Explosion at Dortmund hotel when team bus was leaving

Depp

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thread title review is appropriate before you start telling people what they can or cannot discuss.

well its about an event thats being investigated as an islamist terror attack so discussing islamism is a tad more relevant than what sikhs do in india wouldnt you think?

Luggnuts

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm sorry but are you going to continue changing the subject every time someone answers your question? You wanted ''barbaric culture'' explained a moment ago, and you wanted examples of how it can carry over to a new life in the West, and now you want ''integration'' defined, too. Obviously, it implies living in a manner consistent with the laws and culture of the new country, so the opposite of what was explained in response to your last comment.

I'm not changing the subject at all. The subject has two facets....barbaric culture and integrating (adhering to western values). I've stuck to those two points. It seems you are trying to change the subject with talk of arranged marriages and whatnot.

How do Muslims NOT live in a manner consistent with the laws and culture of a new country? It seems a question you can't answer. Just focus on the culture part because the law part is plain and simple. You break the law no matter where you come from or how things are done in your country of origin and you get tried and sentenced if convicted. END OF. So if you come from Portugal where all drugs are legal and you use heroin in the UK...you get arrested. But what exactly do you mean by living in a manner consistent with the "culture"? I've asked this question and it has been roundly avoided.

511

Luggnuts wrote: »

Forced/arranged marriages are predominantly a hindu/sikh phenomenon.

Eh, no, they're very common in Pakistan, a Muslim country that wanted nothing to do with Hinduism so it became independent from India. Many girls in Pakistan have been honoured-killed by their own families for rejecting arranged marriages with their cousins. Around half of marriages there are incestuous.

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

I'm not changing the subject at all. The subject has two facets....barbaric culture and integrating (adhering to western values). I've stuck to those two points. It seems you are trying to change the subject with talk of arranged marriages and whatnot.

How do Muslims NOT live in a manner consistent with the laws and culture of a new country? It seems a question you can't answer. Just focus on the culture part because the law part is plain and simple. You break the law no matter where you come from or how things are done in your country of origin and you get tried and sentenced if convicted. END OF. So if you come from Portugal where all drugs are legal and you use heroin in the UK...you get arrested. But what exactly do you mean by living in a manner consistent with the "culture"? I've asked this question and it has been roundly avoided.

You talked in a previous point about muslims you know, these would be a great example of muslims who have integrated into western society, no-ones saying theres any problem with these, the problem is the muslims who live in muslim only communities, refuse to adopt western laws, refuse to learn native languages and insist on practicing an islamist form of islam. As much as it seems theres very few who actually dislike all muslims as you'd put it...islamism is not islam

Luggnuts

Depp wrote: »

not really, huge issue in the muslim community in the uk at the minute, also if you want to talk about sikhs start a thread about them, the discussion we're having is about islamism. x other culture does y aswel is not a valid excuse

It very much IS a valid excuse. If you want to ban one culture because you disagree with some of their practices then you ought to call for a ban against other cultures who have the same practices. Otherwise you're just being hypocritical.

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

It very much IS a valid excuse. If you want to ban one culture because you disagree with some of their practices then you ought to call for a ban against other cultures who have the same practices. Otherwise you're just being hypocritical.

no-ones advocating a blanket ban on islam though are they? few hardliners do advocate it and I along with most people think they are wrong but Islamism can get fcuked as far as I'm concerned, not welcome here.

Luggnuts

Depp wrote: »

well its about an event thats being investigated as an islamist terror attack so discussing islamism is a tad more relevant than what sikhs do in india wouldnt you think?

Well if it's about an event being investigated as an islamist terror attack then you shouldn't have cast the net wide by bringing up unrelated cultural norms.

Widdershins

Luggnuts wrote: »

I'm not changing the subject at all. The subject has two facets....barbaric culture and integrating (adhering to western values). I've stuck to those two points. It seems you are trying to change the subject with talk of arranged marriages and whatnot.

How do Muslims NOT live in a manner consistent with the laws and culture of a new country? It seems a question you can't answer. Just focus on the culture part because the law part is plain and simple. You break the law no matter where you come from or how things are done in your country of origin and you get tried and sentenced if convicted. END OF. So if you come from Portugal where all drugs are legal and you use heroin in the UK...you get arrested. But what exactly do you mean by living in a manner consistent with the "culture"? I've asked this question and it has been roundly avoided.

A few of us have answered you already. You're reiterating what I already told you. Yes, two facets of the same thing. And in the cases where Muslims are adhering to a strict traditional culture at odds with the liberal culture in their new home country and therefore don't integrate, you see incidents like those already described to you. Incidents that would be legal in their home country, but not in the new country, and yes, they are then punished by law, nobody said otherwise. *IF the law discovers the crimes*. Germany would be a good example of some Muslim newcomers who can't integrate fully. There are German Muslim women who have had to go to a Muslim human rights lawyer for protection and new identities to save themselves from their families who want to marry them off in arranged marriages back in, for example, Pakistan. So those women, if they can manage it, escape.

It would be preferable if you would say ''some Muslims'' rather than just ''Msulims;; as you're giving the impression that all or most Muslims don't integrate, which is not what is being discussed.

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

Well if it's about an event being investigated as an islamist terror attack then you shouldn't have cast the net wide by bringing up unrelated cultural norms.

I was asked why I disliked islamism, I gave examples? fcuk me right!

FrancieBrady

Luggnuts wrote: »

Well if it's about an event being investigated as an islamist terror attack then you shouldn't have cast the net wide by bringing up unrelated cultural norms.

It may be an Islamist attack and it may not be and it is I am sure a multi focus investigation.

Mention of other cultures is entirely appropriate.

Luggnuts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Really? No one has ever given a rational definition of "integration"? I really find that hard to believe. You could use a dictionary

That doesn't answer the question. What do YOU think someone should do to "integrate" and what would you see them doing as NOT integrating. The vast majority of foreigners I know obey the law but when they are home they eat their own ethnic food, listen to their own music and do their dances or whatever. Are they not integrating. I also know of indigenous people who are total recluses. They live in isolation and have little contact with others. Are they to be dragged from their country hideouts and forced to go to the pub and football match and night club in the interests of "integration"?

For a definition that according to you is so simple, an explanation seems so very elusive.

Luggnuts

511 wrote: »

Eh, no, they're very common in Pakistan, a Muslim country that wanted nothing to do with Hinduism so it became independent from India. Many girls in Pakistan have been honoured-killed by their own families for rejecting arranged marriages with their cousins. Around half of marriages there are incestuous.

I didn't deny that. But would you say that it's a Pakistani cultural phenomenon or a Muslim one?
How is the phenomenon of forced or arranged marriage in places like Turkey or Morocco or Jordan or Malaysia?

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question. What do YOU think someone should do to "integrate" and what would you see them doing as NOT integrating. The vast majority of foreigners I know obey the law but when they are home they eat their own ethnic food, listen to their own music and do their dances or whatever. Are they not integrating. I also know of indigenous people who are total recluses. They live in isolation and have little contact with others. Are they to be dragged from their country hideouts and forced to go to the pub and football match and night club in the interests of "integration"?

For a definition that according to you is so simple, an explanation seems so very elusive.

Personally I'd define ''the foreigners you know'' as perfectly integrated. But communities such as the ''no-go-areas'' in europe at the minute where english is not spoken, sharia is practiced, where wanted islamist terrorists are harboured and protected (molenbeek) and where police stations have to close due to constant attacks (see sweden) as not integrated.

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

I didn't deny that.

No, you just cast aspersions onto the sikh community to make a point.

Luggnuts

Depp wrote: »

You talked in a previous point about muslims you know, these would be a great example of muslims who have integrated into western society, no-ones saying theres any problem with these, the problem is the muslims who live in muslim only communities, refuse to adopt western laws, refuse to learn native languages and insist on practicing an islamist form of islam. As much as it seems theres very few who actually dislike all muslims as you'd put it...islamism is not islam

Again you're just scapegoating. If they don't want to learn the local language or can't so what?
Go to the barrios of Miami or LA or Chinatown in New York and you'll find entire communities without a lick of English. Are they "integrated"? In fact if you go to Dearborn Michigan you'll find that those Muslims speak English better than the two aforementioned examples.

ceadaoin.

Luggnuts wrote: »

It very much IS a valid excuse. If you want to ban one culture because you disagree with some of their practices then you ought to call for a ban against other cultures who have the same practices. Otherwise you're just being hypocritical.

Where has anyone said that they want to ban an entire culture?

Luggnuts

Depp wrote: »

You talked in a previous point about muslims you know, these would be a great example of muslims who have integrated into western society, no-ones saying theres any problem with these, the problem is the muslims who live in muslim only communities, refuse to adopt western laws, refuse to learn native languages and insist on practicing an islamist form of islam. As much as it seems theres very few who actually dislike all muslims as you'd put it...islamism is not islam

The Muslims I mentioned would do the same thing in their home countries. It has nothing to do with integration or Western values. If I or anyone was being chased by a gang in Marakkesh and fled to their house. The situation would be the same.

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

Again you're just scapegoating. If they don't want to learn the local language or can't so what?
Go to the barrios of Miami or LA or Chinatown in New York and you'll find entire communities without a lick of English. Are they "integrated"? In fact if you go to Dearborn Michigan you'll find that those Muslims speak English better than the two aforementioned examples.

if they dont want to learn the local language quite frankly they can leave...not saying everyone has to have perfect english straight off the bat but if you're not making an effort you can go, how can you expect to be part of the society you're coming to if you cant even understand what people are saying?

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

The Muslims I mentioned would do the same thing in their home countries. It has nothing to do with integration or Western values. If I or anyone was being chased by a gang in Marakkesh and fled to their house. The situation would be the same.

So were your muslim friends to be living under sharia they would harbour a homosexual sentenced to death in full knowledge the penalty for doing this would be death? Also don't think the muslims you know are a big enough sample size are they? Muslims I know are spot on aswel, because they decry islamist doctrine, and oh how they cringe when they see ''liberals'' defending and making excuses for islamist scum.

Luggnuts

Widdershins wrote: »

A few of us have answered you already. You're reiterating what I already told you. Yes, two facets of the same thing. And in the cases where Muslims are adhering to a strict traditional culture at odds with the liberal culture in their new home country and therefore don't integrate, you see incidents like those already described to you. Incidents that would be legal in their home country, but not in the new country, and yes, they are then punished by law, nobody said otherwise. *IF the law discovers the crimes*. Germany would be a good example of some Muslim newcomers who can't integrate fully. There are German Muslim women who have had to go to a Muslim human rights lawyer for protection and new identities to save themselves from their families who want to marry them off in arranged marriages back in, for example, Pakistan. So those women, if they can manage it, escape.

It would be preferable if you would say ''some Muslims'' rather than just ''Msulims;; as you're giving the impression that all or most Muslims don't integrate, which is not what is being discussed.

If you are now trying to shift towards "islamism" as opposed to all muslims then why did you or others paint with such a broad stroke by using the term "barbaric culture"?

What did you mean?

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

If you are now trying to shift towards "islamism" as opposed to all muslims then why did you or others paint with such a broad stroke by using the term "barbaric culture"?

What did you mean?

by barbaric culture, we mean islamist culture, we have zero problem with moderate islam or those who practice it. There was no shift, the discussion was always islamism.

Luggnuts

Depp wrote: »

No, you just cast aspersions onto the sikh community to make a point.

I mentioned the Sikh community to expose a double standard. If that's casting aspersions then you're welcome to it.

Luggnuts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Where has anyone said that they want to ban an entire culture?

What are wee talking about then? Banning people who don't don trakkies and get hammered in Temple Bar when they move to Dublin?

Luggnuts

Depp wrote: »

if they dont want to learn the local language quite frankly they can leave...not saying everyone has to have perfect english straight off the bat but if you're not making an effort you can go, how can you expect to be part of the society you're coming to if you cant even understand what people are saying?

Now we're getting somewhere. Why should they do anything other than obey the law? Who are you to tell them that they have to learn a language? Are you afraid that they might be talking about you and you can't understand?

What LAW states that you must learn the language of a country in order to live there?

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere. Why should they do anything other than obey the law? Who are you to tell them that they have to learn a language? Are you afraid that they might be talking about you and you can't understand?

What LAW states that you must learn the language of a country in order to live there?

We'll use ireland as an example, you come here in the morning without a word of english and no intention to learn it, how exactly do you intend to find work, how will you mix with the society you came here to be a part of? nothing to do with someone talking about me but whats the point of coming the whole way to Ireland if you've no intention of mixing with the people here already?

Also you asked fro opinions, I gave you mine.

wakka12

Shenshen wrote: »

I've lived in Europe over 40 years now, and I'm not sure what you mean by "suddenly"? I can't recall a time without some terrorist threats and attacks happening somewhere a few times a year?
The only new thing on the scene is Islamism as a reason being given.

No the reason is that theres been a lot of high profile attacks in European cities the last few years. If you want to pretend that 130 people being gunned down in paris, or people being run down by a high speed truck on Stockhoms high street or beside the palace of Westminister was big news just because we are racists obsessed with muslims then you're deluded

Luggnuts

Depp wrote: »

So were your muslim friends to be living under sharia they would harbour a homosexual sentenced to death in full knowledge the penalty for doing this would be death? Also don't think the muslims you know are a big enough sample size are they? Muslims I know are spot on aswel, because they decry islamist doctrine, and oh how they cringe when they see ''liberals'' defending and making excuses for islamist scum.

Well it didn't take long for the old trick of equating the questioning of intolerance with being a "sympathiser of terrorist scum"

As for Sharia Law....you don't seem to know much about it. It's practised in very few places on Earth and is as far as I know not even writ as part of any national legal system. It relates predominantly to family and civil matters.

Widdershins

Luggnuts wrote: »

If you are now trying to shift towards "islamism" as opposed to all muslims then why did you or others paint with such a broad stroke by using the term "barbaric culture"?

What did you mean?

Clearly we meant Islamism, are you completely uninformed of the ideology?
What broad stroke? You're the only one referring to ''Muslims''. Come back when you understand Islamism!

Luggnuts

Depp wrote: »

by barbaric culture, we mean islamist culture, we have zero problem with moderate islam or those who practice it. There was no shift, the discussion was always islamism.

Then why did you bring up arranged marriages and honour killings? Are they part of this barbaric Islamist culture?

ceadaoin.

Luggnuts wrote: »

What are wee talking about then? Banning people who don't don trakkies and get hammered in Temple Bar when they move to Dublin?

Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about. That's exactly what "western values" means. Ffs

The only person talking about "banning" all Muslims is you.

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

Well it didn't take long for the old trick of equating the questioning of intolerance with being a "sympathiser of terrorist scum"

As for Sharia Law....you don't seem to know much about it. It's practised in very few places on Earth and is as far as I know not even writ as part of any national legal system. It relates predominantly to family and civil matters.

Saudi Arabia maybe? IS controlled areas of syria? I've it well researched don't worry if you think its just family and civil matters you're the one who doesnt know much about it!

Are my muslim friends who have the same views as me re islamism guilty of intolerance as you put it? And yes the muslims I know see people who defend islamism and refuse to admit its a problem as IS sympathisers. Their main gripe is how it makes it seem like islamism is not seperate from the islam they practice

Widdershins

Luggnuts wrote: »

Well it didn't take long for the old trick of equating the questioning of intolerance with being a "sympathiser of terrorist scum"

As for Sharia Law....you don't seem to know much about it. It's practised in very few places on Earth and is as far as I know not even writ as part of any national legal system. It relates predominantly to family and civil matters.

You questioned intolerance? If so we may be on the same page as the inherent intolerance in Islamism is what I question.

Or are you suggesting we should tolerate that kind of intolerance?

Widdershins

Luggnuts wrote: »

What are wee talking about then? Banning people who don't don trakkies and get hammered in Temple Bar when they move to Dublin?

Nice bit of stereotyping.

Luggnuts

[QUOTE=Depp;103203074]We'll use ireland as an example, you come here in the morning without a word of english and no intention to learn it, how exactly do you intend to find work, how will you mix with the society you came here to be a part of? nothing to do with someone talking about me but whats the point of coming the whole way to Ireland if you've no intention of mixing with the people here already?

Also you asked fro opinions, I gave you mine.[/QUOTE]

Who cares? You could easily be living legally in the country and not have a lick of English or very little and still work. Obviously the work wouldn't involve much public interaction but then again neither does Eddie the night janitor at a hospital or office block.

Ahmed the porter and his housewife Fatima might have a miniscule grasp of English. He gets someone at the community center to help him fill out any forms he might need and he's happy. So damn what?
Seems to me that you want others to live the way YOU want them to.

Will I Am Not

Widdershins wrote: »

Nice bit of stereotyping.

It's ok though. Westerners are fair game.
Just like when he/she said Westerners wouldn't be all that likely to help the gay person being threatened.

The_Kew_Tour

It will be in 20-30 years that we will wonder what the **** were we thinking

Widdershins

Luggnuts wrote: »

Who cares? You could easily be living legally in the country and not have a lick of English or very little and still work. Obviously the work wouldn't involve much public interaction but then again neither does Eddie the night janitor at a hospital or office block.

Ahmed the porter and his housewife Fatima might have a miniscule grasp of English. He gets someone at the community center to help him fill out any forms he might need and he's happy. So damn what?
Seems to me that you want others to live the way YOU want them to.

Ahmed the night porter? How long did it take you to come up with a job for Ahmed who has virtually no English? What other jobs could Ahmed or someone with equal language barriers possibly do? How did Ahmed even apply for the job? How do they get on when they want to make friends, socialise, need to make a phone call or visit a doctor?

Being able to participate in life and contribute a bit to the country you move to has nothing to do with visiting the local pub.

So are there any actual facts about the perpetrator yet?

Widdershins

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

It's ok though. Westerners are fair game.
Just like when he/she said Westerners wouldn't be all that likely to help the gay person being threatened.

I'm not sure Westerners give a damn about gays anymore. Judging by the silence around the Chechnyan concentration camps and the apparent gay bashing problems in Amsterdam. But that's off topic, sorry.

Luggnuts

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Anyhow

The police have revealed some of the contents of the note that was left. It mentions something about Berlin truck attack and German fighter planes in bombing Syria.

http://news.sky.com/story/borussia-dortmund-team-bus-attack-police-probing-islamist-link-10834285
I Reckon we can stop playing Guess Who now

Just saw this. A "note". This is getting so tired. I was wondering when they would find the usual "Tunisian or Egyptian passport" next to the bombs...but a note is just as good I suppose.

Widdershins

It's incredible there are people arguing against integration. Our Muslim communities have been well integrated, in contrast to those in Sweden, France and Germany. Since we are planning to greatly increase their numbers, it makes sense to plan for their needs and facilitate their integration which would be a step towards ensuring that Ireland doesn't suffer the same social problems the banlieus of France are blighted by. Trying to ensure people can get on in their new lives is apparently perceived as some sort of unfair expectation or even persecution?

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

Who cares? You could easily be living legally in the country and not have a lick of English or very little and still work. Obviously the work wouldn't involve much public interaction but then again neither does Eddie the night janitor at a hospital or office block.

Ahmed the porter and his housewife Fatima might have a miniscule grasp of English. He gets someone at the community center to help him fill out any forms he might need and he's happy. So damn what?
Seems to me that you want others to live the way YOU want them to.

If you can't see how not speaking the local language would act as a hindrance in the job market and make it much harder to be a functioning member of society theres literally no point arguing with you.

ceadaoin.

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm not sure Westerners give a damn about gays anymore. Judging by the silence around the Chechnyan concentration camps and the apparent gay bashing problems in Amsterdam. But that's off topic, sorry.

I think we know why there's been silence around these issues. Oppression top trumps wins out

Luggnuts

Widdershins wrote: »

Clearly we meant Islamism, are you completely uninformed of the ideology?
What broad stroke? You're the only one referring to ''Muslims''. Come back when you understand Islamism!

A poster (A Little Pony) mentioned a barbaric culture inconsistent with "Western Values". When I questioned this you and Depp chimed in with your talk of stonings and persecution of gays and what not. Of arranged marriages and honour killings. It took a few pages for you then to rebrand this barbaric culture as Islamism. You brought up how one should learn the local language or get out of the country...so no your attempts now at redefining what you meant ring hollow.

ceadaoin.

Luggnuts wrote: »

A poster (A Little Pony) mentioned a barbaric culture inconsistent with "Western Values". When I questioned this you and Depp chimed in with your talk of stonings and persecution of gays and what not. Of arranged marriages and honour killings. It took a few pages for you then to rebrand this barbaric culture as Islamism. You brought up how one should learn the local language or get out of the country...so no your attempts now at redefining what you meant ring hollow.

In fairness, these discussions have been running over multiple threads over several weeks or months. On all these threads it has been clearly stated numerous times that not all Muslims are the problem, but a minority of people with extremist views. Do we need to state this in every single post?

Shenshen

Deleted User wrote: »

So are there any actual facts about the perpetrator yet?

Judging by the last five or so pages, nobody seems to be interested in facts very much.

silverharp

Widdershins wrote: »

It's incredible there are people arguing against integration. Our Muslim communities have been well integrated, in contrast to those in Sweden, France and Germany. Since we are planning to greatly increase their numbers, it makes sense to plan for their needs and facilitate their integration which would be a step towards ensuring that Ireland doesn't suffer the same social problems the banlieus of France are blighted by. Trying to ensure people can get on in their new lives is apparently perceived as some sort of unfair expectation or even persecution?

we dont have any significant problems because there arent that many, go to 3%-5% and you will have visible integration problems. the best plan is not to increase numbers. Its not like we owe them anything, we are a small country and there is free movement from Eastern European countries

Depp

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In fairness, these discussions have been running over multiple threads over several weeks or months. On all these threads it has been clearly stated that not all Muslims are the problem, but a minority of people with extremist views. Do we need to state this in every single post?

seems like it...lot of posters seem to get very stuck in the mud and have severe difficulty to (or an unwillingness to) understand the difference....

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

Judging by the last five or so pages, nobody seems to be interested in facts very much.

Are they ever?

Widdershins

Luggnuts wrote: »

A poster (A Little Pony) mentioned a barbaric culture inconsistent with "Western Values". When I questioned this you and Depp chimed in with your talk of stonings and persecution of gays and what not. Of arranged marriages and honour killings. It took a few pages for you then to rebrand this barbaric culture as Islamism. You brought up how one should learn the local language or get out of the country...so no your attempts now at redefining what you meant ring hollow.

Er, no, it wasn't branded in the first place so never rebranded. All of the barbaric aspects of some Islamic cultures are well documented. Nor did I ever at any point say ''one should learn the local language or get out of the country''. You are a dishonest poster and it is a waste of effort to communicate with you.