Multiculturalism is dangerous

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Not really, what’s the sample set ?

Here’s one for you 1 person out of 1 surveyed think you two are a pair of dimwits who want to feel oppressed.

Must be true….

Survey of 3,000 UK Muslims. Then look at the number who actually went off and joined Bin Laden, IS, etc.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Survey of 3,000 UK Muslims. Then look at the number who actually went off and joined Bin Laden, IS, etc.

What number did go off and join ? As a percentage of the 1.8bn Muslims in the world ?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Cracking post mate, well said.

Please can you provide the links for those survey results?

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

"Virtue signalling" was addressed to Andrew who so signalled when he wrote "agreed". Specifically, not lazily, aimed.

Past events certainly contribute to where we are now. But they have little bearing on current go-politics.

None of you answer my basic question: What would happen to us if there was a Muslim majority in Parliament?

On the Scriptures, in the Judeo-Christian world, they are fast becoming an irrelevance. See the Archbishop of Canterbury for details. The nearest we have to valid scriptures is what is interpreted into criminal law from the Ten Commandments.

Let's face it, there is no god that is good, and if there ever was, then he's long been dead.


---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------




WOKERATI: Generally those who can't call a woman "a woman" and who would call a fisherman "a fisherthem".

REMOANERS: Those who consider the democratic majority who voted in the Brexit Referendum to be total fools.

The mere use of the term 'virtue signalling', whoever it is aimed at, has become an indicator of a right-wing mind set. Having said that, I once used it ironically against a right-wing correspondent who indulged in actual virtual signalling.

You can't dismiss history just because it no longer suit you. I first brought up recent immigration of Jews as an example of how the current stereotyping of Islam and Muslims has happened under similar immigration circumstances, but in the context of Judaism and Jews. I was hoping you might learn from history. Right-wing fanatics and fascist like Oswald Mosley warned us of Jews doing what you are now telling us that Muslims are planning.

You then dip into history to explain that Europe has always been Judeo-Christian and that is why Jews integrated so well. Pity someone didn't explain that to Oswald Mosley

I then dipped into history to explain how relatively tolerant of Christianity Islam was when it was at its height in contrast to the brutality of evangelical Christian European colonialists. I also explained how the scriptures predisposed all three Ibrahimic religions to being either brutal or highly civilised. I explained that on this basis Muslims weren't exceptionally hard to integrate. Suddenly, you decided that history wasn't so relevant after all.

You tell me that history is no longer relevant, because we are looking at Muslims now, not 900 years ago, presumably because Islam now is intrinsically different than it was then.

Having then decided it is Muslims now that are the problem you then fail to convince us that there is a conspiracy to take over the western world. You are convinced this is there ambition berceuse ... erm history tells us that they are like that and that some of them are quite angry now for some reason or other.

Finally, there's that question you asked somewhere in that previous 13 pages of debate.

"What would happen to us if there was a Muslim majority in Parliament? "

Firstly, if that were to happen, then it would seem that most of the 93% of the country that aren't Muslim, decided they wanted Muslim MPs. Suddenly we must have decided that Muslims R us!

But, to be fair to you, I guess you meant that this might happen in some future you have in mind, where all those Muslims breeding like rabbits and arriving in rubber dinghies outnumber non-Muslims. I think that scenario has already been well and truly dissed. The only way that would happen is if most of the the folk of sub-Saharan Africa and the near East headed this way because climate change had made their land unlivable! Whoops! Perhaps we better sort out climate change quickly. After all, global warming is the enemy of all of us.

BTW. Your definitions of the made-up words Wokerati and Remoaner are just laughable. They would be hilarious terms if it were not for the fact that such words are deliberately deployed by the right-wing's puppet masters because they know that if their marionettes have those words in their vocabulary they can use them to pigeon-hole and dismiss members of the liberal left without having to engage them in informed rational debate. This makes it so much easier to propagate conspiracy theories amongst the gullible, keeping them socially and intellectually at a distance from those who might explain what is really going on.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

What number did go off and join ? As a percentage of the 1.8bn Muslims in the world ?

A fair few, 17 ended up at Guantanamo Bay.
3,000 chosen at random is still representative of the group overall.

2,000 IS women caught and detained by Kurdish and Iraqi forces.
Link

Tens of thousands of foreign nationals have travelled to Syria and neighbouring Iraq to fight for the Islamic State (IS) group.

Link

Approximately 300 Americans are estimated to have traveled or attempted to join the Islamic State (ISIS) as part of the group’s campaign in Syria and Iraq between 2013 and 2019. These individuals joined more than 53,000 men, women, and minors from roughly 80 countries.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

The mere use of the term 'virtue signalling', whoever it is aimed at, has become an indicator of a right-wing mind set.

Well I have enjoyed your lengthy diatribes, and your well structured, seemingly well researched, cognisant opinion.

But you’ve just torpedoed yourself under the water line with that remark.

I now see you for who you are. You are illuminated.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

The mere use of the term 'virtue signalling', whoever it is aimed at, has become an indicator of a right-wing mind set. Having said that, I once used it ironically against a right-wing correspondent who indulged in actual virtual signalling.

You can't dismiss history just because it no longer suit you. I first brought up recent immigration of Jews as an example of how the current stereotyping of Islam and Muslims has happened under similar immigration circumstances, but in the context of Judaism and Jews. I was hoping you might learn from history. Right-wing fanatics and fascist like Oswald Mosley warned us of Jews doing what you are now telling us that Muslims are planning.

You then dip into history to explain that Europe has always been Judeo-Christian and that is why Jews integrated so well. Pity someone didn't explain that to Oswald Mosley

I then dipped into history to explain how relatively tolerant of Christianity Islam was when it was at its height in contrast to the brutality of evangelical Christian European colonialists. I also explained how the scriptures predisposed all three Ibrahimic religions to being either brutal or highly civilised. I explained that on this basis Muslims weren't exceptionally hard to integrate. Suddenly, you decided that history wasn't so relevant after all.

You tell me that history is no longer relevant, because we are looking at Muslims now, not 900 years ago, presumably because Islam now is intrinsically different than it was then.

Having then decided it is Muslims now that are the problem you then fail to convince us that there is a conspiracy to take over the western world. You are convinced this is there ambition berceuse ... erm history tells us that they are like that and that some of them are quite angry now for some reason or other.

Finally, there's that question you asked somewhere in that previous 13 pages of debate.

"What would happen to us if there was a Muslim majority in Parliament? "

Firstly, if that were to happen, then it would seem that most of the 93% of the country that aren't Muslim, decided they wanted Muslim MPs. Suddenly we must have decided that Muslims R us!

But, to be fair to you, I guess you meant that this might happen in some future you have in mind, where all those Muslims breeding like rabbits and arriving in rubber dinghies outnumber non-Muslims. I think that scenario has already been well and truly dissed. The only way that would happen is if most of the the folk of sub-Saharan Africa and the near East headed this way because climate change had made their land unlivable! Whoops! Perhaps we better sort out climate change quickly. After all, global warming is the enemy of all of us.

BTW. Your definitions of the made-up words Wokerati and Remoaner are just laughable. They would be hilarious terms if it were not for the fact that such words are deliberately deployed by the right-wing's puppet masters because they know that if their marionettes have those words in their vocabulary they can use them to pigeon-hole and dismiss members of the liberal left without having to engage them in informed rational debate. This makes it so much easier to propagate conspiracy theories amongst the gullible, keeping them socially and intellectually at a distance from those who might explain what is really going on.

The mere use of the term 'virtue signalling', whoever it is aimed at, has become an indicator of a right-wing mind set. Having said that, I once used it ironically against a right-wing correspondent who indulged in actual virtual signalling.

I am not of a right-wing mind set. Nobody here has yet properly and validly defined 'right wing'. They've tried to pin 'right-wing' on Leavers and now you're pinning it on me because I have smelt the coffee.

You can't dismiss history just because it no longer suit you. I first brought up recent immigration of Jews as an example of how the current stereotyping of Islam and Muslims has happened under similar immigration circumstances, but in the context of Judaism and Jews. I was hoping you might learn from history. Right-wing fanatics and fascist like Oswald Mosley warned us of Jews doing what you are now telling us that Muslims are planning.

You then dip into history to explain that Europe has always been Judeo-Christian and that is why Jews integrated so well. Pity someone didn't explain that to Oswald Mosley

I have not dismissed history. History is part of evolution. Some societies (esp. European and its diaspora) have evolved along lines circumscribed by the Ten Commandments. Others vary in their adoption of western society values. One, in particular, that sends 300,000 marchers into London's streets (they could have ripped London up), does not share our values; there will be spectra within their society, at one end, who are bought into our values; at the other end - well you've seen the death and misery wreaked by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. If that society's MPs exceed in number our society's MPs, there is no doubt as to what will happen next - the militants will take over.

Your mention of Oswald Mosley was gratuitous. He was a one-off in the UK whose handful of nasty followers demonstrated what can happen when the wrong types take to the streets.

I then dipped into history to explain how relatively tolerant of Christianity Islam was when it was at its height in contrast to the brutality of evangelical Christian European colonialists. I also explained how the scriptures predisposed all three Ibrahimic religions to being either brutal or highly civilised. I explained that on this basis Muslims weren't exceptionally hard to integrate. Suddenly, you decided that history wasn't so relevant after all.

You tell me that history is no longer relevant, because we are looking at Muslims now, not 900 years ago, presumably because Islam now is intrinsically different than it was then.

Yep - you got it. 9/11 proved that. 7/7 too. And October 7. Plus the demonstrators who want Israel wiped off the map.

Finally, there's that question you asked somewhere in that previous 13 pages of debate.

"What would happen to us if there was a Muslim majority in Parliament? "

Firstly, if that were to happen, then it would seem that most of the 93% of the country that aren't Muslim, decided they wanted Muslim MPs. Suddenly we must have decided that Muslims R us!

You only have to look at the influence that only 6 Muslim MPs are trying to bear on the rest of the party. Why? They represent constituencies that are heavily Muslim populated. A Muslim majority in Parliament is, of course, contingent on the birth rate and immigration rate. Even if that tails off, a Muslim MP bloc is inevitable and that will bring culture clashes and, I'm quite certain, another 300,000 plus unpoliceable demonstrations.

But, to be fair to you, I guess you meant that this might happen in some future you have in mind, where all those Muslims breeding like rabbits and arriving in rubber dinghies outnumber non-Muslims. I think that scenario has already been well and truly dissed. The only way that would happen is if most of the the folk of sub-Saharan Africa and the near East headed this way because climate change had made their land unlivable! Whoops! Perhaps we better sort out climate change quickly. After all, global warming is the enemy of all of us.

Yep - another route to eventually gaining a parliamentary majority for the Muslims. In fact, that is the greater danger.

BTW. Your definitions of the made-up words Wokerati and Remoaner are just laughable. They would be hilarious terms if it were not for the fact that such words are deliberately deployed by the right-wing's puppet masters because they know that if their marionettes have those words in their vocabulary they can use them to pigeon-hole and dismiss members of the liberal left without having to engage them in informed rational debate. This makes it so much easier to propagate conspiracy theories amongst the gullible, keeping them socially and intellectually at a distance from those who might explain what is really going on.

I first saw the word "WOKERATI" on Hugh's Avatar. You've fallen for the left-wing/right-wing fallacy. What you don't concede is the fact that men are men and woman are women, especially when it comes to public toilets and sports changing rooms. The 'liberal left' need their brains re-tested in that context.

Originally posted by Sephiroth

I am not of a right-wing mind set.

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Originally posted by Sephiroth

I first saw the word "WOKERATI" on Hugh's Avatar. You've fallen for the left-wing/right-wing fallacy. What you don't concede is the fact that men are men and woman are women, especially when it comes to public toilets and sports changing rooms. The 'liberal left' need their brains re-tested in that context.

So much coffee in this topic.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Paul

So much coffee in this topic.

So much blue font and paranoia too

Originally Posted by Paul

So much coffee in this topic.

[nomadking]

Too much denial of facts.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Too much denial of facts.

Not by me.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I first saw the word "WOKERATI" on Hugh's Avatar. You've fallen for the left-wing/right-wing fallacy. What you don't concede is the fact that men are men and woman are women, especially when it comes to public toilets and sports changing rooms. The 'liberal left' need their brains re-tested in that context.

I'm sorry Seph but why are you trying to side derail your interesting debate with roughbeast on Islamism and multiculturalism by inserting a cut-and-paste paragraph on gender identity? Is that effectively a white flag I see? Or just a large handkerchief?

Originally Posted by Mr K

We're an ageing population, whose pensioners are bleeding it dry, and whose young people can't afford housing or children. That is the main problem.

Any immigrants to do the jobs we meed to fill, we should be grateful for.

This pensioner is subsidising her children already so I'm hardly bleeding the country dry.