Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Terror attack in Stockholm (merged); Lorry rammed into pedestrians and shop
Topic Started: Apr 7 2017, 06:40 PM (890 Views)
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39531108

Several people killed. Terrorist stole lorry, rammed shops, managed to run away and has not yet been detained.
Sounds familiar ?

No doubt it is more Right-Wing/Christian Terrorism.

Bizarrely, the report also states that shots where fired elsewhere in Stockholm, but that it was not connected.
Not connected ? People are firing guns in central Stockholm and it isn't even investigated by the media ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 12 2017, 10:36 AM
Dan1989
Apr 12 2017, 10:30 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 12 2017, 10:03 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepthey aren't courts of law'on the whole' who expressed a preference
I would argue loyalty and patriotism has fallen for natives because of the perceived let down by the state.

Also seemingly our loss in identity which many people talk about, many people can not articulate British values/culture as clearly as they used to.

I fear multiculturalism and immigration hasn't help with this, probably why the growing disillusionment by both natives and immigrants of it, it's quite common to hear immigrants to say this isn't the England I came to love.
A friend of mine once remarked that it was ironic that I seemed to be more patriotic than him despite the fact that I'm only 2nd generation British and he can trace his English ancestry back to the 15th century.

I replied that it actually makes perfect sense, his Britishness has always been a given, he's never had to prove it or justify it like I have. His was given to him, I had to earn mine, naturally I'm going to value mine more.
I could see that, but then people are constantly told that such views are wrong, but I do think a lot of it is lack of identity, if you ask an older person, they could make your ear bleed talking for days about being British, but younger people are kinda stuck within a transitional period, even afraid of being nationalistic or patriotic, because both are seen as automatically bad in my generation, even though if they feel less pressured they are more amenable to being patriotic.

Talking about earning your stripes, it does make sense because of national service and doing your part in general, in the past probably helped with that, but we do live in a increasingly me generation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Apr 12 2017, 10:00 AM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:52 AM
Did you read your own FullFact link?

FullFact
 
While there are undoubtedly lots of different councils and tribunals dealing with Sharia principles, they aren't courts of law.



Indeed. I pointed this out in my post, SteveK. I stated that they had no formal legal status.

Quote:
 

Did you really read that Policy Exchange document? I doubt it. 43% - which of course falls well short of the 'on the whole' statement we are discussing - supported its introduction for financial disputes.

Actually, it think it stated '... introduction EXCEPT for financial disputes', rather than FOR financial disputes ? In regards "on the whole", well, I never made that statement. But you could argue that if 43% are in favour, and 23% don't care, then the majority of the people in the poll who expressed a preference preferred Whiskers Catomeat. Umm... I mean... Sharia. . .
Well here it is https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/PEXJ5037_Muslim_Communities_FINAL.pdf

"When asked specifically about integration, a majority of respondents, 53%, said that they wanted to ‘fully integrate with non-Muslims in all aspects of life"/i]

So my description of the infamous post 44 was spot on

"The subject of Sharia law has caused much controversy in the past. Successive polls have shown what were felt to be surprisingly large numbers of British Muslims as favouring the implementation of such legal provisions. In some ways, our survey is no different. When asked whether they would support the introduction of Sharia Law – broadly defined, to include civil law on questions of financial disputes – some 43% said they supported this proposition, whereas 22% opposed it (23% neither supported nor opposed), while 12% said they did not know.

However, it should be stressed that the wording of the question here is significant: respondents were asked about Sharia in the broadest sense – and in that context, perhaps the most significant thing is that a majority of Muslims did not express a view in support and only 16% ‘strongly supported’ its introduction"


Got it now?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 10:49 AM
RoofGardener
Apr 12 2017, 10:00 AM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:52 AM
Did you read your own FullFact link?


Quoting limited to 3 levels deepthey aren't courts of law

Indeed. I pointed this out in my post, SteveK. I stated that they had no formal legal status.

Quote:
 

Did you really read that Policy Exchange document? I doubt it. 43% - which of course falls well short of the 'on the whole' statement we are discussing - supported its introduction for financial disputes.

Actually, it think it stated '... introduction EXCEPT for financial disputes', rather than FOR financial disputes ? In regards "on the whole", well, I never made that statement. But you could argue that if 43% are in favour, and 23% don't care, then the majority of the people in the poll who expressed a preference preferred Whiskers Catomeat. Umm... I mean... Sharia. . .
Well here it is https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/PEXJ5037_Muslim_Communities_FINAL.pdf

"When asked specifically about integration, a majority of respondents, 53%, said that they wanted to ‘fully integrate with non-Muslims in all aspects of life"/i]

So my description of the infamous post 44 was spot on

"The subject of Sharia law has caused much controversy in the past. Successive polls have shown what were felt to be surprisingly large numbers of British Muslims as favouring the implementation of such legal provisions. In some ways, our survey is no different. When asked whether they would support the introduction of Sharia Law – broadly defined, to include civil law on questions of financial disputes – some 43% said they supported this proposition, whereas 22% opposed it (23% neither supported nor opposed), while 12% said they did not know.

However, it should be stressed that the wording of the question here is significant: respondents were asked about Sharia in the broadest sense – and in that context, perhaps the most significant thing is that a majority of Muslims did not express a view in support and only 16% ‘strongly supported’ its introduction"


Got it now?

"got it now" ?

I have, but have you ? SteveK, decisions are made by those who turn up. Governments are voted in by voters who turn out.

The 23% that had no opinion don't count in the calculation; they would accept either outcome, and would take no part in the voting.

Extrapolating: if it came to a vote, 43% would vote "for" Sharia. 22% would vote against. Around 12% are "floating voters" who might go either way. 23% didn't vote AT ALL. Accordingly, the 43% who supported introducing Sharia actualy constitute an absolute majority of voters.. or "the whole". Sharia would be implemented !

The extract you quoted seems to be contradicting its own data ?
Edited by RoofGardener, Apr 12 2017, 12:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
!mod!

I have been made aware of a lot of intemperate and bad-tempered language throughout the latter half of this thread.

I would ask ALL contributors to take a breath and stop NOW, and return to civilized discourse. Otherwise I will lock this thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew Brady
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 10 2017, 10:43 PM
What bollocks and malicious bollocks at that. But I guess Matthew and Nick Griffin and that football thug that ran the EDL will be so proud of you
Good to see you taking pathetic pot shots whilst being utterly unable to address my arguments.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Matthew Brady
Apr 12 2017, 04:44 PM
Steve K
Apr 10 2017, 10:43 PM
What bollocks and malicious bollocks at that. But I guess Matthew and Nick Griffin and that football thug that ran the EDL will be so proud of you
Good to see you taking pathetic pot shots whilst being utterly unable to address my arguments.
Who said I was unable? Maybe I couldn't be bothered.

Here's something for you to ponder. Muslim immigration to the West has been going on for centuries but Islamic terrorism really only dates back to the early 1980s and only becomes big time from the late 1990s.

The first correlates with the West supporting Israel in attacking a muslim country and the second with the rise of the internet so extremists could readily infect and instruct grudge bearing losers across large distances.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:12 PM
Matthew Brady
Apr 12 2017, 04:44 PM
Steve K
Apr 10 2017, 10:43 PM
What bollocks and malicious bollocks at that. But I guess Matthew and Nick Griffin and that football thug that ran the EDL will be so proud of you
Good to see you taking pathetic pot shots whilst being utterly unable to address my arguments.
Who said I was unable? Maybe I couldn't be bothered.

Here's something for you to ponder. Muslim immigration to the West has been going on for centuries but Islamic terrorism really only dates back to the early 1980s and only becomes big time from the late 1990s.

The first correlates with the West supporting Israel in attacking a muslim country and the second with the rise of the internet so extremists could readily infect and instruct grudge bearing losers across large distances.
You say immigration, but you mean conquered, by the two main Muslim empires - Ottoman Empire and Umayyad Caliphate/Abbasid Caliphate, so yeah why would Muslim terrorism be high in two empires that practised traditional Islam, which a lot of terrorists want.

The current terrorism in essence is anti-west.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 12 2017, 08:25 PM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:12 PM
Matthew Brady
Apr 12 2017, 04:44 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Who said I was unable? Maybe I couldn't be bothered.

Here's something for you to ponder. Muslim immigration to the West has been going on for centuries but Islamic terrorism really only dates back to the early 1980s and only becomes big time from the late 1990s.

The first correlates with the West supporting Israel in attacking a muslim country and the second with the rise of the internet so extremists could readily infect and instruct grudge bearing losers across large distances.
You say immigration, but you mean conquered, by the two main Muslim empires - Ottoman Empire and Umayyad Caliphate/Abbasid Caliphate, so yeah why would Muslim terrorism be high in two empires that practised traditional Islam, which a lot of terrorists want.
But the UK was never so conquered however Somalis have been in the UK since the 19th century and muslim Indians before that.

Quote:
 
The current terrorism in essence is anti-west.

Yep but also anti Israel and anyone that apparently supports Israel
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:40 PM
Dan1989
Apr 12 2017, 08:25 PM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:12 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You say immigration, but you mean conquered, by the two main Muslim empires - Ottoman Empire and Umayyad Caliphate/Abbasid Caliphate, so yeah why would Muslim terrorism be high in two empires that practised traditional Islam, which a lot of terrorists want.
But the UK was never so conquered however Somalis have been in the UK since the 19th century and muslim Indians before that.

Quote:
 
The current terrorism in essence is anti-west.

Yep but also anti Israel and anyone that apparently supports Israel
Yes, because those numbers compare to our current numbers, you know this isn't comparable stop trying.

Those numbers were so small, also it was different time, you and I both know what would happen to them if they stepped out of line.

I wish people would stop comparing a near negligible number to our current immigration population.

There were more British people in any one Africa country or Indian region then any immigrant numbers in the whole of Europe, minus conquered land by Muslim Empires.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 12 2017, 08:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/uk_1.shtml

1st mosque over 150 years ago

"The first large group of Muslims in Britain arrived about 300 years ago."

"The next wave of Muslim immigration to Britain followed the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. The increase in trade caused a demand for men to work in ports and on ships."

Awkward eh?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:54 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/uk_1.shtml

1st mosque over 150 years ago

"The first large group of Muslims in Britain arrived about 300 years ago."

"The next wave of Muslim immigration to Britain followed the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. The increase in trade caused a demand for men to work in ports and on ships."

Awkward eh?
Not awkward at all.

Those numbers are barely noticeable, how many currently 2.5 million or more.

Don't forget a lot were conversions.

Are you really comparing those numbers to our current total.

Those then were an extremely small minority of course they would behave themselves, also people back then were super harsh, if a Muslim then said death to democracy or anything anti-west, good chance they would execute him.

Also as you said a lot revolved around trading and not actual permanent residence for the MOST part, only a extremely small number stayed, hence the little to no trouble from them.

Also if they didn't want Israel to be a proxy they should stop trying to attack it, also they anti-west sentiments isn't just Israel, a lot to do with the cultural hegemony of America.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 12 2017, 09:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 12 2017, 09:10 PM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:54 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/uk_1.shtml

1st mosque over 150 years ago

"The first large group of Muslims in Britain arrived about 300 years ago."

"The next wave of Muslim immigration to Britain followed the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. The increase in trade caused a demand for men to work in ports and on ships."

Awkward eh?
Not awkward at all.

Those numbers are barely noticeable, how many currently 2.5 million or more.

Don't forget a lot were conversions.

Are you really comparing those numbers to our current total.

Those then were an extremely small minority of course they would behave themselves, also people back then were super harsh, if a Muslim then said death to democracy or anything anti-west, good chance they would execute him.

Also as you said a lot revolved around trading and not actual permanent residence for the MOST part, only a extremely small number stayed, hence the little to no trouble from them.

Also if they didn't want Israel to be a proxy they should stop trying to attack it, also they anti-west sentiments isn't just Israel, a lot to do with the cultural hegemony of America.
No the numbers are clearly well different but there were large numbers here before 1999

But it's either mistaken or malicious to say islamic terrorism in the West is due to the numbers that have arrived in the last 30 years. There just are no islamic anti West attacks in the West prior to 2000 so we have to look for other correlations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew Brady
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:12 PM
Who said I was unable? Maybe I couldn't be bothered.

Here's something for you to ponder. Muslim immigration to the West has been going on for centuries but Islamic terrorism really only dates back to the early 1980s and only becomes big time from the late 1990s.

The first correlates with the West supporting Israel in attacking a muslim country and the second with the rise of the internet so extremists could readily infect and instruct grudge bearing losers across large distances.
Given your penchant for pedantry, and the fact you still find the time to take pot shots, I find that hard to believe.

No, the Muslim immigration to the West that we see today has not being going on for centuries. Southern Europe was invaded by Muslims centuries ago, but I hardly think Islamic conquest is evidence that the presence of Muslims is not correlated with violence. The vast majority of the Muslim population that currently resides in Western Europe is the consequence of immigration that has occurred since the end of the second world war. And only PC obscurantists would deny that this has anything to do with the Islamic terrorism that is occurring in the West, when the great majority of such terrorism is perpetrated by recent Muslim immigrants or their descendants.

And if you are going to reiterate your points, you might at least acknowledge the rebuttals I already made: the large majority of Islamic terrorism takes place in majority Muslim countries against targets that have nothing to do with Western military intervention. And the internet does not explain why Muslims participate in terrorism at such wildly disproportionate rates. Its hardly as if only Muslims have internet access. And Western foreign policy doesn't explain the Islamic propensity for terrorism either. If it did, America would constantly be beset by terrorists from Vietnam and Latin America.

Islamic terrorism is a particular problem because Muslims are so much more likely to engage in terrorism. And what predicts Muslim terrorism, much more so than foreign policy grievances or internet access, is the share of the population that is Muslim. That's why The Philippines has a problem with Islamic terrorism and Japan doesn't.

Edited by Matthew Brady, Apr 12 2017, 09:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Matthew Brady
Apr 12 2017, 09:26 PM
the large majority of Islamic terrorism takes place in majority Muslim countries against targets that have nothing to do with Western military intervention
please name one
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:52 AM

Did you really read that Policy Exchange document? I doubt it. 43% - which of course falls well short of the 'on the whole' statement we are discussing - supported its introduction for financial disputes.


43% + 23% that are not opposed does support that Muslims on the whole do not fully integrate - or desire to. Those opposed to it a minority!

And why the addition of a personal reference that adds nothing to debate but does reveal that you didn't read or follow what the document actually stated.

Edited by Affa, Apr 12 2017, 09:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Apr 12 2017, 09:49 PM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:52 AM

Did you really read that Policy Exchange document? I doubt it. 43% - which of course falls well short of the 'on the whole' statement we are discussing - supported its introduction for financial disputes.


43% + 23% that are not opposed does support that Muslims on the whole do not fully integrate - or desire to. Those opposed to it a minority!

And why the addition of a personal reference that adds nothing to debate but does reveal that you didn't read or follow what the document actually stated.

You what?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 09:52 PM
Affa
Apr 12 2017, 09:49 PM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:52 AM

Did you really read that Policy Exchange document? I doubt it. 43% - which of course falls well short of the 'on the whole' statement we are discussing - supported its introduction for financial disputes.


43% + 23% that are not opposed does support that Muslims on the whole do not fully integrate - or desire to. Those opposed to it a minority!

And why the addition of a personal reference that adds nothing to debate but does reveal that you didn't read or follow what the document actually stated.

You what?

How can I answer that incomplete question?,
Could I answer 'I'm right, you're not', or maybe just 'I am marvellous'. Neither actually mean anything of note.
I have expressed an opinion and support for it. You have challenged that opinion and have only pedantry to back that challenge up.

Why do you attempt to drag this pedantry point on ignoring debate, is the question I'd ask - if for one second I could expect an honest answer ..... as it is I will not ask.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Perhaps you could explain what you meant by "And why the addition of a personal reference that adds nothing to debate but does reveal that you didn't read or follow what the document actually stated."

Seeing how as already posted that document says "53%, said that they wanted to ‘fully integrate with non-Muslims in all aspects of life’,"

And you are still pushing the false line that supposedly 'on the whole' they don't integrate. You're at at most 47% and you'd need something like 80% to make that 'on the whole' criteria
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew Brady
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 09:45 PM
Matthew Brady
Apr 12 2017, 09:26 PM
the large majority of Islamic terrorism takes place in majority Muslim countries against targets that have nothing to do with Western military intervention
please name one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Pakistan

Presumably the 35,000 victims since 2001 were complicit in US military interventions? Or you could look at the blood bath of Muslim on Muslim violence in Iraq and ask the same question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_incidents_in_Iraq_by_year

Its not exactly hard to find examples of what you are asking for.

And way to ignore absolutely everything else I have said. Again, Japan doesnt have a problem with Islamic terrorism. The Philippines does. Please explain this in terms of the causes you have given for Islamic terrorism. And also, please explain to me how Muslim immigration is not a cause of terrorism in the West, when the large majority of terrorist killings in the West are currently attributable to recent Muslim immigrants or their descendants?
Edited by Matthew Brady, Apr 13 2017, 06:42 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Integration is as previously posted not something that can be cherry picked. By definition it means being absorbed into the host culture and accepting of it.
That survey tells us there parts of our British culture that Muslims on the whole are not compatible with, and cannot accept - tolerate at best.
Wearing Western clothes doesn't' make you British.

Oh, and just to be even more critical, I will add here that I believe the response(s) to the survey questions to be about as honest/accurate/reliable as a George Osborn Budget review.

Edited by Affa, Apr 13 2017, 06:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Matthew Brady
Apr 13 2017, 06:36 AM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 09:45 PM
Matthew Brady
Apr 12 2017, 09:26 PM
the large majority of Islamic terrorism takes place in majority Muslim countries against targets that have nothing to do with Western military intervention
please name one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Pakistan

Presumably the 35,000 victims since 2001 were complicit in US military interventions? Or you could look at the blood bath of Muslim on Muslim violence in Iraq and ask the same question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_incidents_in_Iraq_by_year

Its not exactly hard to find examples of what you are asking for.

And way to ignore absolutely everything else I have said. Again, Japan doesnt have a problem with Islamic terrorism. The Philippines does. Please explain this in terms of the causes you have given for Islamic terrorism. And also, please explain to me how Muslim immigration is not a cause of terrorism in the West, when the large majority of terrorist killings in the West are currently attributable to recent Muslim immigrants or their descendants?
Waiting for the mental gymnastics and of course pedantry where/if applicable.

....
.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 12 2017, 08:25 PM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:12 PM
Matthew Brady
Apr 12 2017, 04:44 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Who said I was unable? Maybe I couldn't be bothered.

Here's something for you to ponder. Muslim immigration to the West has been going on for centuries but Islamic terrorism really only dates back to the early 1980s and only becomes big time from the late 1990s.

The first correlates with the West supporting Israel in attacking a muslim country and the second with the rise of the internet so extremists could readily infect and instruct grudge bearing losers across large distances.
You say immigration, but you mean conquered, by the two main Muslim empires - Ottoman Empire and Umayyad Caliphate/Abbasid Caliphate, so yeah why would Muslim terrorism be high in two empires that practised traditional Islam, which a lot of terrorists want.

The current terrorism in essence is anti-west.
Clarification;

"The ongoing wars between the heirs of Muhammad to maintain power was polarized into two main fronts: those who supported the prophet’s son-in-law, Ali, versus those who supported the Umayyad family, descendants for Muhammad’s great-grandfather and members of the same tribe.
The Umayyad emerged victorious at first and moved the capital from Medina to Damascus. There, they founded the Caliphate of Damascus which held political and spiritual power. However, the Ali heirs continued to harass Damascus for generations until 749, when Abu I-Abbas was able to eliminate all but one of the members of the Umayyad family. The survivor would travel across Maghreb and eventually emerge strongly at the other end of the Mediterranean, in Al-Andalus. His name? Abd ar-Rahman."

Thus emerged the Umayyad period in Spain. One might say that Abd ar-Rahman was a refugee ;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Matthew Brady
Apr 13 2017, 06:36 AM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 09:45 PM
Matthew Brady
Apr 12 2017, 09:26 PM
the large majority of Islamic terrorism takes place in majority Muslim countries against targets that have nothing to do with Western military intervention
please name one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Pakistan

Presumably the 35,000 victims since 2001 were complicit in US military interventions? Or you could look at the blood bath of Muslim on Muslim violence in Iraq and ask the same question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_incidents_in_Iraq_by_year

Its not exactly hard to find examples of what you are asking for.

And way to ignore absolutely everything else I have said. Again, Japan doesnt have a problem with Islamic terrorism. The Philippines does. Please explain this in terms of the causes you have given for Islamic terrorism. And also, please explain to me how Muslim immigration is not a cause of terrorism in the West, when the large majority of terrorist killings in the West are currently attributable to recent Muslim immigrants or their descendants?
So are you saying the so called Japanese Red Army didn't carry out terrorist acts on behalf of the Palestinians? You mentioned South Korea earlier a country that took an anti Israel stance.

To be clear I never identified a cause, I pointed out that there is a stronger argument for correlation with the rise in the web and overt political and military support by the West in what are usually seen as muslim territories as there is with large numbers of muslim immigrants.

Your link about Pakistan supports this with "35,000 Pakistanis killed between 11 September 2001 and May 2011" your link about Iraq the same with nothing before 2003. Both countries have had significant Western military interference.

Islamic terrorism is a complex subject with multiple backgrounds. Egypt is different from Iraq and neither is similar to either the West Bank or Europe. To latch on to Islamic terrorism as some way to seek to expel or falsely demonise innocent people we see as different in some way is not just wrong, it's often illegal and more importantly it is self defeating. Talk to any terrorism expert and they will tell you you can only get what will look like a win by separating the terrorists from the communities they reside in, pushing more into their arms is completely dumb.







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 13 2017, 11:21 AM

Islamic terrorism is a complex subject with multiple backgrounds.







You might learn a little from this.
From Muhammad to ISIS
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 08:12 PM
....

Here's something for you to ponder. Muslim immigration to the West has been going on for centuries but Islamic terrorism really only dates back to the early 1980s and only becomes big time from the late 1990s.

....
Hmm... Islamic Terrorism ?

How about the Muslim slave-raids in the 17th and 18th centuries ?
wikipedia
 

..Pirate raids for the acquisition of slaves occurred in towns and villages on the African Atlantic seaboard, as well as in Europe. Reports of Barbary raids and kidnappings of those in Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, England, Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, and as far north as Iceland exist from between the 16th to the 19th centuries...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade#Rise_of_the_Barbary_Pirates

Nor is 'radicalisation' a recent phenomena.

Sidi Haji Abdrahaman
 

...In 1785 when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, they asked him what right he had to take slaves in this way. He replied that the "right" was "founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise".[8]


Edited by RoofGardener, Apr 13 2017, 01:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Apr 13 2017, 12:29 PM
Steve K
Apr 13 2017, 11:21 AM

Islamic terrorism is a complex subject with multiple backgrounds.


You might learn a little from this.
From Muhammad to ISIS
An excellent article I'd commend to all. Thanks
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Apr 13 2017, 12:56 PM
Hmm... Islamic Terrorism ?

How about the Muslim slave-raids in the 17th and 18th centuries ?
Not really terrorism as we are discussing it is it. Was the hundred years war Christian terrorism or just war in those barbaric times?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew Brady
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 13 2017, 11:21 AM
So are you saying the so called Japanese Red Army didn't carry out terrorist acts on behalf of the Palestinians? You mentioned South Korea earlier a country that took an anti Israel stance.

To be clear I never identified a cause, I pointed out that there is a stronger argument for correlation with the rise in the web and overt political and military support by the West in what are usually seen as muslim territories as there is with large numbers of muslim immigrants.

Your link about Pakistan supports this with "35,000 Pakistanis killed between 11 September 2001 and May 2011" your link about Iraq the same with nothing before 2003. Both countries have had significant Western military interference.

Islamic terrorism is a complex subject with multiple backgrounds. Egypt is different from Iraq and neither is similar to either the West Bank or Europe. To latch on to Islamic terrorism as some way to seek to expel or falsely demonise innocent people we see as different in some way is not just wrong, it's often illegal and more importantly it is self defeating. Talk to any terrorism expert and they will tell you you can only get what will look like a win by separating the terrorists from the communities they reside in, pushing more into their arms is completely dumb.


Steve, the point about Japan, or indeed South Korea, is that they have no Muslim terrorism (and no, the actions of red army do not constitute Muslim terrorism occurring on Japanese soil, and trying to argue that it does is another fine example of mental gymnastics), and countries like The Philippines do. Clearly this is not because the Philippines bare more culpability for Western foreign policy or because they have better internet access. Its because the Philippines has a substantial Muslim population and Japan doesn't.

The fact that you cannot even acknowledge I have made this point (not a single one of your replies even mentions the Philippines), let alone actually address it, doesn't speak well of your intellectual honesty. Similarly, you have not once even acknowledged the point about the majority of terrorist killings taking place in the West today being attributable to Muslim immigrants or their descendants. Could it be because if you did, you would have a hard time explaining how the presence of Muslims isn't a decisive factor in Islamic terrorism?

And yes, Western military intervention clearly has something to do with the rise of Islamists in Iraq, but the point is the huge numbers of people being murdered by terrorists in these Iraq and Pakistan are overwhelmingly native Muslims who bare no culpability for Western foreign policy. Western foreign policy is clearly not the motivation for these terrorist acts. The reason these people are dying in such large numbers is because of the concentration of other Muslims in these countries, coupled with the massively disproportionate rate at which Muslims commit terrorist acts. Nor does Western foreign policy explain why Muslims are so prone to terrorism. America dropped 2 Atom Bombs on Japan and destroyed Vietnam with agent orange and napalm. By any reasonable standard, this is far worse than anything done to Pakistan by the West. Do these countries have anything like the same problem with terrorism? No, because they don't have anything like same share of the population that is Muslim.

As to you final point Steve, I have never argued that Muslim terrorism is a reason to expel innocent people. In this thread I am simply arguing against your repeated obfuscation of the rather obvious link between Muslim immigration and terrorism in the West. When I have argued against Muslim immigration, I have not done so on the basis of terrorism, which I regard as ultimately far less consequential than the broader socioeconomic impact of Muslim and other third world immigration. The industrial scale sexual trafficking of white adolescents at the hands of Muslim pederasts is far worse than any terrorist act that has occurred in the UK, as is the general over representation in crime figures of third world immigrants, as is the tens of billions of pounds net fiscal drain of third world immigrants and their descendants each year, as is the social fragmentation brought about by an increasingly racially and culturally heterogeneous population. I would love to be able to say that terrorism is the only problem caused by third world immigration, because the reality is far worse.
Edited by Matthew Brady, Apr 14 2017, 03:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 09:45 PM
Matthew Brady
Apr 12 2017, 09:26 PM
the large majority of Islamic terrorism takes place in majority Muslim countries against targets that have nothing to do with Western military intervention
please name one
Coptic Christians, have had a bashing in Egypt, Christian Syrians and Iraqis that have a tradition going back even before the Arab/Muslim conquests have had, and continue to experience, repression and persecution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 13 2017, 11:21 AM
Matthew Brady
Apr 13 2017, 06:36 AM
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 09:45 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Pakistan

Presumably the 35,000 victims since 2001 were complicit in US military interventions? Or you could look at the blood bath of Muslim on Muslim violence in Iraq and ask the same question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_incidents_in_Iraq_by_year

Its not exactly hard to find examples of what you are asking for.

And way to ignore absolutely everything else I have said. Again, Japan doesnt have a problem with Islamic terrorism. The Philippines does. Please explain this in terms of the causes you have given for Islamic terrorism. And also, please explain to me how Muslim immigration is not a cause of terrorism in the West, when the large majority of terrorist killings in the West are currently attributable to recent Muslim immigrants or their descendants?
So are you saying the so called Japanese Red Army didn't carry out terrorist acts on behalf of the Palestinians? You mentioned South Korea earlier a country that took an anti Israel stance.

To be clear I never identified a cause, I pointed out that there is a stronger argument for correlation with the rise in the web and overt political and military support by the West in what are usually seen as muslim territories as there is with large numbers of muslim immigrants.

Your link about Pakistan supports this with "35,000 Pakistanis killed between 11 September 2001 and May 2011" your link about Iraq the same with nothing before 2003. Both countries have had significant Western military interference.

Islamic terrorism is a complex subject with multiple backgrounds. Egypt is different from Iraq and neither is similar to either the West Bank or Europe. To latch on to Islamic terrorism as some way to seek to expel or falsely demonise innocent people we see as different in some way is not just wrong, it's often illegal and more importantly it is self defeating. Talk to any terrorism expert and they will tell you you can only get what will look like a win by separating the terrorists from the communities they reside in, pushing more into their arms is completely dumb.







I would dearly like to be around in 30 years time when official cabinet papers are released, it would be interesting to know exactly what was thought but NOT carried out for reasons of expediency and the patronising of the Muslim world and of having our hands forced by virtue of being a member state of the EU.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 13 2017, 01:02 PM
RoofGardener
Apr 13 2017, 12:56 PM
Hmm... Islamic Terrorism ?

How about the Muslim slave-raids in the 17th and 18th centuries ?
Not really terrorism as we are discussing it is it. Was the hundred years war Christian terrorism or just war in those barbaric times?
Hmm... you are correct in terms of the standard definition of 'terrorism', which requires a motive to influence the politics of a nation. The Islamist slavers where just that - slavers.

However, there is an interesting similarity between the justifications of the Slavers, and the justifications of ISIS.

wikipedia
 

...In 1785 when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, they asked him what right he had to take slaves in this way. He replied that the "right" was "founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise".[8]


ISIS
 

...1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you...

http://clarionproject.org/factsheets-files/islamic-state-magazine-dabiq-fifteen-breaking-the-cross.pdf
(search for "we hate you")

Edited by RoofGardener, Apr 14 2017, 10:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Matthew Brady
Apr 14 2017, 03:14 AM
. . As to you final point Steve, I have never argued that Muslim terrorism is a reason to expel innocent people. In this thread I am simply arguing against your repeated obfuscation of the rather obvious link between Muslim immigration and terrorism in the West. . .
It's not obfuscation I just don't see the significant link. 9/11 wasn't carried out by muslim immigrants but students, the recent London attack wasn't by an immigrant or even someone born as a muslim.

Every society has a spectrum from people doing well (far wider than just financial) to those that (self perceive themselves as) doing badly. The latter provide a source of potential recruits to those who want to destroy the West. It's unreasonable to pretend we can ever ensure no one will feel they are doing badly but we can certainly not act to increase the numbers. And broad brush vilification of any wide group by society would certainly cause such an increase.

There are some things we can and should do (but don't)

- end faith schools
- end the legal protection that extreme religions such as Salafism get. And that includes blocking and expelling non citizens seeking to promote such.
- end the freedom of Facebook, YouTube etc to promote violent extremist views
- not trade freely with any nation that refuses to accept the UN declaration on human rights (that's just about every islamic nation and some others)
- remove evil text containing books such as the Quran and Bible from the House of Commons

I won't hold my breath though
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 14 2017, 11:36 AM
Matthew Brady
Apr 14 2017, 03:14 AM
. . As to you final point Steve, I have never argued that Muslim terrorism is a reason to expel innocent people. In this thread I am simply arguing against your repeated obfuscation of the rather obvious link between Muslim immigration and terrorism in the West. . .
It's not obfuscation I just don't see the significant link. 9/11 wasn't carried out by muslim immigrants but students, the recent London attack wasn't by an immigrant or even someone born as a muslim.

Every society has a spectrum from people doing well (far wider than just financial) to those that (self perceive themselves as) doing badly. The latter provide a source of potential recruits to those who want to destroy the West. It's unreasonable to pretend we can ever ensure no one will feel they are doing badly but we can certainly not act to increase the numbers. And broad brush vilification of any wide group by society would certainly cause such an increase.

There are some things we can and should do (but don't)

- end faith schools
- end the legal protection that extreme religions such as Salafism get. And that includes blocking and expelling non citizens seeking to promote such.
- end the freedom of Facebook, YouTube etc to promote violent extremist views
- not trade freely with any nation that refuses to accept the UN declaration on human rights (that's just about every islamic nation and some others)
- remove evil text containing books such as the Quran and Bible from the House of Commons

I won't hold my breath though
I think that would actually cause more issues, because most of those ideas attacks religion, this is the problem of letting too many in, now we have to play this dancing game of not offending people or upsetting them, it's one of the main issues with multiculturalism, I know the words of General MacArthur, who lamented that he had take into considerations so many people's believes, values and customs, while Germany did not have to worry about such diversions.

It's one of the biggest weakness of multiculturalism.

Also a lot of terrorism as you trying to allude to is Western powers being anti-Islam and Middle East and again you are suggesting we stop trading with them for their believes, which would upset a lot here.

Again this is problem when you let in too many, even the Dutch have been annoyed by the numbers of Turks who's loyalty is suspect, also the fact their host nation can canvas them, which shouldn't be allowed.

We should be helping to improve it, because many are here for economic reasons, not because they want to be British, many would probably return if we stopped bombing the place all the time.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 14 2017, 12:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 14 2017, 12:01 PM
Steve K
Apr 14 2017, 11:36 AM
Matthew Brady
Apr 14 2017, 03:14 AM
. . As to you final point Steve, I have never argued that Muslim terrorism is a reason to expel innocent people. In this thread I am simply arguing against your repeated obfuscation of the rather obvious link between Muslim immigration and terrorism in the West. . .
It's not obfuscation I just don't see the significant link. 9/11 wasn't carried out by muslim immigrants but students, the recent London attack wasn't by an immigrant or even someone born as a muslim.

Every society has a spectrum from people doing well (far wider than just financial) to those that (self perceive themselves as) doing badly. The latter provide a source of potential recruits to those who want to destroy the West. It's unreasonable to pretend we can ever ensure no one will feel they are doing badly but we can certainly not act to increase the numbers. And broad brush vilification of any wide group by society would certainly cause such an increase.

There are some things we can and should do (but don't)

- end faith schools
- end the legal protection that extreme religions such as Salafism get. And that includes blocking and expelling non citizens seeking to promote such.
- end the freedom of Facebook, YouTube etc to promote violent extremist views
- not trade freely with any nation that refuses to accept the UN declaration on human rights (that's just about every islamic nation and some others)
- remove evil text containing books such as the Quran and Bible from the House of Commons

I won't hold my breath though
I think that would actually cause more issues, because most of those ideas attacks religion, this is the problem of letting too many in, now we have to play this dancing game of not offending people or upsetting them, it's one of the main issues with multiculturalism . . .
But should we allow the legal protections to Salafism or Wahhabism that for example preach illegal discrimination and subjugation of women? Should they get the tax advantages, the ability to get work permits for priests because it's hard to find such in the UK that meet their extreme definition of acceptable priests

No, they are not conducive to the public good

It's our unwillingness to draw a line (because rich Saudis like such extremes) that ends up with many people seeing all muslims as the issue.

As for immigration by non convergent people who will never integrate then yes we should end it. As I've said before:
Steve K
Jan 2 2016, 09:52 PM
. .We give citizenship where we should give residency and we give residency where we should give temporary work permits and we give work permits where if we had any sense we should say no. We sign EU accession treaties to admit non convergent nations when we should say "OK but with the condition of no freedom of movement until they are convergent" and we give asylum to people who have left safe countries on route.

Too many governments have loved the short term GDP boost that high grade migrants bring without looking at the long term cost impacts. And they have the hypocrisy to condemn junkies.

I don't blame the immigrants as such, many are really good people but we have to realise that 60 million plus is already too many and we have to live within our means incl basing the economy on those already here.

Rant over




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Europe · Next Topic »
Add Reply