Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mediterranean migrants- specific questions
Comments
-
Charles Babbage wrote: »This is fair comment. However these gangs in Germany are a new manifestation of the problem not associated with events in Germany previously. As you have said, there is enough going on without additional problems being imported.
Germany certainly has a problem with rape at events already: Oktoberfest being a prime example.
Importing large numbers of people is certainly going to mean some people are scumbags and they should be deported or imprisoned, particularly as the majority of arrested attackers are from the safe countries of Morocco and Algeria: such people are very unlikely to be granted asylum anyway and are from countries safe enough to be deported to. I'm not sure what the figures for Morroccans are but just 7% of Algerians are granted asylum in the EU
That doesn't mean the vast majority of innocent asylum seekers (particularly Syrians) should be denied safety. Particularly as they've already vocally condemned the attacks and some even saved an American woman during the attakcks.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »They don't need to be the soul authority of Islam but lets gets something clear Saudi Arabia does speak for a lot of Muslims just like the Vatican speaks for a lot of Catholics. The Queen of England speaks for a lot of Anglicans. So on, so on. We don't get these complaints about Shintoism or Taoism.
Those American evangelicals are Christians. You cannot deny that. They use that religion to poison people's beliefs. Many people have gone off rotten religion precisely because people are using their positions to show just how devout they are. Letting Saudi Arabia sit on the UN human rights committee and spread anti Shiite sectarianism is a farce and does the UN a disservice.
They're certainly an extremist faction within Islam but this doesn't mean the problem is Islam. The problem is extremism. We don't take the Westboro Baptist Church or Evangelicals who kill abortion doctors as representatives of Christians. We don't take marauding monks attacking Muslims in Burma as representatives of Buddhists.
By all means, criticise these groups but don't claim it's an inherent problem with the religion. As mentioned above, numerous Muslim countries have emancipated women and have freely voted for female leaders and legislators so don't pretend it's an Islamic problem.0 -
Germany certainly has a problem with rape at events already: Oktoberfest being a prime example.
Importing large numbers of people is certainly going to mean some people are scumbags and they should be deported or imprisoned, particularly as the majority of arrested attackers are from the safe countries of Morocco and Algeria: such people are very unlikely to be granted asylum anyway and are from countries safe enough to be deported to. I'm not sure what the figures for Morroccans are but just 7% of Algerians are granted asylum in the EU
That doesn't mean the vast majority of innocent asylum seekers (particularly Syrians) should be denied safety. Particularly as they've already vocally condemned the attacks and some even saved an American woman in Cologne.
You are dealing with jobsworth attitude in civil service, why take a risk to send anyone back when there is no risk to just leave them here? And besides that foreign affairs is already overwhelmed they seem more incapable of engaging or helping the public than usual.
There are safe areas in Syria in the government controlled areas (the guy the west is fighting) but unfortunately till now are quite limited. NATO/EU will continue to attack Syria/Assad/Putin regardless of any effect it has on our fellow citizens in EU or even fook it, Syria.
We have to look at the EU insane foreign policy to get back to the roots of what is going wrong in EU migratory policy.0 -
Nothing to do with a "jobsworth attitude": German law already permits the deportation ofTea drinker wrote: »You are dealing with jobsworth attitude in civil service, why take a risk to send anyone back when there is no risk to just leave them here? And besides that foreign affairs is already overwhelmed they seem more incapable of engaging or helping the public than usual.
The West is not fighting Assad: they've repeatedly avoided tackling him to the extent that Division 30 failed is because the US would only fund those who agreed to fight ISIS and not Assad. Likewise, the safety of Syrian government areas is extremely dubious. Remember, the Syrian civil war started due to Assad's response to protests during the Arab Spring and the biggest contributor to civilian casualties has been the Syrian Arab Army (an organisation response for crimes against humanity).Tea drinker wrote: »There are safe areas in Syria in the government controlled areas (the guy the west is fighting) but unfortunately till now are quite limited. NATO/EU will continue to attack Syria/Assad/Putin regardless of any effect it has on our fellow citizens in EU or even fook it, Syria.
We have to look at the EU insane foreign policy to get back to the roots of what is going wrong in EU migratory policy.
The refugee crisis is a result of many factors but the EU's "foreign policy" (which scarcely exists) is not a major factor.0 -
They're certainly an extremist faction within Islam but this doesn't mean the problem is Islam. The problem is extremism. We don't take the Westboro Baptist Church or Evangelicals who kill abortion doctors as representatives of Christians. We don't take marauding monks attacking Muslims in Burma as representatives of Buddhists.
By all means, criticise these groups but don't claim it's an inherent problem with the religion. As mentioned above, numerous Muslim countries have emancipated women and have freely voted for female leaders and legislators so don't pretend it's an Islamic problem.
The Wahhabists are a religious group that take their claim to represent Islam directly from the Koran just as the Slave owners used the Bible to excuse their actions. Religion can be twisted which ever way people see fit and I agree you cannot generalise Islam. Sunni Islam is rooted in deeply conservative teachings of this ancient religion and people like you permit these groups to grow more and more powerful expand into other areas.
These groups want Sharia Law imposed on the region and nothing you or I will say can stop that which means they will attempt to destroy all the other religious communities, those that oppose religion and the sections of society that they consider dhimmis. An Islamic state is not one either of us or most people on boards.ie would enjoy living in. The same is true of Syria and Iraq, the Sunnis are not crying out to be part of a Islamic run Caliphate.0 -
Advertisement
-
What "ancient religion" are you referring to here exactly, I'm not clear from your post if you are talking about Islam generally or 'Wahhabism'. How are "people like" Lockstep permitting these groups to grow?KingBrian2 wrote: »The Wahhabists are a religious group that take their claim to represent Islam directly from the Koran just as the Slave owners used the Bible to excuse their actions. Religion can be twisted which ever way people see fit and I agree you cannot generalise Islam. Sunni Islam is rooted in deeply conservative teachings of this ancient religion and people like you permit these groups to grow more and more powerful expand into other areas.0 -
Frank Grimes wrote: »What "ancient religion" are you referring to here exactly, I'm not clear from your post if you are talking about Islam generally or 'Wahhabism'. How are "people like" Lockstep permitting these groups to grow?
Islam was founded in the 7th fair enough not as ancient as Christianity or Judaism. That does not confirm the belief that it is a savage religion. Many Muslims of various schools of Islam practise a non threatening version of Islam. Clearly we see at work here many adherents of Islam support a cruel interpretation of Islam. Wahhabism is one of these versions.
Many voices in the west give a platform to these extreme forms of Islam. This is unhealthy to Muslims throughout the world as their religion will be targeted as a result of this. The recent anti immigration outrage caused by simmering mistrust of Muslims and their activities throughout Europe shows we have to go a lot further in helping the many Muslims that reject these versions of Islam.0 -
If you're trying to argue that religion can be twisted for terrible aims, then I completely agree with you. However, you seem to be arguing that there is an inherent problem with Islam in its treatment of women.KingBrian2 wrote: »The Wahhabists are a religious group that take their claim to represent Islam directly from the Koran just as the Slave owners used the Bible to excuse their actions. Religion can be twisted which ever way people see fit and I agree you cannot generalise Islam. Sunni Islam is rooted in deeply conservative teachings of this ancient religion and people like you permit these groups to grow more and more powerful expand into other areas.
These groups want Sharia Law imposed on the region and nothing you or I will say can stop that which means they will attempt to destroy all the other religious communities, those that oppose religion and the sections of society that they consider dhimmis. An Islamic state is not one either of us or most people on boards.ie would enjoy living in. The same is true of Syria and Iraq, the Sunnis are not crying out to be part of a Islamic run Caliphate.
Sunni Islam has its roots in deeply conservative teachings, just as Catholicism does.
You can criticise the excesses of a religion while acknowledging most of its adherents are normal, peaceful and decent people.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Care to elaborate or cite sources to demonstrate that the limits are reached and that any additional migration will only be negative?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/borders-close-around-europe-refugees-face-uncertain-future
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/636951/Thomas-de-Maiziere-Germany-migrant-crisis-Angela-Merkel
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35218921
http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/austria-suspends-schengen-agreement-steps-up-border-control-tells-eu-to-sort-out-migrant-crisis/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/denmark-sweden-tighten-border-control-160104140849704.html
http://www.dw.com/en/schengen-to-fail-in-months-if-migration-crisis-not-under-control-says-tusk/a-18989697
There are many links that demonsrate borders are closing but you can ignore, be a voice in the wilderness and advocate open border.
The erosion of the Schengen visa free agreement looks set to fail as I doubt any control on the migrants will be achieved.0 -
If you're trying to argue that religion can be twisted for terrible aims, then I completely agree with you. However, you seem to be arguing that there is an inherent problem with Islam in its treatment of women.
Sunni Islam has its roots in deeply conservative teachings, just as Catholicism does.
You can criticise the excesses of a religion while acknowledging most of its adherents are normal, peaceful and decent people.
I think there is a problem with islam, as opposed to christianity, that goes beyond conservatism.
Muhammad was a political as well as a spiritual leader. In Mecca, as in the Meccan surahs of the Koran, he promulgated personal morality, toleration, sweetness and light. Then he was thrown out of Mecca, fled to Medina, and became a war lord.
Unfortunately, the Medinan surahs, as the more recent word of God, are generally held to take precedence over the earlier teachings wherever a contradiction occurs. The Medinan surahs cover jihad, and the governance of a totalitarian islamic state.
However you want to interpret islam you can't ignore the Medinan surahs in the way in which a christian can totally ignore the Old Testament.
Truly tolerant muslims, and there are a very large number - and I'm excluding mystics and certain minority sects - are generally secular and not very religious in outlook, a feat that might take a long time for the bulk of the muslim community to achieve, trapped as they are by poverty in their own countries and by alienation in the west.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is equally a problem with other religions. Take Judaism: many of their prophets were spiritual and political leaders (Moses notably). Likewise, for most of the Medieval and early-modern period, the Pope was both a spiritual and political leader. Christians can't "ignore" the Old Testament: remember, Jesus reminds everyone that he's there to fulfill Mosaic law down to "every jot and tittle" (Matthew 5:18)stringed theory wrote: »I think there is a problem with islam, as opposed to christianity, that goes beyond conservatism.
Muhammad was a political as well as a spiritual leader. In Mecca, as in the Meccan surahs of the Koran, he promulgated personal morality, toleration, sweetness and light. Then he was thrown out of Mecca, fled to Medina, and became a war lord.
Unfortunately, the Medinan surahs, as the more recent word of God, are generally held to take precedence over the earlier teachings wherever a contradiction occurs. The Medinan surahs cover jihad, and the governance of a totalitarian islamic state.
However you want to interpret islam you can't ignore the Medinan surahs in the way in which a christian can totally ignore the Old Testament.
Truly tolerant muslims, and there are a very large number - and I'm excluding mystics and certain minority sects - are generally secular and not very religious in outlook, a feat that might take a long time for the bulk of the muslim community to achieve, trapped as they are by poverty in their own countries and by alienation in the west.
The issue with any religion is not the wording but the interpretation: despite the Qaran calling for jihad, most Muslims interpret this as applying to the spiritual inner struggle rather than to killing infidels.0 -
This is equally a problem with other religions. Take Judaism: many of their prophets were spiritual and political leaders (Moses notably). Likewise, for most of the Medieval and early-modern period, the Pope was both a spiritual and political leader. Christians can't "ignore" the Old Testament: remember, Jesus reminds everyone that he's there to fulfill Mosaic law down to "every jot and tittle" (Matthew 5:18)
The issue with any religion is not the wording but the interpretation: despite the Qaran calling for jihad, most Muslims interpret this as applying to the spiritual inner struggle rather than to killing infidels.
So, everything is basically the same as everything else and only differentiated as much as shades of grey?0 -
So, everything is basically the same as everything else and only differentiated as much as shades of grey?
In the sense that the three monotheistic religions have a lot of ridiculous stuff in their holy books that can be applied literally?
Yeah, they're pretty much the same in that regard. As highlighted above, "The issue with any religion is not the wording but the interpretation".0 -
In the sense that the three monotheistic religions have a lot of ridiculous stuff in their holy books that can be applied literally?
Yeah, they're pretty much the same in that regard. As highlighted above, "The issue with any religion is not the wording but the interpretation".
If we are talking about cultural forces, would you extend of the similarity of "ridiculous stuff in their holy books that can be applied literally" to other cultural forces such as political views? Karl Marx and Ayn Rand both wrote ridiculous stuff in books people view as sacred, and want to apply literally. Basically the same as well with the only difference being interpretation?0 -
Objectively? Yeah, they're both equally ridiculous. You can take harmless stuff from either of them if you want but applying them rigidly is a recipe for disaster. As we see with Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, Buddhist fundamentalists or Muslim fundamentalists.If we are talking about cultural forces, would you extend of the similarity of "ridiculous stuff in their holy books that can be applied literally" to other cultural forces such as political views? Karl Marx and Ayn Rand both wrote ridiculous stuff in books people view as sacred, and want to apply literally. Basically the same as well with the only difference being interpretation?0 -
Objectively? Yeah, they're both equally ridiculous. You can take harmless stuff from either of them if you want but applying them rigidly is a recipe for disaster. As we see with Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, Buddhist fundamentalists or Muslim fundamentalists.
The Bible and the Koran are not the same, the Bible is not the directly revealed word of God.
It took some of the great scholars in the early church (who's work is still applied today in the concepts of "just war") too meld Christianity into a form compatible with a non pacifist empire, in Islam it was immediate.
I don't think Islam turns people into expansionist killers but can you possibly admit that the nature of Islam makes it much easier to be brutally fundamentalist about it compared to Christianity or the flipside that its harder for theologians to argue against brutal fundamentalism.
Look at how with the failure or co-option of nationalism by strong men or the failure or elimination of socialist/left wingers revolutionary individuals turn to resistance framed in a Islamic framework.
Its noteworthy how the IRA (any of them AFAIK) for example has never framed itself as a " catholic" resistance even though the conflicts have had a religious aspect in terms of belligerents.0 -
The Bible contains the word of God: in the Old Testament, Mosaic Law arose from God's direct instruction to Moses. Similar to how the Qaran claims to be the divine word of God given to Mohammed.RDM_83 again wrote: »The Bible and the Koran are not the same, the Bible is not the directly revealed word of God.
It took some of the great scholars in the early church (who's work is still applied today in the concepts of "just war") too meld Christianity into a form compatible with a non pacifist empire, in Islam it was immediate.
The Old Testament explicitly involved the merging of religious and political power. Hell, they went on a divinely inspired campaign to conquer their promised land from the Canaanites.
No, I don't admit that Islam makes it "much easier to be brutally fundamentalist" than Christianity. You can interpret the Bible to execute suspected witches or homosexuals. Or you can interpret it to be a decent and kind human being.RDM_83 again wrote: »I don't think Islam turns people into expansionist killers but can you possibly admit that the nature of Islam makes it much easier to be brutally fundamentalist about it compared to Christianity or the flipside that its harder for theologians to argue against brutal fundamentalism.
Look at how with the failure or co-option of nationalism by strong men or the failure or elimination of socialist/left wingers revolutionary individuals turn to resistance framed in a Islamic framework.
Likewise, you can use the Qaran to propagate charity and inner-struggle or you can use it to justify murdering apostates.
And the PLO never framed itself as a Muslim resistance even though the conflicts had a religious aspect in terms of belligerents. What is your point here?RDM_83 again wrote: »Its noteworthy how the IRA (any of them AFAIK) for example has never framed itself as a " catholic" resistance even though the conflicts have had a religious aspect in terms of belligerents.0 -
The Bible contains the word of God: in the Old Testament, Mosaic Law arose from God's direct instruction to Moses. Similar to how the Qaran claims to be the divine word of God given to Mohammed.
The Old Testament explicitly involved the merging of religious and political power. Hell, they went on a divinely inspired campaign to conquer their promised land from the Canaanites.
No, I don't admit that Islam makes it "much easier to be brutally fundamentalist" than Christianity. You can interpret the Bible to execute suspected witches or homosexuals. Or you can interpret it to be a decent and kind human being.
Likewise, you can use the Qaran to propagate charity and inner-struggle or you can use it to justify murdering apostates.
And the PLO never framed itself as a Muslim resistance even though the conflicts had a religious aspect in terms of belligerents. What is your point here?
You have to concede that those that fight for an Islamist ideology or cover themselves in the cloth of radical islam are fascists in all but name regardless of the similarities or differences with Christian hate groups.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »You have to concede that those that fight for an Islamist ideology or cover themselves in the cloth of radical islam are fascists in all but name regardless of the similarities or differences with Christian hate groups.
Do I agree Islamic fundamentalists are effectively fascists? Completely. But it's not a concession as I never argued otherwise.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
KingBrian2 wrote: »Then you also agree they are given sponsorship and protection in the west.
By individuals in the West? Sure.
By Western governments? No.0 -
-
Is this a U-turn in policy?
No more Irish Navy trips from Libya to Italy?The first Irish naval vessel to take part in a major operation targeting human traffickers heads for the Mediterranean today.
The LE Niamh will be taking part in Operation Sophia, the EU mission to capture boats used by people smugglers, and return migrants to the Libyan authorities.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
Mod note:
Thread reopened for discussion of the Mediterranean Migration issues.
Please note that a high standard of contribution is required and link dumps or one liners are not sufficient.0 -
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/libya-probing-migrant-slave-market-36349118.html
A development in Libya on migrants being traded as slaves . The boats continue to cross the med regardless and are only down by one third .I doubt any improvement in this situation for many years .0 -
The EU support for illegal migration has always inflicted a huge cost on the people who are incentivised by European leaders like Merkel to put themselves in the hands of criminals and traffickers. These groups are not humanitarians.
There have been improvements though: Italy has managed to cut the number of migrants from Africa by 87% between August 2016 and August 2017 by working to disrupt the very sophisticated trafficking network that gets people through Libya. More work remains to be done, but the common myth that nothing can be done to stop the flow of illegal migration is shown to be just that. Europe does not have to simply endure illegal migration: it can stop it if the right policies are pursued. Parties of the centre that only offer helplessness as a response will continue to be marginalised until they offer better policies or until they are replaced by parties that will.
The next major step is to either stop EU navies and NGOs collaborating with people traffickers or at least to change the destination: back to Libya to return home or to overseas territories for processing as the Australians have successfully done. Nobody is going to pay thousands of euro to be illegally trafficked to a processing centre on Alofi Island in the South Pacific. Once the narrative changes, the illegal migrant numbers will collapse.0 -
https://www.politico.eu/article/jean-claude-juncker-migration-calls-for-migrants-to-have-legal-ways-to-reach-europe/
He must have hit the wine again .I did see a report that ageing will not be such a problem as robots will take over many jobs . To promote population growth is no solution and brings with it other problems . The cost of housing ,global warming and use of scarce natural resources .Do you take only skilled and leave Africa at a disadvantage to develop .The taking of unskilled like the boat people requires resources to educate ,train and integrate which is problematic .0 -
Juncker has a 1950-60 view of migration. The EU has absolutely no purpose for poorly educated, poorly skilled workers who largely don't speak the language. Especially when youth unemployment is such an issue within the EU.
Its appears the plight of the illegal migrants in Libya has sparked a response from their own countries: there is a plan for a voluntary migration from Libya back to their homes. Nigeria has already flown back 239 of its citizens from Libya. Europe will foot some of the bill, but its worth it if the survivors help reverse the narrative that's encouraging illegal migration in the first place. Far away fields are not greener.
The Guardian is also raising a report released by the Pew Research Center which projects that should migration continue at its current level, the demographics of western Europe will shift so that Muslims become 14% of the population, from 4.9% today. Even if migration entirely stops, Muslims will still rise to 7.4% because the existing Muslim population is younger and has more children. There is a couple of observations to be made.
1- The 14% is likely a significant understatement. Governments and researchers have consistently underestimated and been surprised by migration numbers and resulting changes.
2 - The 14% projection only accounts for Muslims. It doesn't account for further non-Muslim migration which is almost as high, and they are only counting legal migrants or successful asylum claims so the new European demographic is going to be higher again.
3 - The new European demographic is not going to be evenly distributed: its going to consolidate in urban areas and in particular countries. Increasingly you're going to have cities which bear little relation to the country they are located in, and countries which bear little resemblance to their neighbours with knock on effects to achieving common purpose or European unity.
4 - There will be a significant divergence between eastern Europe, which will overwhelmingly remain European and western Europe which cant but be significantly affected politically and culturally by the change in its demographics - let alone the environmental impact (more people consuming more resources, more pollution). We've already seen some of the political impact in Brexit. A significant number of migrants and migrant communities from outside the EU voted for Brexit because it was in their interests to have a global Britain rather than a European Britain, and urban areas which are more regressive on social issues than rural areas to the surprise of researchers.
5 - A significant part of the demographic change is that 'old' Europeans are older, greyer and having less children. Whereas 'new' Europeans are younger and have more children. There's no reason to believe 2050 will mark an end of that trend.
6 - No country in Europe would vote for this outcome (Okay, maybe Sweden would) and no political party is going to put it on their manifesto, but it is going to be the outcome of the current policies that are pursued by 'centrist' parties. Ironically, parties which claim to offer stability are going to deliver huge change to Europe in just a few short decades. This could explain the mystery of why 'centrist' parties are failing across Europe, to the point where Merkel struggles to form a government.
Germany in particular is going to look back at Merkels unilateral invitation in 2015 as a significant moment in their history. Again, for a politician accused of being boring she's led a hugely radical policy. It'll be interesting to see how it all turns out, from a distance.0 -
http://www.euronews.com/2017/11/29/eu-africa-summit-leaders-back-migrant-evacuation-from-libya
Libya blames Europe for its migrant policies . A return of migrants is long overdue .0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.politico.eu/article/jean-claude-juncker-migration-calls-for-migrants-to-have-legal-ways-to-reach-europe/
He must have hit the wine again ..
If it was Donald Trump comparing migrants to burglars he would be condemned for the racist narrative.Juncker also said that if migrants “who are, generally speaking, the poor and needy, are no longer able to enter the house of Europe through the front door, they’ll keep making their way in through the back windows.”
Is Juncker not aware that there are already legal immigration procedures in every European country? for example; Ireland
We saw in the Brexit referendum a significant difference between London and the surrounding areas/counties.3 - The new European demographic is not going to be evenly distributed: its going to consolidate in urban areas and in particular countries. Increasingly you're going to have cities which bear little relation to the country they are located in, and countries which bear little resemblance to their neighbours with knock on effects to achieving common purpose or European unity.
We already saw a clash between the Visegrad countries and the old Franco-German alliance over who controls the EU. That resulted in a stalemate, because although Macron/Merkel won in court, the ECJ decision was timed to be released just as the mandatory migrant programme was ending. And they have not dared to try to implement it again since.4 - There will be a significant divergence between eastern Europe, which will overwhelmingly remain European and western Europe which cant but be significantly affected politically and culturally by the change in its demographics - let alone the environmental impact (more people consuming more resources, more pollution).
Its incredible that no European electorate has ever given a mandate for such far reaching changes, yet the eurocrats continue to push the agenda regardless. It shows how out of touch they are.6 - No country in Europe would vote for this outcome (Okay, maybe Sweden would) and no political party is going to put it on their manifesto, but it is going to be the outcome of the current policies that are pursued by 'centrist' parties. Ironically, parties which claim to offer stability are going to deliver huge change to Europe in just a few short decades. This could explain the mystery of why 'centrist' parties are failing across Europe, to the point where Merkel struggles to form a government.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement