to be done to deal with the threat. And ISIS doesn’t need to win anyone over to their view, because their view is just normative Islam; similarly they don’t really need to recruit people either because mainstream Islamic texts do it for them.
At some point, despite excellent policing in the UK., something pretty nasty is likely to happen, and there is the danger of some sort of backlash, whipped up by fear-mongering.
If your fantasy does come true, BB, could you give an indication of how many Muslims in Britain will be deported??? Another way of asking you how many Muslims are in the UK. This will include white Muslims, yes, of which there are a number? Just asking.
Probably, though if/when something nasty does happen then a backlash would justifiably be an act of self-defence, wouldn’t it? No “fear-mongering” necessary.
And as many as it takes.
Muslims number into the millions now so I’m aware that it could potentially be a huge task, but you have to do what’s right and what’s effective, not just what’s expedient. And to put it another way: the number to be ejected would be a lot less if it was done sooner, than later. The longer things are left to carry on as they are, the greater the Muslim population will become, and the more of an impossibility it will be to do (which I’m sure you’ll take delight in). As for skin colour: I don’t know, and I don’t really care to know either. I’m not obsessively fixated on skin colour in the same way that you seem to be, it’s completely irrelevant.So? Islam prescribes for Muslims to put their ‘religion’ above and beyond national identity. Those that have roots here and want to carry on living here should be allowed to do so, but only on condition that they fully reject their ‘religion’.
I had mentioned this was a problem in the Berlin thread, however I don’t believe a complete rejection of their religion is needed.
Respectively disagree, it’s crucial.
Allowing people who identify as Muslims to live here entails the continual acceptance of Islam within society. The continual acceptance of Islam within society means that it stays tolerated and protected; that Muslims who adhere to it remain tolerated and protected; and that the Islamisation of this country, and the wider Western world, continues unabated. If you don’t force Muslims into making the choice between fully rejecting their religion (in this case for the right to remain here as equal citizens) or staying faithful to it and facing consequences, then nothing changes.If no countries are willing to accept them, then mass airdrop them into a desert if needs be, just as long as they’re anywhere other than here and aren’t able to pose a threat to everyone.
This isn’t a realistic solution, no party would ever get elected with this policy. And there would be an international effort to prevent this from happening, possibly even war.
Bear in mind that this is just one hypothetical scenario in response to skeps “what if”, the main issue is just on deporting those who refuse to integrate and who hold hostile sentiments and aggressive inclinations towards our secular society. In that sense, it doesn’t seem too bad. I think a lot of people would already sympathise with this to a degree, and which ought to then translate into a willingness to jump over any hurdles that could prevent it from taking place in any given future scenarios. Dropping people into desserts is extreme, but I personally wouldn’t rule such extreme measures out *shrug*.
And you posit war, but we’re already in a war as far as I’m concerned (albeit an internal one). Any nations that do threaten war on a people trying to rid themselves of Islam though, would be akin to somebody threatening to attack somebody else who has an infection or a form of necrosis, upon them attempting to stop it spreading through their own body. Those threatening to attack will therefore be trying to harm you just as much as the infection/necrosis is already doing, so more war it will just have to be.
All that’s needed is for Western societies to imitate those early Pagan Meccans in rejecting Islam, and of being less accepting of those who openly adhere to Islam.
This is one thing that I agree with scep on, universal suppression of Islam will just create tensions and conflict with muslim populations in Britain. This would only be a good option if there weren’t any muslims here to resist, as is the case with Japan’s laws on practicing islam.
I would say that there are already tensions and conflict with Muslim populations in Britain (and even more so in other EU countries), but I absolutely agree with you on the point that it will exasperate things and make matters a lot worse. It absolutely will, yeah, there’s no getting around that.
But I also think that ruling it out on the basis of it not being a good option, is wrong, simply because, well… there is no good option. Islam is an intolerant death cult of conquest and domination and it’s been fighting everything that Western civilisation is founded upon for the last 1400 years. A lot of the fighting of the crusades took place with the aim of stopping Islam spreading into Europe – it’s what thousands of men were once laying down their lives for to prevent from happening. But yet now in the modern era it’s been welcomed into the fold with open arms and labelled as something benign, despite it never even have changed. It shouldn’t have ever been accepted here in the first place, but now that it has (thanks to our crooked politicians) everyone faces the option of either confronting it and ejecting it back out of the West, or capitulating and yielding to it while it radically changes the fabric of society via it establishing and asserting its own ideals at the cost of ours.
Those who don’t like the idea of living under Islamic rule therefore have just two main options as I see it – the first of which is bad, and the second of which is immensely bad. The first is what I’ve generally been arguing for: to confront suppress and eradicate it now while it’s still a relatively weak force, and while we still have a good chance of being victorious over it (although yes it won’t be pretty); or secondly: to sit on our thumbs hoping for the best for the sake of avoiding confrontation and conflict, and allowing it to become a much more stronger and formidable force than of what it currently is, and which then leads us into the future positions of, at best, experiencing a lot more conflict to get rid of it than was necessary or, at worst, not be able to defeat it all – to succumb.
The route of avoiding conflict with Islam is reminiscent of Chamberlain’s stance towards the Nazis in WWII. The order of the day was to follow the strategy of appeasement towards a fundamentally dominating and expansionist ideology–a strategy of which did not work then, just as it will not work now. Chamberlain’s eagerness to champion co-existence along with his now infamous declaration that “there will be peace for our time”, right before Hitler then invaded Poland, should serve as a historic warning to everyone. Fortunately, the one guy who did have enough backbone to stare reality in the face, and of who possessed the courage and conviction do what was needed to be done, stood up, and he spoke a now famous quote which was just as relevant in 1939 in the fight against Nazism, as it is today in the fight against Islam:
Agreed that as things currently stand you can’t, but things will just have to drastically change, is really my only response to that. If it doesn’t then the West will become increasingly Islamised until it reaches the point of no return.
Which is why I want to ban immigration and refugees from Islamic countries, something else I mentioned in the Berlin thread. It will only make the problem worse if we keep letting more of them in. But as I said earlier, I don’t think deportation of British citizens is an acceptable solution.
Agreed, more of them would certainly be counter-productive. And while it is understandable that you wouldn’t find deportation of “British citizens” an acceptable solution, I would look at it as more a necessity than anything (and I say this too as someone who was originally more of an anti-government Classical Liberal and of letting people live as they wish etc.).
I will get around to replying to you probably tomorrow BB, you wrote quite a lot that I have to think about the right reponses for.
The point is that I tolerate Islam, and find the Muslims I have met to be really nice people. Radical Islam cannot be tolerated – they’re the ones involved in a reconquista – you have to be a bit paranoid to think Islam as a whole is. That ended in 1492 (well more like 1683 at the gates of Vienna).
It’s not surprising you tolerate Islam, the shock.
Radical Islam supposes a moderate Islam, but there’s no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam and is inherently a radical ideology, and always has been. There are, however, ‘Muslims’ who don’t follow it as they ought to – who are then labelled as hypocrites by actual Muslims.
As a side-note, this guy, Raymond Ibrahim, is someone I have a massive deal of respect for, and I would encourage everyone to follow his posts on his site if you’ve never heard of him – they’re always brilliant reads. He’s a good guy and has second-to-none experience and expertise regarding Islam, including being fluent in Arabic. His take on it:
Why Moderate Islam Is An Oxymoron:
http://raymondibrahim.com/2014/03/26/why-moderate-islam-is-an-oxymoron/
BB, how many Muslims are there in the UK – including white ones?
I agree it’s not a race problem, though if BB had his way it could become one.
Homophobic crime is illegal under UK law, and should be imposed on all communities; you can’t really stop homophobia as such, which is a rife among white people.
Bloody hell, why are you so obsessed with skin colour and race, Slippery Scep? This on top of you referring to Muslims as WOGS as well, you genuinely are a shameful racist, aren’t you?
Just get it out already and be done with it.
I will get around to replying to you probably tomorrow BB, you wrote quite a lot that I have to think about the right reponses for.
It’s all good, no rush.
I do tend to get carried away in replying, I apologise, lol. I guess it doesn’t help much either that I don’t keep up with the posts and so just end up bombarding with essays once in a blue moon. Will hopefully check back before the end of the year if all goes well
1 member liked this post.
What an evil piece of works BB is – deport millions of muslims, many of them having lived here for a long time, many of them born here. Drop them in the deseert – anywhere, really. BB doesn’t give a shyte about millions being plunged into starvation and death – they’re only Muslims after all.
ALL Muslims, not just ISIS supporters, because ISIS is Islam. No need to interpret Islam; no need to look at the divisions in Islam. No need to think about ISIS killing all Muslims who don’t agree with them.
Anyone disagrees with BB on this? They must be traitors or Muslims. I have been called a Muslim and a racist. I am also obsessed with race and skin colour for asking to what race British Muslims belong? I am saying that a race war is likely if BB has his way, and he should remember that many white people are ready to fight him with everything they’ve got.
But he knows that doesn’t he? I wont ask how he’ll deal with the many like me, because we all know what his answer will be.
He claims he’s writing essays? Just hate-filled rants calling for deportation and death. Awa’ wi’ ye.
drac, terrorist motivation – whether in France, Germany or the UK – is clear.
ISIS want a war in which all non-believers are killed. That’s the official line, though the actuality tends to be very different. Hint – they are making millions of dollars as well from a lot of odd activities, including people-smuggling. One Afghan guy I once met (he was married to a Brit so had dual nationality) told me that Johannesburg (where I was travelling) was a lot more dangerous than Taliban-threatened Kabul. In Kabul, politics and religion were excuses. If you got int the way of someone making money, you were killed. Otherwise, they left you on your own.
But France and Germany have very different circumstances which makes policing much less efficient than in the UK. Even so, a dreadful attack within the UK is accepted by the police as very likely. If it happens, then I fear for liberty in this country, as the reaction (whipped up by people who don’t believe in a liberal, tolerant society). ISIS would love that, as they see anti-Muslim violence as a recruiting sergeant for them – BB, please note!!
Most Muslims in this country seem to really dislike radical Islam. The figures you’ve used of radical sympathisers refer to students, many of them overseas. Also, radical Islam itself is complex, with many not going as far as ISIS. They have a deeply unattractive set of ideas, but not violent in themselves.
My understanding (and it’s as anecdotal as your or anyone’s) is that kids who want to join ISIS are chivvied by their peers, but their peers won’t inform on them to the authorities.The problem is how to persuade the majority of kids that they’re not doing anyone any favours by not doing that. It’s the school authorities who have the job of persuading them that they are not enemies. This is difficult, as I regarded the school authorities as the enemy when I was a kid, and wouldn’t split on other kids myself. It’s natural.
The realities of how to deal with refugees are awesome. Nobody is pretending otherwise. But the need to provide help and an open hand takes precedence over cruelty. The balancing act that is needed must be international, not restricted to one country, if it’s going to be at all effective. It would have been a good idea if we hadn’t meddled in the area with armies of occupation, bombing etc in the first place. The meddling looks like ending in a humiliating defeat.
Homophobia is a lot less than it was when I was young. But it’s still there, I believe. I don’t keep a copunt, but I still read of gay people being hurt and even killed occasionally – nothing like it used to be. I still read anti-gay comments here, even from people I like.
I am confused as to why you keep accusing me of being Christian. I’m an athiest, and I have never believed in any God.
Am I right wing? Center right I would agree, far left certainly not. I don’t think my arguments have been refuted, Scep only says they won’t be as effective as I believe them to be. Nobody else has really said anything about the, You have described Hitler as centre-Left, drac, so your categories tend to be confusing and, dare I say, confused.
I do think you’re acting in a rational manner insofar as you try to develop arguments from a set of premises. The premises aren’t totally clear, probably not to yourself if you’re normal. Most of us rely on premises which aren’t totally clear. That allows us to develop and grow as we try to clarify them, and as circumstances change.
I do think you tend to be over-abstract, but generally your comments aren’t so clear a to clearly define your politics. As opposed to mine! I am a racist and a Muslim, a liberal and a communist according to various people here.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!