Is Islam right for Ireland?

Odhinn

TomSweeney wrote: »

Yep, and the likes of Grayson, Nodin etc .... defend this guy + his backward opinion!!!


they defend it
they defend it
they defend it
they defend it
they defend it

What guy, what opinion?

Thomas__.

Summer In the City wrote: »

dodderangler wrote: »

Well said mate. If you go their country you have no religious rights whatsoever. Why should we bend over backwards for them when we don't get same treatment in their country.

We do have religious rights though. Where does this misinformation come from? They have Christian churches and Christian schools.

I think that you have missed something in recent developments in countries with a Christian minority and how they are being treated since the Arab Spring. It is by compare worst than anything the Muslims had to undergo in Western European countries. What you see as having rights there is nothing but religious tolerance which can change every time and isn't the same like constitutional guaranteed religious freedom.

Summer In the City

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that you have missed something in recent developments in countries with a Christian minority and how they are being treated since the Arab Spring. It is by compare worst than anything the Muslims had to undergo in Western European countries. What you see as having rights there is nothing but religious tolerance which can change every time and isn't the same like constitutional guaranteed religious freedom.

I just watched the local Christian school bus drop 6 kids off at my building. There is a pork shop, alcohol shop, a western butchers, a few different churches all down the road from me. I'd say it goes beyond tolerance.

donegaLroad

Summer In the City wrote: »

I just watched the local Christian school bus drop 6 kids off at my building. There is a pork shop, alcohol shop, a western butchers, a few different churches all down the road from me. I'd say it goes beyond tolerance.

Which country are you in?

Odhinn

Wibbs wrote: »

What I find scary about that is the chap is no hill farmer from Nowheristan who's only read one book, or had it read to him. He's a well travelled clearly extremely bright, Ivy League graduate in physics.

And a goodly number of assholes raised in the Western European culture with degrees in various subjects are posted here with their dubious notions to support the far right. You've some point tomake there?

TomSweeney

Odhinn wrote: »

What guy, what opinion?

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/988010035920883713?s=21

Thomas__.

Thomas__. wrote: »

The problem with racist calling et al is that topics like this are the perfect food for far-right and right-wing propaganda and that the response is as fierce on that as it can be.

TBH I think many of the comments on this thread are made just to get a reaction (After Hours humor). It used to be that people trolling would use the 'right' as a way to cause outrage, but using the 'left' to base comments is easily capable of it now. I refuse to believe that Irish people really have such a simplistic understanding of the world.

Otherwise, we're fcuked. We really can't afford people thinking in terms of left and right anymore. It's screwed Europe over the last two-three decades, and now is not a good time for this bullsht.

Thomas__.

Summer In the City wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that you have missed something in recent developments in countries with a Christian minority and how they are being treated since the Arab Spring. It is by compare worst than anything the Muslims had to undergo in Western European countries. What you see as having rights there is nothing but religious tolerance which can change every time and isn't the same like constitutional guaranteed religious freedom.

I just watched the local Christian school bus drop 6 kids off at my building. There is a pork shop, alcohol shop, a western butchers, a few different churches all down the road from me. I'd say it goes beyond tolerance.

Summer In the City wrote: »

donegaLroad wrote: »

Which country are you in?

Jordan

As long as the country is stable it can go on like that. Once there is a change of regime, it can be difficult. Just look at Syria, look at Turkey. Both were once rather secular and the latter even constitutional. Since the civil war in Syria, things are different and plenty of people fled the country to Jordan and Turkey. In Turkey with the growing power of Erdogan the country is step by step abandoning its constitutional secularity, as Erdogan is an Islamist himself.

Gravelly

Summer In the City wrote: »

I just watched the local Christian school bus drop 6 kids off at my building. There is a pork shop, alcohol shop, a western butchers, a few different churches all down the road from me. I'd say it goes beyond tolerance.

I too have a fantasy world in my head where I go when it all gets too much.

wes

Thomas__. wrote: »

As long as the country is stable it can go on like that. Once there is a change of regime, it can be difficult.

Same thing is happening to the Ukraine. They have fascists in government. War tends to mess things up in any country.

We also have Hungary and Poland here in Europe, with strong men trying to do exactly the same thing as Putin and Erdogan.

What your saying can, has and is happening all over the world.

donegaLroad

Summer In the City wrote: »

I just watched the local Christian school bus drop 6 kids off at my building. There is a pork shop, alcohol shop, a western butchers, a few different churches all down the road from me. I'd say it goes beyond tolerance.

It sounds like you live in a progressive country. We dont even have pork shops here in Ireland!

Wibbs

Odhinn wrote: »

And a goodly number of assholes raised in the Western European culture with degrees in various subjects are posted here with their dubious notions to support the far right. You've some point tomake there?

You'd miss it regardless. It is you after all. If you can't see the difference between a clearly educated individual calling for another human being to be killed for "the good of society" because they've decided of their own free will that makeyuppey Bronze Age blood cults aren't for them and someone quite reasonably debating the pros and cons of the current immigration and minorities issue within Europe, well I don't know what to think. OH wait, I do, it is you after all. A man who's gone so far left he fell over. It seems anyone or anything that disagrees with your worldview is an arsehole, no matter how reasoned or reasonable the person or argument put forward.

Thomas__. wrote: »

As long as the country is stable it can go on like that. Once there is a change of regime, it can be difficult. Just look at Syria, look at Turkey.

One of the biggest shifts was in Lebanon. Iran another. Hell, Iraq once had a popular communist party. Afghanistan was growing into a more modern state too. Quite sobering to see the shifts and how rapid those shifts could be. Now there were and are a lot of reasons for these various shifts and western interference - mostly US, USSR, Britain and France the biggest players - is certainly one of the bigger ones. Local potentiates raping the country of assets another(The Shah a good example. What a muppet). I can certainly understand why many people in the Islamic world look to the west as the great satan and all that and why they look to some imagined halcyon past and possible future forged under Islam. I probably would in their position.

Thomas__.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

The problem with racist calling et al is that topics like this are the perfect food for far-right and right-wing propaganda and that the response is as fierce on that as it can be.

TBH I think many of the comments on this thread are made just to get a reaction (After Hours humor). It used to be that people trolling would use the 'right' as a way to cause outrage, but using the 'left' to base comments is easily capable of it now. I refuse to believe that Irish people really have such a simplistic understanding of the world.

Otherwise, we're fcuked. We really can't afford people thinking in terms of left and right anymore. It's screwed Europe over the last two-three decades, and now is not a good time for this bullsht.

Right and Left are just a lable to determine the opposing positions of the debaters and frankly, there is still much of the right-left-divide that comes in to that ideologically. It's not about the Irish alone, it's over all of Europe These days once more. Those having their laughs are the radical Islamists as they despise both, the right and the left. The right ones because of their bigotry and racism which they use to answer that challenge and the left for being the sycophants and defending Islam, ignoring or downplaying the radical side of it which is the very thing these Islamists are keen to impose on the western society.

As you surely know yourself, Islamis is the instrumentalisation of a Religion for political purpose in order to gain power and subjugate people. They are as much a threat like the Nazis and Fascists were in the 1920s and 1930s. In those days, they used the Communist threat to gain followers and supporters to their side, not it is Islam they use as the same threat and with the same purpose to which radical Islamists are delivering the food for those who always disliked that Religion to have a reason and a cause to join them.

I am myself indifferent to Islam as a Religion, but I am strongly against its instrumentalisation for the above said political aims. When the Western world does not stand up to this it puts its freedom into danger and the threat comes from three sides, the Islamists, the far-right and the far-left. Whether you like it or not, Identity Ireland is just one example for a right-wing or far-right movement which has followers by the same name across Europe. By now they are still a minority, but the numbers of supporters (maybe even members) are growing. Riots like that at the G20 Summit in Hamburg last year have shown the potential of violence eminating from the far-left, the violent 'protest' against a globalised capitalist world. Right in the middle you have the radical Islamist fundamentalists supporting and fighting for ISIS. As they are more and more defeated on the ground, their Jihadists are on their way to seek hiding places and avoid to being caught and brought to justice for the murders they have committed. Just like the Nazis fleeing Europe after WWII or hiding somewhere and that even with the help of the RCC, means the Vatican, to set them on the 'rat route' to South America. Rest assured that there are still some rich Muslims in the Arab world who provide shelter and help for those IS Jihadists and the country which is allegedly (by Iraq as well as Iran - if I recall the latter being part of it too) most suspected and accused of helping them is Saudi-Arabia. A country that follows its own vested interests in that region.

Maybe you have a different way to look at the comments of posters on threads like this, in the end of the day it always comes down to the 'them-vs-us'. By the way, I have noticed some remarks from moderators on After Hours that there have been too many political threads in recent weeks. As I am accustomed to the nature of this boards section, maybe this thread would better be placed in the politics section as the topic is more a serious one itself.

Thomas__.

wes wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

As long as the country is stable it can go on like that. Once there is a change of regime, it can be difficult.

Same thing is happening to the Ukraine. They have fascists in government. War tends to mess things up in any country.

We also have Hungary and Poland here in Europe, with strong men trying to do exactly the same thing as Putin and Erdogan.

What your saying can, has and is happening all over the world.

Quite so, just that one has only to replace the terms (i.e. Islam, Nationalism, Autocracy etc.).

Thomas__.

Wibbs wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

As long as the country is stable it can go on like that. Once there is a change of regime, it can be difficult. Just look at Syria, look at Turkey.

One of the biggest shifts was in Lebanon. Iran another. Hell, Iraq once had a popular communist party. Afghanistan was growing into a more modern state too. Quite sobering to see the shifts and how rapid those shifts could be. Now there were and are a lot of reasons for these various shifts and western interference - mostly US, USSR, Britain and France the biggest players - is certainly one of the bigger ones. Local potentiates raping the country of assets another(The Shah a good example. What a muppet). I can certainly understand why many people in the Islamic world look to the west as the great satan and all that and why they look to some imagined halcyon past and possible future forged under Islam. I probably would in their position.

When it comes to Afghanistan, I always remember that country to be in some sort of war, either with the Soviets in the 1980s or the Taliban in the 1990s and still to this day. As for the other countries you've mentioned, the many of them are the product of the post-colonial era after WWI. The exception among them is Iran, the former Persia but even that country was under a strong influence by foreign powers. I am not sure whether the will for self-determination justifies the Iranian Regime since their Revolution in 1979. But in the Islamic World, they certainly have set a pattern for others to copy it. I have no doubt about that at all, as the Mullahs themselves have taken on ancient regime blueprints to establish their Islamic Republic.

jmayo

Kabul 1962



Kabul 1972



Kabul 1978.



Kabul 1999



Kabul 2001



Kabul post Taliban election



Hands up who wants Afghani males ?

Gravelly

jmayo wrote: »

Kabul 2001




Hands up who wants Afghani males ?

Apparently those women (at least I think the are women) under those blue covers are demonstrating how empowering Islam is.....

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabby-aossey/muslims-are-the-true-feminists_b_9877692.html

Thomas__.

Thomas__. wrote: »

Right and Left are just a lable to determine the opposing positions of the debaters and frankly, there is still much of the right-left-divide that comes in to that ideologically. It's not about the Irish alone, it's over all of Europe These days once more. Those having their laughs are the radical Islamists as they despise both, the right and the left. The right ones because of their bigotry and racism which they use to answer that challenge and the left for being the sycophants and defending Islam, ignoring or downplaying the radical side of it which is the very thing these Islamists are keen to impose on the western society.

I'm sorry but here we separate in opinions. You've fallen for the modern propaganda of there being only the left and the right. I'm neither. I'm still a conservative with both left/right opinions depending on the topic on hand. The "crowd" want everyone to think of either the left or right because, once again, like with Religion, they're absolutes. Right or Wrong. Good Vs Evil. And easily to manage and control people once they believe there's only two options. It's one of the main reasons the US political system is so flawed. The reliance on two parties. And it's the same here with the "left" and the "right". Put people into clearly marked boxes and just dismiss them.

I'm a pragmatist. I recognise my own flaws. I am somewhat racist towards Travellers, as most Irish people I know are. I just don't pretend I'm not. I'm not racist against Black people but I'm very uncomfortable with large groups of them. Images of mobs with Machetes flash through my mind. And I'm uncomfortable with the deeply religious because I grew up in a very religious family, and spent my childhood around the devout.

I prefer to think in what is practical rather than what is "left" or "right". Or Racist or Bigot. They're just labels that people throw around to diminish an opposing persons opinion. [This post will undoubtedly draw some of those very labels.]

Those having their laughs are the radical Islamists as they despise both, the right and the left.

Those Islamic people who are laughing at Western nations have good reasons to laugh. Although, TBF, they should be in the giggles at what they've done to their own people too. But Western civilisation is destroying itself even without immigration or Islam. All they need to do is stand back and watch us tear ourselves apart.

We have serious social issues that nobody wants to deal with, and a political system that is incapable of going against public opinion, even while just postponing important issues for the next government to deal with. The Banking crash taught me that. Remember the anger at what the property developers, Banks, and the government had done to us? How long did that rage last? Not long, and virtually nobody was punished.

As you surely know yourself, Islamis is the instrumentalisation of a Religion for political purpose in order to gain power and subjugate people. They are as much a threat like the Nazis and Fascists were in the 1920s and 1930s. In those days, they used the Communist threat to gain followers and supporters to their side, not it is Islam they use as the same threat and with the same purpose to which radical Islamists are delivering the food for those who always disliked that Religion to have a reason and a cause to join them.

Err........................................................ No. Islam is a religion. A faith. People believe in its teachings and culture for their own sake. It's a religion because it exercises political power just as Christianity did. It's not purely a faith as such, but I think you're going overboard now.

Many Muslims interpret Islamic doctrine differently. It's not a guidebook for world domination. It merely encourages what people want to believe. It just happens that there are more nutjobs following Islam than Christianity right now... we had our own nutjobs centuries past.

I don't have any problem with Islam as long as it's culture and way of life stays within their own nations or the home of the believer. It can be a very beautiful religion at times.

Maybe you have a different way to look at the comments of posters on threads like this, in the end of the day it always comes down to the 'them-vs-us'. By the way, I have noticed some remarks from moderators on After Hours that there have been too many political threads in recent weeks. As I am accustomed to the nature of this boards section, maybe this thread would better be placed in the politics section as the topic is more a serious one itself.

God no, the Politics section in Boards kills discussions. I used to love it but it's changed too much with their concern for legalities. Proper discussion needs the contributions of all parties.

Look. The vast majority of posts on this thread, I see as posturing. They're regular posters on boards with a few thousand posts and they've covered this topic and similar a hundred times.

Here's an example. Maybe Wibbs remembers that I used to be very pro-Israel. I'd post on all the threads enjoying taking apart peoples posts and having my own posts ripped apart. I did extensive research on the topic, but I really didn't care that much about the issue itself. It wasn't until I went to Israel and the surrounding Arab nations that it actually gained any meaning. And then, oddly enough, I stopped posting to any threads about Israel or Palestine.

Most of the posters here have met a handful of muslims. They've probably never had any worse encounter with one than with another Irish person. At the same time, they've probably never walked down a street with a thousand men & women in full islamic attire, with the call to prayer sounding across the city. It's all abstract. It's not real to them. It's just a discussion. As it is with the political groupings, which is why it's easy to label people "left" and "right". I find the people who are so quick to label someone else are usually the people furthest removed from the topic they're discussing.

My objections to Islam in Europe are not based on the Religion. It's based on their cultural expectations and behavior. All easily solved if people want to do so.

JohnMc1

Gravelly wrote: »

Apparently those women (at least I think the are women) under those blue covers are demonstrating how empowering Islam is.....

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabby-aossey/muslims-are-the-true-feminists_b_9877692.html

Its amazes me that while Women in the Middle East are risking their lives to be rid of that burlap sack virtue signaling "Feminists" are fighting to have it in the West.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Err........................................................ No. Islam is a religion. A faith. People believe in its teachings and culture for their own sake. It's a religion because it exercises political power just as Christianity did. It's not purely a faith as such, but I think you're going overboard now.

Actually on this point I would disagree with you K. Islam is and was from the start far more a political movement and defined way of life and living as well as a religious faith. It's built into the fabric of it in a way no other Abrahamic faith has. Yes Christianity exercised political power, often in a big way, but it's not built into it. There is no blueprint for the perfect Christian political system written into the texts. In Islam there is. It even regulated taxes and banking. There is no Christian legal system written into the texts. In Islam there is(outside of Western law it's one of the largest legal frameworks). There is no Christian system for prosecuting a war written into the texts. In Islam there is. In Islam the notion of a church separation from state is almost unthinkable. the church, the faith is the state. As I noted earlier there is no Islamic equivalent of Jesus' line "my kingdom is not of this earth". It also wasn't filtered through the philosophies of the GrecoRoman world the way Christianity was. Because of all of the above a Reformation of Islam would be extremely difficult to pull off the way it happened in Christianity. While it comes from the same basic roots it's a very different animal to Christianity.

My objections to Islam in Europe are not based on the Religion. It's based on their cultural expectations and behavior. All easily solved if people want to do so.

Not so easy when the cultural expectations and behaviour are written into the religion at source. One way would be if most Muslims became Quran only adherents. Such folks exist and are known as Quranists. Their belief is that the Quran is all a Muslim needs, that the Hadith were written centuries after the events and people they describe and aren't mentioned at all in the Quran. The Quran on its own is fine and while there are a couple of martial type lines, we also find that in Christianity. Overall it's a much more accepting and measured set of texts.

Take for example apostasy and the punishments for it. In the Quran it stresses "There is no compulsion in religion" and repeats such sentiment throughout. That it is God's judgement, not man's(inc. the Prophet) when it comes to those who accept or reject faith. Which is a tad at odds with the various Hadith that state killing apostates as a given. There are many contradictions like that and in every case the Quran itself is by far the more "liberal" and "open". Indeed, in many ways more than Christianity.

The Hadith, the Sunnah, the stories of the life of the prophet are where almost all the worrying stuff springs from. Given Muslim scholars have for centuries argued over whether one Hadith or another is reliable or not, it could well happen that more and more would just go back to the Quran as the only source of their faith. I've even seen this in my own chats on the matter with Muslims down the years. Those that hold the more extreme full on views(I've met a few) get that almost entirely from Hadith, whereas those that are much more easygoing while still religious get that from the Quran.

A big issue with Quranists as a group is that they have been persecuted throughout Islamic history and remain so today if they identify as such. A few have been murdered for this belief.

Summer In the City

Thomas__. wrote: »

As long as the country is stable it can go on like that. Once there is a change of regime, it can be difficult. Just look at Syria, look at Turkey. Both were once rather secular and the latter even constitutional. Since the civil war in Syria, things are different and plenty of people fled the country to Jordan and Turkey. In Turkey with the growing power of Erdogan the country is step by step abandoning its constitutional secularity, as Erdogan is an Islamist himself.

And what makes you think the people fleeing the country want to bring more extreme values with them. The Syrians I know here love a pint as much as I do.

Summer In the City

donegaLroad wrote: »

It sounds like you live in a progressive country. We dont even have pork shops here in Ireland!

There's one on Camden Street. The pork shops here only exist where there is a population of Christians.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Summer In the City wrote: »

There's one on Camden Street. The pork shops here only exist where there is a population of Christians.

Isn't that like 95% of the country when you add up all the different denominations.

Gravelly

Summer In the City wrote: »

And what makes you think the people fleeing the country want to bring more extreme values with them. The Syrians I know here love a pint as much as I do.

See:

Germany.
Sweden.
United Kingdom.
United States.
Belgium.
Canada.
etc. etc. etc.

Surely even the most blinkered "refugees welcome" dreamer can't have missed all the islamic terrorism attacks of the past 20 years or so?

Summer In the City

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Isn't that like 95% of the country when you add up all the different denominations.

Its about 5% where I live.

Summer In the City

Gravelly wrote: »

See:

Germany.
Sweden.
United Kingdom.
United States.
Belgium.
Canada.
etc. etc. etc.

Surely even the most blinkered "refugees welcome" dreamer can't have missed all the islamic terrorism attacks of the past 20 years or so?

Most of which weren't carried out by refugees.

Gravelly

Summer In the City wrote: »

Most of which weren't carried out by refugees.

Indeed. Some were. And many were carried out by the offspring of refugees, so I guess that disproves your contention fairly convincingly.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, you see, I teach English to both migrants and the Traveller community in my hometown part-time. The thing about language learning is that you learn if you are motivated to learn. I spent my first five years in China barely learning anything because I didn't feel the need to learn. It was awkward but not impossible to live like that. It was only in my last two years that I started learning Chinese and only because I had no other real options (girlfriend wanted me to be able to speak to her parents).

The migrants I teach are a mixed bunch. Some obviously have prior education, and many other don't. TBH the people without much formal education actually learn the quickest since they're the ones most needing to be accepted and find work. Saying that though, I have received hostility from some of them simply because they need to learn, and because they don't commit themselves, they don't learn. Doesn't help that they speak to each other in their local dialects in spite of being told not to. But that's language students the world over.

You're missing something though. Resources have been allocated to help them. It's not all the government and their expensive initiatives. I teach without any cost. So too do my parents and a number of other people in my area. We have provided books, notebooks, etc to them without any charge so that they can improve. They have access to the local schools media rooms to watch documentaries or to play educational games.

I don't complain about immigration and do nothing about it. I'm active in supporting those who want to integrate themselves into our community, and our local society supports anyone who is actually interested in improving themselves. The few females from Islamic countries are excellent, but the males are useless. Everything is an insult to them. They need male teachers because they won't take instruction from a woman.

Our immigrants from Asia are wonderful. Respectful and very grateful for the help. Same with the vast majority of Africans, although those from North Africa seem to have similar issues as the Islamic migrants.

So, no, I'm calling crap on this... It's not as if they're in this country without the opportunities to learn. They have far more opportunities than most when living in a foreign country.

I disagree. I think there are very few supports.

jmayo wrote: »

If people need to be taught that raping and sexually assaulting women and minors is not on, then fook them they should not be here in the first place.
It would be akin to inviting some people into your home only to then have to teach some of them that sexually assaulting your wife/kids is not on.

Imagine how moronic that would be and yet that is precisely what some people want to do with our countries.

But what about language and basic customs? The thing we were talking about it.

jmayo wrote: »

And now come on.
You put it out that Syria (your first one) had camps for European refugees during WW2.

It was a response to someone asking about how it would be if Europeans went to a country like Saudi Arabia. It's not like I just pulled it out of the air. It was relevant to the discussion. But as you just like to pick random quotes out you probably didn't notice that.

jmayo wrote: »

The whole idea your were pushing was we should be welcoming because of what they did in the past.
You were pedaling the idea that the muslim populations of these countries threw out the welcome mat and we should do likewise.

You got an awful lot out of "In WW2, European refugees were housed in camps in Syria". Have you considered you might be reading into things a lot?

jmayo wrote: »

When it was pointed out that Syria was under French and then British rule you subsequently went off and threw out Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan took in refugees from Europe.
Then when I pointed out the situation most of those states found themselves in you try and obfuscate that the form of government doesn't matter.
And I admitted the Iran one was actually the most benevolent due to it's leader who was kinda pro German believe it or not and who subsequently got turfed out by British and Soviets.

Again, it would help if you followed the actual conversation. It was about how the citizens would react. The governments were irrelevant.

jmayo wrote: »

No you are being economical with the truth.
It would be like me saying Ireland was great after the war because we took in some people fleeing Europe.
Except that wouldn#'t be the whole story and the actual truth that we actually took in war criminals.

As above.

jmayo wrote: »

It kinda does have something to do with where they are coming from.

in your opinion, not in mine.

Summer In the City

Gravelly wrote: »

Indeed. Some were. And many were carried out by the offspring of refugees, so I guess that disproves your contention fairly convincingly.

Not really, no.

Wibbs

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I disagree. I think there are very few supports.

Right, so let me get this straight, you're disagreeing with zero sources or references with someone who actually works in this area and with non English speaking immigrants? That's some ego you have there.

Odhinn

TomSweeney wrote: »

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/988010035920883713?s=21

A Tool, with all the stupid fervent notions of the recently converted.

Wibbs wrote:

You'd miss it regardless. It is you after all. If you can't see the difference between a clearly educated individual calling for another human being to be killed for "the good of society" because they've decided of their own free will that makeyuppey Bronze Age blood cults aren't for them and someone quite reasonably debating the pros and cons of the current immigration and minorities issue within Europe, well I don't know what to think.

The assholes over at the "Gates of vienna" are reasonable? The IT teacher thats suddenly valid as a source? The evangelical minister who backed the apartheid regime( o look, he has a doctorate in Divinity.....)? Tommy Robinson? Cordell (the "comedian")? the repeated "statistics" that have shown again and again to be "speculative" at best? Pull the other one.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually on this point I would disagree with you K.

Oh, be still my aching heart.

It's cool. I use boards to talk out concepts that aren't completely formed in my head.

Not so easy when the cultural expectations and behaviour are written into the religion at source.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Easily solved by Westerners taking certain steps.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I disagree. I think there are very few supports.

Naturally. I suspect in your view there will never be enough support for these people.

Are you involved in helping/educating migrants? If not, perhaps it might help them for you to contribute your own time.

Captain Obvious

Wibbs wrote: »

Right, so let me get this straight, you're disagreeing with zero sources or references with someone who actually works in this area and with non English speaking immigrants? That's some ego you have there.

Did the poster you're agreeing with provide those sources and references or just give their experience? Or are you just accepting their point without issue because it suits you?

Deleted User wrote: »

Naturally. I suspect in your view there will never be enough support for these people.

Depends on the person really. Some migrants will adapt quickly and require little support. Some will have difficulty and will require more. Some will have special needs and require life time support.

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you involved in helping/educating migrants? If not, perhaps it might help them for you to contribute your own time.

For about 14 years now. Do I pass the test? Can I have an opinion?

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Depends on the person really. Some migrants will adapt quickly and require little support. Some will have difficulty and will require more. Some will have special needs and require life time support.

True enough. Still, I haven't encountered too many adults with special needs or learning impediments.

For about 14 years now. Do I pass the test? Can I have an opinion?

Overly sensitive perhaps? Have I come across as a sniping/bitchy poster on this thread?

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Did the poster you're agreeing with provide those sources and references or just give their experience? Or are you just accepting their point without issue because it suits you?

No, you're being fair. We don't post our resumes online or reveal our personal lives in a way that can be verified.

Wibbs knows my post history and would know if I posted anything out of form. My teaching is something that has arisen in other threads.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

True enough. Still, I haven't encountered too many adults with special needs or learning impediments.

Me neither. It tends to be children with these issues. But those are even more likely to require long term assistance.

Deleted User wrote: »

Overly sensitive perhaps? Have I come across as a sniping/bitchy poster on this thread?

You came across as dismissive in that post. But perhaps it just seemed that way as it followed on from the other poster.

Calhoun

We are just starting to shake off the last bits and pieces of the catholic church and its control over our society, we really have to be very careful how we thread with both new and old religions as we do not want to replace one with the other.

In a republic we should strive for complete segregation of church and state but let people within the republic have their own personal beliefs. Those personal beliefs however do not supersede the law of the land.

So to answer the question, no its not right for Ireland but maybe right for folk on a personal level. As long as we hold people of all fates and backgrounds to the same standard from a law perspective we should be ok.

bigpink

How are all these Muslims getting into the country?

2 Scoops

Inbreeding in the Pakistani community. "And they just end up describing ISIS" lol

Wibbs

2 Scoops wrote: »

Inbreeding in the Pakistani community. "And they just end up describing ISIS" lol

TBH I find I like Rogan in general, though would often disagree with him, however that piece is shockingly ill informed to the point where if I'm honest my first thought was along the lines of "Jesus, Yanks really do see the world in simplistic and ignorant ways".

For a start they contradict each other Rogan first goes on about how long this culture has lasted, then the other guy notes(correctly) that barely a generation ago most places in the ME were not like this. Neither take that point further. Secondly Rogan states the Quran is a violent book, when it's actually not, or no less violent than Christianity(and the old testament god is a bloody psycho). The usual WASP trope of the inquisition is trotted out, even though the worst of the inquisitions killed far fewer people than the state courts and witch burning was mostly a Protestant fetish. Hell the other guy can't even pronounce the word consanguinity while's he accusing the Muslim world of being inbred banjo players and Rogan doesn't even realise that "Retarded" is/was a medical definition. The other guy mentions Jewish communities and among some they're quite "inbred" too, yet they give the world more Nobel prize winners.

Like I say I generally like Joe, as he often asks more "real world" type questions that mainstream interviewers and usually isn't afraid to say "I don't know"(all too rare in commentators), but bugger me the dumb is strong in those 8 minutes.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I say I generally like Joe, as he often asks more "real world" type questions that mainstream interviewers and usually isn't afraid to say "I don't know"(all too rare in commentators), but bugger me the dumb is strong in those 8 minutes.

I kinda like him but his interviews seriously rely on the guests to do the heavy lifting in the knowledge & logic departments, unless its a relatively easy topic like feminism, SJWs etc. I get the sense that he needs that chat with a guest before the interview happens to get prepared.

Nice guy, but... he could spend more time on boards getting his posts properly ripped apart.

K.Flyer

While we are on the subject of Joe Rogan and Islam in Ireland.
This is one of his latest shows where Joe gets to chat with Maajid Nawaz who is the founding chairman of Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank that seeks to challenge the narratives of Islamist extremists.
Maajid was once a member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir which led to his arrest in Egypt in December 2001, where he served 5 years.
During this time he turned his back on extreme Islamic ideals.
As with all of Joe's interviews it can go off in tangents, but it really is worth a listen given the thread subject matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGdPcC0zBIQ

TomSweeney

K.Flyer wrote: »

While we are on the subject of Joe Rogan and Islam in Ireland.
This is one of his latest shows where Joe gets to chat with Maajid Nawaz who is the founding chairman of Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank that seeks to challenge the narratives of Islamist extremists.
Maajid was once a member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir which led to his arrest in Egypt in December 2001, where he served 5 years.
During this time he turned his back on extreme Islamic ideals.
As with all of Joe's interviews it can go off in tangents, but it really is worth a listen given the thread subject matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGdPcC0zBIQ

It's a great podcast actually, they also cover the whole gender transitioning nonsense too ...

2 Scoops

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I find I like Rogan in general, though would often disagree with him, however that piece is shockingly ill informed to the point where if I'm honest my first thought was along the lines of "Jesus, Yanks really do see the world in simplistic and ignorant ways".

I like Joe too but I don't take him literally. I was really only referring to the points McInnes made about inbreeding which are true

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/4014743/Warning-over-births-to-first-cousin-marriages.html

"Although British parents of Pakistani origin account for 3.4 per cent of all births nationwide, they also account for around 30 per cent of children born with recessive gene disorders.While only 15 per cent of the population in Bradford is of Pakistani origin, an estimated 55 per cent are married to their first cousins.
The city has the second highest number of infant deaths in England and birth disorders involving recessive genes are 10 to 15 per cent higher than the general population, according to a study by St Luke's Hospital, Bradford."

Summer In the City

McInnes is a nasty piece of work even if you take his political leanings out of the equation. He describes himself as the godfather of hipsters and is also responsible for Vice.

2 Scoops

Summer In the City wrote: »

McInnes is a nasty piece of work even if you take his political leanings out of the equation. He describes himself as the godfather of hipsters and is also responsible for Vice.

Yes I'm quite aware who he is, thanks. I think he's hilarious.

Summer In the City

2 Scoops wrote: »

Yes I'm quite aware who he is, thanks. I think he's hilarious.

I think he's hilarious too. Probably for different reasons though.

Brae100

Is anyone familiar with Anne Marie Waters? Leadrer of the new For Britain, anti-Islamic party. She is Irish born. Very good speaker.

Thomas__.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry but here we separate in opinions. You've fallen for the modern propaganda of there being only the left and the right. I'm neither. I'm still a conservative with both left/right opinions depending on the topic on hand. The "crowd" want everyone to think of either the left or right because, once again, like with Religion, they're absolutes. Right or Wrong. Good Vs Evil. And easily to manage and control people once they believe there's only two options. It's one of the main reasons the US political system is so flawed. The reliance on two parties. And it's the same here with the "left" and the "right". Put people into clearly marked boxes and just dismiss them.
I'm a pragmatist. I recognise my own flaws. I am somewhat racist towards Travellers, as most Irish people I know are. I just don't pretend I'm not. I'm not racist against Black people but I'm very uncomfortable with large groups of them. Images of mobs with Machetes flash through my mind. And I'm uncomfortable with the deeply religious because I grew up in a very religious family, and spent my childhood around the devout.
I prefer to think in what is practical rather than what is "left" or "right". Or Racist or Bigot. They're just labels that people throw around to diminish an opposing persons opinion. [This post will undoubtedly draw some of those very labels.]

We have serious social issues that nobody wants to deal with, and a political system that is incapable of going against public opinion, even while just postponing important issues for the next government to deal with. The Banking crash taught me that. Remember the anger at what the property developers, Banks, and the government had done to us? How long did that rage last? Not long, and virtually nobody was punished.

Err........................................................ No. Islam is a religion. A faith. People believe in its teachings and culture for their own sake. It's a religion because it exercises political power just as Christianity did. It's not purely a faith as such, but I think you're going overboard now.

Many Muslims interpret Islamic doctrine differently. It's not a guidebook for world domination. It merely encourages what people want to believe. It just happens that there are more nutjobs following Islam than Christianity right now... we had our own nutjobs centuries past.

I don't have any problem with Islam as long as it's culture and way of life stays within their own nations or the home of the believer. It can be a very beautiful religion at times.

Here's an example. Maybe Wibbs remembers that I used to be very pro-Israel. I'd post on all the threads enjoying taking apart peoples posts and having my own posts ripped apart. I did extensive research on the topic, but I really didn't care that much about the issue itself. It wasn't until I went to Israel and the surrounding Arab nations that it actually gained any meaning. And then, oddly enough, I stopped posting to any threads about Israel or Palestine.

My objections to Islam in Europe are not based on the Religion. It's based on their cultural expectations and behavior. All easily solved if people want to do so.

You have mistaken me there. What I wrote about the left-right boxes isn't me falling for the modern propaganda as you said, it is my observation how old ideologies have become attractive once again for some people as they present themselves in 'new clothes'. The radicals on both sides are trying hard to come across more moderate to gain support and in a subtile way spread the old resentments wrapped in altered formula but which are still the same. Always denying to be in any way racist or fascist as one can't be that blunt with it these days as this would rather put some people off who otherwise share a certain propotion of their opinions. Similar with the far-left, seeking to bring about a violent revolution to bring down the capitalist system which is shown in riots during G20 or G7 Summits or any other major issue that leads to mass protests. The labelling is done by the two opposing factions and their followers.


I know that some people like yourself are inclined to dismiss this diversion as being outdated and unfit for our modern times. But to dismiss them as outdated doesn't make them go away as you can see in many European countries as well as in the USA with their alt-right movement (who even managed to get influence in the WH due to Trump being elected and this nasty 'sloppy Steve' Bannon been the driving force behind it). Fascism and Communism have discredited themselves in the 20th Century, but parts of their ideology still live on because there are still people who believe in them and who try to bring more people to believe in that too (once again). In order to gain support they have to alter their propaganda approach to make it less obvious what is behind it. For that to see one has to be familiar with the cores of both ideologies which means to know as much about it to detect it when it shows its face again. The new cloaks they've chosen to cover the real ideas is just a mask that doesn't holds fast cos one time it simply breaks through and often when they are among themselves and think that nobody is watching them so that they can freely speak their mind and show what sort of people they really are. Some who were not aware of that before might have their awakening and leave, others might enjoy it as they think that they've found the right place to be.


Maybe you didn't bother too much with the history and the core values of these ideologies and the way how they survived in the decades after their downfall. I say that they are not dead, they never really were, they were just put out of power after what their followers and representatives have done to people. It is very hard to really 'kill' ideologies because for that there must be nobody ever taking them up again.


You can replace right with 'anti-Muslim' or 'anti-immigration' and left with 'pro-Muslim' and 'pro-immigration' and still you would have the same people on the extreme sides who are under the influence of the old ideologies as one can also put the label of 'nationalism' versus 'internationalism' on it. It is just a change of terms, nothing more.  

Then there are people who are just between the extremes, just like you and me. I detest racism and still have some prejudices towards some cultures because of my experiences and in some ways because they are not for me, or in another expression, aren't of my liking. I don't have such imaginations in my mind like you do, I see radicals always following the same patterns, just to change the symbols and ideology. Radical Islamists have the means to make a semi-political ideology out of Islam and that is what they have done. Their strive for world dominance is no mere right-wing propaganda, it has been admitted quite bluntly by ISIS representatives who were interviewed by freelance journalists. The higher ranks, and more so those converts who are - as usual - the worst because they are often the top zealots among the Jihadists know about history and they know it very well. They used the patterns from it and tried to avoid the failures from the past, but as we have seen, it didn't work for that long to consolidate their Caliphat in Syria and Iraq to extent it further in the MidEast and as the next aim of them was, to Europe as well.


The MidEast is a very complicated and very sensitive area with problems that have been caused by the way the Allies of WWI have sliced up the former Ottoman Empire, drawing borders without considering the ethnical settlements in the whole area and thus put tribes and ethnical groups in one state in which they didn't want to live with the others (that includes the varieties within Islam). It was Europeans deciding on the fate and the future of people they didn't know anything about, just for the sake to order the MidEast in the way they saw fit and this was done between the French and the Brits in 1919 who got their mandate from the League of Nations to administer that region which included Palestine. Similar happened during the colonisation in Africa. The problems stemming from that time are still with us.


I see myself also as a pragmatist, but in contrast to you not conservative but centre-left leaning. In short I am a Social Democrat of the old meaning and in some ways, one could even say that it bears some conservatism too in regards of the grassroots of that. Believe it or not, if it wasn't for detecting the old extreme ideologies emerging on the surface once again I could well do without the right / left labels, but it doesn't alters the fact that old evil is about to rear its head once again.    
The serious issues you speak of are not just to see in the Republic of Ireland, they are present in many Western EU member states, though the Eastern EU member states have lesser problems of the likes because they don't have had the mass influx of refugees in the years 2015 and 2016. Plus there are fewer EU citizens going there to settle as their citizens have moved to Western EU member states. The EU has achieved to integrate the former Eastern Bloc countries but she has (not yet) achieved to overcome the old divide stemming from that time. Such matters take time and that means it takes decades, even generations to get over it.


As for the differences in interpreting Islam by Muslims, you can make doctrines out of everything that suits the purpose. Otherwise there wouldn't be hate preachers in Mosques. It is them who form the doctrines in the Islamic world who are themselves diehard conservatives and have the support by likeminded Muslims.  


It is interesting to notice your former pro-Israel stance as I have been of that like myself as well. I ceased to post on Israel threads as well because I have become fed up with the situation down there and more to the Point watching the diehards on both sides making live difficult for their people. I am not a Palestine sympathisers, in fact I don't like the Palestinians despite their suffering because partly they have brought some of it onto themselves and on the other part it is clear enough that much of it rests on the responsibility of Israel in this never ending circle of violence and retaliation. It is down there like it is in many parts on this planet where extremists and other sorts of radicals have power of people and try to change things by violence. Israel has often been left to respond in the same manner because the state is obliged to protect its citizens (Jewish and Arab alike). It is a very complicated matter and I rather stop here from going any further into it. I think that I might know what you meant regarding this.  

I agree with you on your last paragraph, just that I don't think that it could be easily solved unless one takes to radical measures and such a choosing would rather create new problems because it wouldn't go without response, at worst in a tit-for-tat way.

Thomas__.

Summer In the City wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

As long as the country is stable it can go on like that. Once there is a change of regime, it can be difficult. Just look at Syria, look at Turkey. Both were once rather secular and the latter even constitutional. Since the civil war in Syria, things are different and plenty of people fled the country to Jordan and Turkey. In Turkey with the growing power of Erdogan the country is step by step abandoning its constitutional secularity, as Erdogan is an Islamist himself.

And what makes you think the people fleeing the country want to bring more extreme values with them. The Syrians I know here love a pint as much as I do.

I was referring to the political leaders of these countries, not the refugees from there who fled to Europe. There is a difference between them which is in one example that the many refugees strongly disagree with the present leaders of their home countries.