Immigration.

Affable

Nodin wrote: »

Every sect of Islam and every muslim believe that eh?



Yes, right wing cranks and demagogues, and those who sought to justify US policy through the Bush years....



Which is a good one, from a man who backed the Iraq war...

Well a poll revealed, an ICM one I believe that 40% of UK muslims want sharia law so make of that what you will.

Demagogues? I'd hardly called Hitchens that, whatever he may be, nor a 'right wing crank' since he's written a book called 'God is not great' that offends most of the American right and not much of the left. He also came out against torture and been waterboarded as part of an experiment on it.

wes

Affable wrote: »

Demagogues? I'd hardly called Hitchens that, whatever he may be, nor a 'right wing crank' since he's written a book called 'God is not great' that offends most of the American right and not much of the left. He also came out against torture and been waterboarded as part of an experiment on it.

He took his sweet time to come out against torture.

Also, it took the guys actually getting water boarded to figure out it was torture. The US bloody well executed people for water boarding, because it was torture. Common sense and any kind of knowledge of history would show that it was clearly torture.

Affable

wes wrote: »

He took his sweet time to come out against torture.

Also, it took the guys actually getting water boarded to figure out it was torture. The US bloody well executed people for water boarding, because it was torture. Common sense and any kind of knowledge of history would show that it was clearly torture.

Oh, I didn't know, who did they execute?

How long did he take? Got a source?

wes

Affable wrote: »

Oh, I didn't know, who did they execute?

How long did he take? Got a source?

They executed Japanese soldiers:
Yes, National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding

One of my main problems on Hitchens stand against torture, is that he is a well educated man, I find it hard to believe he did not know the US executed people over water boarding. Also, even if he was unaware, I find it hard to believe that it was not brought up, during the course of the time he was unsure if it was torture.

As for a time line, well the Vanity Fair article where he was water boarded was published August 2008. So the US probably started using Water Boarding in 2001. So it did take a while, especially considering it was considered torture by the US during the 1940's.

Affable

wes wrote: »

They executed Japanese soldiers:
Yes, National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding

One of my main problems on Hitchens stand against torture, is that he is a well educated man, I find it hard to believe he did not know the US executed people over water boarding. Also, even if he was unaware, I find it hard to believe that it was not brought up, during the course of the time he was unsure if it was torture.

As for a time line, well the Vanity Fair article where he was water boarded was published August 2008. So the US probably started using Water Boarding in 2001. So it did take a while, especially considering it was considered torture by the US during the 1940's.

Ah, that's a pretty shocking piece of hypocrisy.

wes

Affable wrote: »

Ah, that's a pretty shocking piece of hypocrisy.

Yeah, Hitchens own worse enemy, seems to be himself imho.

Affable

wes wrote: »

Yeah, Hitchens own worse enemy, seems to be himself imho.

Well, I meant from the US, no really from him. I'm a great admirer of his arguments against religion.

wes

Affable wrote: »

Well, I meant from the US, no really from him. I'm a great admirer of his arguments against religion.

Fair enough, but I was talking about the torture thing specifically at any rate.

Yeah, you are right about the US in anyways.

Serenity Now!

Affable wrote: »

That was a political struggle, which happened to have a correlation with religious identity. It's not akin in any way shape or form to the thread of a religion whose scriptures promote the destruction of the non-believer

What if I said that was a typical answer of "murdering Irish scum"? It seems you miss the point. The actions of a comparitive few unrepresentitive murderous dogs causing the labelling on an entire nation as terrorist murders. There is no difference. Islamic extremism has been shown up as distorting those "scriptures" you mention. It is also not representitive of the rest of the religion, even with the twist of a poll or two shaped to drive a particular answer.
Unless of course you are fluent in Arabic, you have no idea what it says except a second hand translation. I can read and write Arabic but don't have enough vocabulary to do this. I'm fluent in Hebrew and can quote you similarly distorted tacets from the Talmud if you like.

For every Hitchens, Dershovitz or Steyn there is an Amanpour, Feinman or Miller.
And you can forget linking wikis by the way. They can and are edited by anyone out there anyway they that suits.

I don't need a link on the feckin' net to tell me that the muslims I know do not want me dead or living in a bloody Caliphate. They actually just get on with their lives as normal citizens. The only problem is they have to worry about anti-muslim rants based on the actions of a few.

djpbarry

Affable wrote: »

That was a political struggle, which happened to have a correlation with religious identity. It's not akin in any way shape or form to the thread of a religion whose scriptures promote the destruction of the non-believer.

Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism.

Affable wrote: »

Well a poll revealed, an ICM one I believe that 40% of UK muslims want sharia law…

…in predominantly Muslims areas. The poll is available here, but I would have reservations about it for the simple reason that we have no idea how the survey was carried out (there are no technical notes). The answers could have been gathered over the internet for all we know.

asdasd

…in predominantly Muslims areas.

Really that's all right then. A stoning of a homosexual in one part of town, a gay marriage in another would be multi-cultural indeed.

The internationalist globalist message is not getting through to the voters. In the English and Welsh European elections: nationalists and anti-Internationalists, of one stripe or another, got 25% of the vote compared to 15% for the party of the working classes : if you count BNP, Plyd Cymru, and the UKIP. However the nationalist and regionalist vote was also split with the small groups like Libertas, Pro Democray Anti EU, and The Cornish Nationalists who are grouped as Others - the Cornish Nationalists beat the Labour party into 6th place in Cornwall. The nationalist percentage will increase with the Scottish (SNP) and NI vote (Sinn Fein - although the Unionists are also nationalists).

I'm fluent in Hebrew and can quote you similarly distorted tacets from the Talmud if you like.

Cept Jewish people are mostly secular these days. I think the Koran would be less of a worry were the Islamic world fairly secular?

Whats you feeling on Israel's closed borders by the way?

deadhead13

O'Morris wrote: »

As for your claim that immigration is not a big issue for most people, I think we both know that's not true. Just wait and see how well Libertas does in the European elections.

Libertas gained the grand total of one seat in the European Elections. Phillippe de Villers, a sitting MEP whose party Mouvement pour la France joined forces with Libertas. De Villers party lost 2 of it's 3 seats.

Earlier in the year, Ganley stated that he woud not campaign against Lisbon for a second time if he failed to win a seat. So it is goodbye and good riddance.

Serenity Now!

asdasd wrote: »

Cept Jewish people are mostly secular these days

Really? A minority of religious fundamentalist Jews can pose no threat yet a minority of religious fundamentalist Muslims tar millions of people with the same blinkered image? Like I suggested earlier, armchair opiners like yourself should broaden their reading list.

asdasd wrote: »

I think the Koran would be less of a worry were the Islamic world fairly secular?

You seem to be generalising that a muslim being religious is the same as a muslim being an extremist. Its not.

asdasd wrote: »

Whats you feeling on Israel's closed borders by the way?

What the f**k has Israel got to do with anything here???

asdasd

What the f**k has Israel got to do with anything here???

Thread title is Immigration. In a general sense. To anywhere. Good, or bad. Do we like it, or dont we. That sort of thing.

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

Really that's all right then. A stoning of a homosexual in one part of town,

What has that nonsense to do with anything....?

asdasd

What has that nonsense to do with anything....?

Didnt they want sharia law in certain areas? Is that was not what was said?

As it happens, although I think that borders should be controlled, I am fairly libertarian about religious laws running side by side with civil law. Well, I think that would be a long term bad isea, which could be controlled by controlling the border but once the borders are open it could happen with enough push, and probably will ( and if I am not subject to Islamic law what do I care?). After all in Islamic societies there are different rules for Christians.

Also I think while controlling borders is no infringement of liberty, since the people who are affected are not citizens, citizens have better claim to rights, and depriving them of religious instruction for instance ( secular schools) is an infringment of rights, and a curtailment of liberty.

this is unlike the lovers of diversity who want secular schools ( an attempt at assimilation) and can't really decide whether diversity is a moral good, or if assimilation is.

But that is with a priori immigration: as the man said when asked for directions - I wouldnt start from here were I you.

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

Didnt they want sharia law in certain areas? Is that was not what was said?.

You cited a survey that stated 40% of muslims in Britain wanted Sharia law. That means if it was put to them as a vote, it would most likely fail.

Secondly, there already are Sharia courts for civil disputes, in the same way there are Beth Din courts for Orthodox Jews. They can't override British civil law. Therefore the idea that such things lead to stonings and the like is sheer scare mongering.

asdasd wrote: »

As it happens, although I think that borders should be controlled, I am fairly libertarian about religious laws running side by side with civil law.

Personally I think its a terrible idea. However the Brits had already conceded to one community (over 100 years ago) so it would have been discriminatory to not allow Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus have similar rights. Presumably the same would hold true for Catholics and various christian sects.

O'Coonassa

asdasd wrote: »

controlling borders is no infringement of liberty,

You must be venturing some kind of newspeak definition of the word.

Liberty
1. a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

Affable

Serenity Now! wrote: »

I don't need a link on the feckin' net to tell me that the muslims I know do not want me dead or living in a bloody Caliphate. They actually just get on with their lives as normal citizens. The only problem is they have to worry about anti-muslim rants based on the actions of a few.

So the quotes I provided from the Quran regarding non-believers are all false?
Well, that's what I think about uslims I've known. However, I think I'd be pretty horrified to know how many christians who seem like nice folks, believe an athiest like me is going to hell. Are yuo sure it's not wishful thinking on your part.

Nodin

Affable wrote: »

So the quotes I provided from the Quran regarding non-believers are all false?

Its quoted out of context of the actions of the vast vast majority of muslims.

asdasd

Its quoted out of context of the actions of the vast vast majority of muslims.

So what is the context?

Does it go

Kill The Unbelievers! Murder their children! Eat their babies!

( I paraphrase)

Out of context:

and

Kill The Unbelievers! Murder their children! Eat their babies!
HAHAHA. Only Kidding! Love thy neighbour. Infidels are the best!!!!

in context?

I am wondering because I would have thought that fairly hairy rhetoric would be fairly hairy rhetoric in whatever context. I cant see that the surrounding text could really make things right.

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

So what is the context?

Does it go



( I paraphrase)

Out of context:

and



in context?

I am wondering because I would have thought that fairly hairy rhetoric would be fairly hairy rhetoric in whatever context. I cant see that the surrounding text could really make things right.

Do the vast majority of muslims act in such a fashion?

Affable

Nodin wrote: »

Its quoted out of context of the actions of the vast vast majority of muslims.

The fact remains that it is based on supremacist principles. Most people in the BNP are not lynching black people, doesn't mean you'd approve of them right?

asdasd

Do the vast majority of muslims act in such a fashion?

Of course not.

Nodin

Affable wrote: »

The fact remains that it is based on supremacist principles.

Depending on which way you read the Bible, so is it. Likewise the 613 Mitzvot, taken in a certain light. Its hysterical shite.

Affable wrote: »

Most people in the BNP are not lynching black people, doesn't mean you'd approve of them right?

Is there a BNP bible that advocates lynching black people? Are you advocating deporting and/or blocking BNP supporters from entering Europe based on your reading of that text? Are you saying that every "white person" is a member of the BNP? Have you no better analogies you can come up with?

asdasd wrote:

Of course not. ?

Would that not therefore indicate therefore, that taking it as some sort of indication of the behaviour of the vast majority of muslims - particularily those that have immigrated to the west - is therefore fallacious and wrong?

Affable

Nodin wrote: »

Depending on which way you read the Bible, so is it. Likewise the 613 Mitzvot, taken in a certain light. Its hysterical shite.

Well, I'm not too keen on them either.:)

Nodin

Affable wrote: »

Well, I'm not too keen on them either.:)

Well I don't whip them out for consulation too often meself...However I feel theres too much 'fear of the beardies' over the last few years.

Why we weren't limiting immigration from the new EU states the way others did is a valid concern, though it wasn't and isn't a complete disaster or the source of all ills....'Teh Beardiez iz comin' isn't and goes in the 'rights for whites' box...

DB10

Immigration has to be cut down on.

Heaven forbid we end up like England with radical extreme Muslims dotted all over the country and political correctness gone wild.
That is why parties like the BNP are started.

It is already creeping in with bans on Christians advertisements recently "as it may offend non Christians". None of whom would be offended and even though this is a Christian country.

Nodin

DB10 wrote: »

It is already creeping in with bans on Christians advertisements recently "as it may offend non Christians". None of whom would be offended and even though this is a Christian country.

What ad was banned on those grounds?

markopantelic

i never understood one thing, in ireland people seem to have a problem with people even if they're here legally, in the usa they seem in general to be pro immigrant who want to come to the country legally and work hard. different cultures i guess.