Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What does this statement actually mean? Where is a single shred of verifiable evidence to support it. Quoting some random war from some random year, thousands or hundreds of years ago, is not evidence. There are 1.6 billion Muslims who follow the Islamic faith on this planet and 99.99% of them live peaceful law abiding lives and to suggest otherwise is just parroting right wing tabloid driven witchuntery. It is an utter disgrace that in a largely tolerant UK, that a tiny % of violent fundamentalists, are now being used to whip up this kind of bigoted hatred and division.
Are you saying that the reconquista didn’t happen?
Btw, the Iberian Peninsula was an islamic caliphate for several hundred years. It’s not just some random war, it’s a major part of European history. Even ignoring other parts of Europe occupied by islamic empires throught the last 1000 years.
I specifically said that I was talking about Islam, not muslims. I’m not sure why it’s so hard for people to make this distinction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The International community will also have to be ignored
I have no problems with ignoring the UN, I would want to leave it if we didn’t have a permanent seat on the security council. Ignoring the EU is more difficult while the EJC can override our domestic laws (Their blocking of the Snooper’s Charter is an example, although I agree with their ruling in this case).
The Brexit vote, and Trump’s election, must have sparked a lot of right-wing fantasies, BB.
Its a reaction to the left-wing fantasies of an open-bordered multicultural utopia, where everyone gets along. At least in regards to immigration issues, I voted for Brexit because of trade.
ISIS are going to send (and recruit) more people to Europe on terror attacks.
Which is why we shouldn’t allow ISIS to exist, it isn’t even recognised as an official state and has no legitimacy.
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.
Islam is at war with the west, it always has been, what do you think the reconquista and the crusades were about? This is different than muslims being at war with the west however, which I think is something both you and BB are missing.
Was actually Pete who said all that…I copied and pasted it from another thread
Sorry, I didn’t notice that.
Salut,
Bienvenue sur Just Chat!
I certainly don’t get the grief and tears thing.. he wasn’t family I didn’t even know him, it’s an initial shock but that’s the end of it, I liked Bowie’s early stuff but i didn’t suffer grief when he died.
I don’t really understand it either. I think its to get attention for some people, but I have no idea.
And how come the celebs, especially singers are always wonderful misunderstood troubled individuals when substance abuse is involved but crack heads on the street are just vile ?
Because they can afford to buy drugs without having to commit crimes. Of course not all people who use drugs are criminals (except for taking illegal drugs), but the only ones that people hear about are the bad ones.
1 member liked this post.
English
1 member liked this post.
let’s hope it remains rhetoric, or the Catholic Church will be the elast of your worries
I’m not sure about that, if the church finds out that my girlfriend wasn’t really ‘cured’ of being a lesbian there is a very high chance that I, and probably her and our children would be made homeless. So it’s a pretty big worry for me.
A second cold war probably wouldn’t do that. But I still think if anyone was to use nuclear weapons it would be Pakistan, probably against India (assuming their weapons actually work).
With macho man Trump and macho man Putin stepping up the nuclear rhetoric, it looks like we’re going to be in for a period of scarytime.
Pakistan refers to it’s nuclear weapon program as ‘The Islamic Bomb’, i’m not sure you get much more macho than that.
So- as per usual in these circumstances, the facts slowly emerge. Anis Amri was being monitored by the German Secret Service, was known the be a radical extremist and quietly slipped under the radar before he carried out this planned attack. This man was a failed asylum seeker yet allowed to saunter around Germany at will, with various identities. Laughably the Germans claim he could not be deported because he “did not have the right paperwork”.
According to Tinsel economic “migrants” and fake “asylum seekers” suspected of being extremist are one and the same and preventing all of them from driving lorries would have prevented this attack. Obviously, applying the logic on this thread, no one knows how to drive a HGV if they are not EU nationals and preventing ALL Muslims from the Middle East region entering the EU zone and learning how to drive HGV’s will prevent all future attacks.
This is one of the reasons why I don’t want open borders with Germany, they seem to be unable to police the people they are letting into the country. I don’t see any other option than restricting all movement from these regions of the world for the moment. There’s no way to tell who is an extremist and who is not.
Excellent news!
I suspect he was trying to return to Tunisia, which is something I mentioned earlier. I don’t know why else he would be in Italy. But we can’t learn anything from him now he is dead, capturing him alive would have been preferable.
Can you imagine the sheer scale of the carnage, if such people were given jobs as lorry drivers, on the basis that they are ‘refugees’ who need a job?
These attacks would still happen regardless, nothing stops the lorries from being stolen. But allowing unqualified drivers to drive lorries, refugee or not is obviously a bad idea.
Well it kind of is in a way….the driver was an asylum seeker….and she wanted to teach migrants to drive the lorries….see what I mean? What could possibly go wrong with that idea…?
From what I understand he murdered the polish lorry driver and stole the lorry.
