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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Is Islam right for Ireland?
Comments
-
Aside from the Qatar point, do you have concerns over the Mosque being partly funded by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan though?? Neither of which are known for their open mindedness or excellent treatment of women. Different funders, same issues.
The mosque in Blanchardstown that just got permission?
I have no information about Saudi or Pakistani state funding for that mosque. I would have some concerns if that was the case.
I don't have concerns about the doctor tapping his contacts in the medical communities in those countries for funding.
As far as I know, the guy behind this development is a decent sort and I've heard nothing untoward about his motives.
It's a development of an existing mosque and community centre which doesn't appear to have attracted negative controversy and as far as I know have been good neighbours up to now.0 -
The mosque in Blanchardstown that just got permission?
I have no information about Saudi or Pakistani state funding for that mosque. I would have some concerns if that was the case.
I don't have concerns about the doctor tapping his contacts in the medical communities in those countries for funding.
As far as I know, the guy behind this development is a decent sort and I've heard nothing untoward about his motives.
It's a development of an existing mosque and community centre which doesn't appear to have attracted negative controversy and as far as I know have been good neighbours up to now.
Fair enough. Id be very skeptical of the money coming from "medical communities" line. I doubt theyd admit it was from the State as would know people wouldnt be happy with that.
However if the money is from the Medical community in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan then its still coming from an area where the ideology is extreme and that would still concern me. Thats just my view on it anyway.0 -
The mosque in Blanchardstown that just got permission?
....
As far as I know, the guy behind this development is a decent sort and I've heard nothing untoward about his motives.
It's a development of an existing mosque and community centre which doesn't appear to have attracted negative controversy and as far as I know have been good neighbours up to now.
Eh one of the leaders of Al qaeda
is Dr Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri an Egyptian surgeon.
Pakistani MIT trained neuroscientist Dr Aafia Siddiqui is serving 86 year sentence for Al qaeda linked attacks on US personnel.
One of the Glasgow Airport attackers was doctor with links to Iraq.
Just because people are linked to medical profession does not make them somehow immune from being dodgy extremists.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
I've no clue who Dr Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri is or why you're trying to link his to the Blanchardstown mosque development.Eh one of the leaders of Al qaeda
is Dr Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri an Egyptian surgeon.
Pakistani MIT trained neuroscientist Dr Aafia Siddiqui is serving 86 year sentence for Al qaeda linked attacks on US personnel.
One of the Glasgow Airport attackers was doctor with links to Iraq.
Just throwing some mud around to see if any will stick I presume.
Nobody ever claimed that it does.Just because people are linked to medical profession does not make them somehow immune from being dodgy extremists.
0 -
More cultural enrichment this time Belgium
https://twitter.com/breakingnlive/status/995568216217972737?s=210 -
..Only a complete moron refuses to see issues with wahhabist Saudi and Qatari sponsored mosques.
Wahhabism, or Salafism, certainly comes with serious issues, but its representation in the UK is probably still in the lower percentages.
A greater concern may be with Deobandi as it would be a similar fundamentalist doctrine to Wahhabism, but approached in a slightly different way. With around 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars. What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a very conservative interpretation of Islamic law where television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon, if not banned. Women are advised not to emerge from their homes any more than is necessary and advised not to travel any great distance unchaperoned, and this is in Britain our next door neighbour.0 -
Snake Plisken wrote: »More cultural enrichment this time Belgium
https://twitter.com/breakingnlive/status/995568216217972737?s=21
The problem in Belgium is there it is too late to do anything about this now. I don't see Ireland being any different in 10 years time. The Parnell Street-Moore Street area is already a no go zone after dark. We are in for some of the same medicine very soon.0 -
10000maniacs wrote: »The Parnell Street-Moore Street area is already a no go zone after dark.
In what way?0 -
A middle aged pervert set up as judge jury and executioner accosting teenage girls for immodest dress, men for gambling and drinking, people for engaging in extra marital sex ( how they find this out I do not know) and the punishments carried in public range from whipping, stoning and hand cutting off was mentioned, to the obvious smiling delight of the sharia police officer in charge of this Nazi goon squad.
I would cheerfully put a bullet through this animals head, no qualms no scruples.
It is very revealing that the whipper was masked from head to toe and could not be identified but a bullet through the head would also be very appropriate.
These animals need to be kept out of Ireland and controlled very carefully with maximum prejudice. What happens if our people are subjected to this form of religious tyranny after hundreds of years of combat between fanatic lunatics both Protestant and Catholics???
Parts of Belgium, Sweden, France and Germany are now no go areas because of these people trying to impose their warped and sadistic values on the rest of western society. Lets hope they try that stunt in the rougher areas of Dublin. People would turf them out very rapidly if they tried.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »In what way?
Stabbings, muggings, fighting in the street. My workmate was mugged while walking from Parnell St Cinema to Moore street a few weeks ago. I took the same route in January and I saw a large group of black men in a punch up in Moore Street. Got out of there pretty quick.0 -
Advertisement
-
nuslims can help Ireland rid the country of churches.
All in the family
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/three-churches-targeted-in-indonesian-terror-attacks/news-story/edf55534a1e851eaa928fb074662be410 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »This nonsense again.
Cologne chief of police said it was a peaceful night, media refuses to talk about it for days...no cover up at all.0 -
-
Snake Plisken wrote: »More cultural enrichment this time Belgium
https://twitter.com/breakingnlive/status/995568216217972737?s=21
This video shows a couple of guys getting attacked by a group of other men. It does not show how or why the fight started. I checked the Belgian newspapers and from what I can gather from an admittedly rough translation of the local publication (https://m.gva.be/cnt/dmf20180512_03509790/vader-en-zoon-afgevoerd-naar-ziekenhuis-na-stevige-vechtpartij-op-rooseveltplaats) the two men attacked were intoxicated and were drinking alcohol on a premises where alcohol was not sold. An employee spoke to them about it and they reacted aggressively, with one of the staff being headbutted.
Granted, the behaviour of the people attacking them in this video is utterly vicious and it remains undoubtedly a savage assault. But the narrative being spun that these guys were set upon by assailants purely for drinking alcohol outside this premises owned by a Muslim -- well -- it doesn't seem to be the case.
Happy to stand corrected on this but again I wonder why people continue to just take source material at face value -- even when that source material doesn't even show the key incident (i.e. how the fight actually started).0 -
10000maniacs wrote: »Stabbings, muggings, fighting in the street. My workmate was mugged while walking from Parnell St Cinema to Moore street a few weeks ago. I took the same route in January and I saw a large group of black men in a punch up in Moore Street. Got out of there pretty quick.
I got mugged on Moore street in 1993.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »This video shows a couple of guys getting attacked by a group of other men. It does not show how or why the fight started. I checked the Belgian newspapers and from what I can gather from an admittedly rough translation of the local publication (https://m.gva.be/cnt/dmf20180512_03509790/vader-en-zoon-afgevoerd-naar-ziekenhuis-na-stevige-vechtpartij-op-rooseveltplaats) the two men attacked were intoxicated and were drinking alcohol on a premises where alcohol was not sold. An employee spoke to them about it and they reacted aggressively, with one of the staff being headbutted.
Granted, the behaviour of the people attacking them in this video is utterly vicious and it remains undoubtedly a savage assault. But the narrative being spun that these guys were set upon by assailants purely for drinking alcohol outside this premises owned by a Muslim -- well -- it doesn't seem to be the case.
Happy to stand corrected on this but again I wonder why people continue to just take source material at face value -- even when that source material doesn't even show the key incident (i.e. how the fight actually started).
Another Comical Ali type reply.0 -
10000maniacs wrote: »Another Comical Ali type reply.
The very last line of my post reads that I am happy to stand corrected. I note that rather than correct me, you have simply dismissed my post without any reasons for doing so. You might forgive me for once again thinking that your views are formed on the flimsy basis of just believing any information you come across which confirms your world view -- rather than treat it with even some scepticism.
The narrative being given is that these guys were set upon purely for drinking alcohol outside a 'Muslim premises'. The news reports seem to indicate that the two men were drunk, asked for alcohol, were told that the premises did not serve alcohol -- and a staff member was headbutted. Cue brawl.
It took me about 5 minutes to locate that news article which suggests that. If you are sure about your interpretation of the video, then I would imagine it should take you no more than 5 minutes to correct my misinterpretation.0 -
10000maniacs wrote: »Stabbings, muggings, fighting in the street. My workmate was mugged while walking from Parnell St Cinema to Moore street a few weeks ago. I took the same route in January and I saw a large group of black men in a punch up in Moore Street. Got out of there pretty quick.
If a fight and a mugging is all it takes to make somewhere a no-go zone for you then I'm surprised you leave the house. Or is it just because they were black men that made it so scary for you?A Pint of Goo wrote: »Cologne chief of police said it was a peaceful night, media refuses to talk about it for days...no cover up at all.
Just another made up right wing scandal to scare folk.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/claim-of-media-cover-up-on-cologne-sex-attacks-is-nonsense-1.2492574Hours after the first claims surfaced on Facebook on January 1st, Cologne’s local newspapers contacted police. After receiving confirmation that there were dozens of complaints, they ran several stories online and in their January 2nd editions.
Cologne’s Express newspaper headlined its report from 10:49pm on January 1st: New Year’s Eve Central Station: Young Women Sexually Harassed.
Its competitor newspaper, the Rundschau, also carried a report on January 1st: “Women harassed at central station. A near mass panic at the cathedral0 -
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/995838877800648706
I guess they must have been sick of all the American bombing of Indonesia - oh
wait ....
It's a poisonous ideology, what else could brainwash someone so much to coerce their own children to do this ??0 -
Advertisement
-
Hector Savage wrote: »https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/995838877800648706
I guess they must have been sick of all the American bombing of Indonesia - oh
wait ....
It's a poisonous ideology, what else could brainwash someone so much to coerce their own children to do this ??
I keep coming back to this point though -- how many people on this thread are defending extremism or even just the religion of Islam itself? I haven't seen anyone here claim that Islam is a good thing at all.
In fact, as I have repeated, I can quite happily say that Islam as a religion is a repressive and vicious faith. I have always said the same about Christianity, though of course the big 'C' in Christianity has been taken down a few pegs by enlightened ideals (you know, those 'liberals' who are doomed for eternity to drag conservatives kicking and screaming into modernity). I have for many years been an advocate of speaking out against religious dogma. I am against any form of ideology which encourages people to place placation of a mythological omnipotent ghost above a healthier balance of compassion and rationalism.
So I ask you, what point are you making above? Are you simply reminding us that Islam has an extremist issue, or that Islam is a terrible religion? Either way --- who here is disagreeing with you?0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »If a fight and a mugging is all it takes to make somewhere a no-go zone for you then I'm surprised you leave the house. Or is it just because they were black men that made it so scary for you?
Just another made up right wing scandal to scare folk.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/claim-of-media-cover-up-on-cologne-sex-attacks-is-nonsense-1.2492574
Any comment on the Indonesian attacks on christian churches ?
Any comment on the latest Paris attack or was it just another poor mentally ill muslim ?
Or as usual are you just nitpicking?ArthurDayne wrote: »I keep coming back to this point though -- how many people on this thread are defending extremism or even just the religion of Islam itself? I haven't seen anyone here claim that Islam is a good thing at all.
In fact, as I have repeated, I can quite happily say that Islam as a religion is a repressive and vicious faith. I have always said the same about Christianity, though of course the big 'C' in Christianity has been taken down a few pegs by enlightened ideals (you know, those 'liberals' who are doomed for eternity to drag conservatives kicking and screaming into modernity). I have for many years been an advocate of speaking out against religious dogma. I am against any form of ideology which encourages people to place placation of a mythological omnipotent ghost above a healthier balance of compassion and rationalism.
So I ask you, what point are you making above? Are you simply reminding us that Islam has an extremist issue, or that Islam is a terrible religion? Either way --- who here is disagreeing with you?
So then why agree to people coming into the country who subscribe to this terrible religion, your words for islam?
See how well muslim immigration to the UK, France, Belgium and now lately Sweden and Germany has worked out.
Why repeat the problem here ?
And that question is also for Captain Obvious who thanked your post.
I just cannot get my head around the fact that the very ones who would normally subscribe to liberal, secular, non religious interference, non discriminatory values in society are the very ones championing the introduction of people whose views generally are anathema to theirs.
It is really like turkeys voting for christmas. :rolleyes:I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Any comment on the Indonesian attacks on christian churches ?
Yes, it's awfulAny comment on the latest Paris attack or was it just another poor mentally ill muslim ?
Yes, it's awful.Or as usual are you just nitpicking?
Do you get sad when people ruin your fantasies?0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »I keep coming back to this point though -- how many people on this thread are defending extremism or even just the religion of Islam itself? I haven't seen anyone here claim that Islam is a good thing at all.
In fact, as I have repeated, I can quite happily say that Islam as a religion is a repressive and vicious faith. I have always said the same about Christianity, though of course the big 'C' in Christianity has been taken down a few pegs by enlightened ideals (you know, those 'liberals' who are doomed for eternity to drag conservatives kicking and screaming into modernity). I have for many years been an advocate of speaking out against religious dogma. I am against any form of ideology which encourages people to place placation of a mythological omnipotent ghost above a healthier balance of compassion and rationalism.
So I ask you, what point are you making above? Are you simply reminding us that Islam has an extremist issue, or that Islam is a terrible religion? Either way --- who here is disagreeing with you?
That it seems to be the ONLY religion in the modern world that is killing people in terror attacks with such frequency.
It seems impossible to reform.
I agree with your post there, but you guys seem very optimistic on how things will turn out - I do hope you're right, but I just can't see it.0 -
Hector Savage wrote: »That it seems to be the ONLY religion in the modern world that is killing people in terror attacks with such frequency.
...the only religion that has a sect thats so actively anti-western. Were one in Myanamar, India or Sri Lanka its rather different.0 -
...the only religion that has a sect thats so actively anti-western. Were one in Myanamar, India or Sri Lanka its rather different.
Ah yes Whataboutery, the go to answer.
Mind reminding us of all the attacks carried out by Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists outside of parts of Asia over the last couple of decades ?I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah yes Whataboutery, the go to answer.
Mind reminding us of all the attacks carried out by Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists outside of parts of Asia over the last couple of decades ?
Why? You won't accept anything that goes against the "evil muslim" narrative, and like to set your own goalposts in that regard.0 -
So then why agree to people coming into the country who subscribe to this terrible religion, your words for islam?
See how well muslim immigration to the UK, France, Belgium and now lately Sweden and Germany has worked out.
Why repeat the problem here ?
And that question is also for Captain Obvious who thanked your post.
I just cannot get my head around the fact that the very ones who would normally subscribe to liberal, secular, non religious interference, non discriminatory values in society are the very ones championing the introduction of people whose views generally are anathema to theirs.
It is really like turkeys voting for christmas. :rolleyes:
I hate the religion, not necessarily the individuals who subscribe to it to at varying levels of literalism. I can't stand Catholicism and all of its repressive anti-rational dogma, but I don't hate everyday Catholics nor am I blind enough to suppose that every Catholic is a fundamentalist. There are 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet. The economies of the Arab world and East Asia are growing and becoming increasingly important to countries like Ireland who are almost completely dependant on investment from the outside world to avoid economic collapse. As a country which is happily taking part in globalism and capitalism, we simply are not going to be able to avoid demographics (i.e. Muslims form almost 25% of the entire world population so it is inevitable that we are going to encounter a fair few of them coming here!).
The second issue is the level of sensationalism which is being employed. I have lived in both Brussels and Paris. The 'Muslim problem' there is insanely exaggerated and the talk of 'no-go' areas is utter sensationalism. As well as that, the contexts are different. France and Belgium both have historical colonial legacies which they failed to deal with sensibly. France happily p*ssed all over North Africa to satisfy its own imperial greed, then invited hundreds of thousands of North Africans in the mid-20th century to help rebuild France after the war, then made no attempt them to integrate them or their children. No French identity was ever cultivated and France has been dealing with that problem ever since. The British -- to their credit (and possibly due to having already experienced non-white migration from India) -- were much more open to assimilation and have been much more successful in promoting a sense of 'Britishness' among Muslim immigrants and their children.
So what is the way forward? Well, we either ban Muslims from Ireland or we don't. It is as simple as that. If we do not ban them, then there seems to me little point in having them come here only to be treated with hatred and suspicion -- something which will only make their integration more difficult. Had the British banned Irish people from entering the UK during the IRA bombing campaign, or deported Irish people to reduce the terror threat -- that probably would have greatly harmed the IRA's campaign. But would banning/deporting Irish people have been the right thing to do ? And would it merely have solved a short-term problem and created an even bigger long-term one?0 -
Why? You won't accept anything that goes against the "evil muslim" narrative, and like to set your own goalposts in that regard.
Seriously, you're accusing someone of moving the goalposts after this post?
...the only religion that has a sect thats so actively anti-western. Were one in Myanamar, India or Sri Lanka its rather different.
Not only is he right, he's talking about the one that's relevant in Europe. You're the one going on tangents.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Seriously, you're accusing someone of moving the goalposts after this post?
...the only religion that has a sect thats so actively anti-western. Were one in Myanamar, India or Sri Lanka its rather different.
Not only is he right, he's talking about the one that's relevant in Europe. You're the one going on tangents.
You mean "putting it in perspective".0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »A one-liner listing off three countries does not put Islamic extremism "into perspective". It's just a nothing post designed to break the conversation, which it has.
Yep, thats "putting it into perspective". Jaysus forbid somebody defy you and a few others consensus on the matter.0 -
-
ArthurDayne wrote: »I hate the religion, not necessarily the individuals who subscribe to it to at varying levels of literalism. I can't stand Catholicism and all of its repressive anti-rational dogma, but I don't hate everyday Catholics nor am I blind enough to suppose that every Catholic is a fundamentalist.
A hell of a difference between a catholic fundamentalist and a muslim one now in fairness.
What often passes for a moderate muslim would probably be seen as a catholic fundamentalist, but few of the "I know a moderate muslim" group ever concede that point.ArthurDayne wrote: »There are 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet. The economies of the Arab world and East Asia are growing and becoming increasingly important to countries like Ireland who are almost completely dependant on investment from the outside world to avoid economic collapse. As a country which is happily taking part in globalism and capitalism, we simply are not going to be able to avoid demographics (i.e. Muslims form almost 25% of the entire world population so it is inevitable that we are going to encounter a fair few of them coming here!).
That argument stinks of how the US or UK are up the holes of the Saudis and Qataris all because they have money and oil.ArthurDayne wrote: »The second issue is the level of sensationalism which is being employed. I have lived in both Brussels and Paris. The 'Muslim problem' there is insanely exaggerated and the talk of 'no-go' areas is utter sensationalism. As well as that, the contexts are different. France and Belgium both have historical colonial legacies which they failed to deal with sensibly. France happily p*ssed all over North Africa to satisfy its own imperial greed, then invited hundreds of thousands of North Africans in the mid-20th century to help rebuild France after the war, then made no attempt them to integrate them or their children. No French identity was ever cultivated and France has been dealing with that problem ever since. The British -- to their credit (and possibly due to having already experienced non-white migration from India) -- were much more open to assimilation and have been much more successful in promoting a sense of 'Britishness' among Muslim immigrants and their children.
For all Britain's efforts and supposed success they have around 23,000 jihadists.
Yes France screwed up, but blaming it all on their colonial past is a bit much today.
And you talk about Belgium.
Why do they have problems ?
Their colonial past is linked to Congo, not a muslim country and their initial muslim immigrants came from Turkey and North Africa in the 1960s.
Yet they have terror attacks, al qeada cells, ISIS fighters, etc.ArthurDayne wrote: »So what is the way forward? Well, we either ban Muslims from Ireland or we don't. It is as simple as that. If we do not ban them, then there seems to me little point in having them come here only to be treated with hatred and suspicion -- something which will only make their integration more difficult. Had the British banned Irish people from entering the UK during the IRA bombing campaign, or deported Irish people to reduce the terror threat -- that probably would have greatly harmed the IRA's campaign. But would banning/deporting Irish people have been the right thing to do ? And would it merely have solved a short-term problem and created an even bigger long-term one?
For a start do not take anyone with unverifiable background, no matter where they claim they are from.
Stop importing unskilled uneducated immigrants from anywhere outside EU.
There are enough unemployed youth in the EU without importing anyone.
And this rules out the importation of those who hail from a totally incompatible cultural background.
Allow in skilled educated immigrants, but again I would favour countries that are secular and culturally compatible.
For instance I would have absolutely no issue with immigrants such as Yosuke Sasaki, but his killer should have been arrested on sight and marked for deportation.
Hell if we implemented a similar immigration policy to that in place in most muslim states we would solve the future problems overnight. :rolleyes:
Trying to equate the PIRA bombing campaign with what has been happening in Europe over the last couple of decades is whataboutery.
There was a massive Irish immigrant community and massive population of Irish descent in Britain for centuries that had totally assimilated into British society.
The Irish whilst keeping some traditions were not looking for segregation, in fact it was the opposite.
The PIRA were attacking UK and UK soldiers based overseas for a cause related to Ireland.
They didn't attack Britain, USA because they backed Indonesia who were subjugating catholics in East Timor.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »So what is the way forward? Well, we either ban Muslims from Ireland or we don't. It is as simple as that.
Why do you think this is the choice? I and others here have suggested a fair system where we take vetted immigrants (of any faith or race) based on a points system, like so many other countries do. There is no need to "ban muslims from Ireland" - this is just mindless hyperbole.0 -
Ireland has for long equated culture, customs and laws with a christian, mostly catholic ethos. It now needs to broaden its laws, customs and values to accommodate non christian and secular values without plunging into chaos.
ALL people need to be educated in these standards and we need to challenge violations of these standards such as judicial corporal punishment and mutilation endorsed by Sharia law.
Customs like the wearing of face covering burkas, prohibition of women walking around alone, hostile attitudes to Irish customs like drinking, eating pork etc need to be challenged and openly discussed. Any attempt to impose alien forms of modesty beyond reason need to be vigourously challenged or we will enter a new dark age of theocracy just after emerging from the previous theocracy and dark times of catholic oppression. I am old enough to know what that was like and have no intention of going back there or letting any government impose this tyranny on us.
Ireland is fortunate that we have a sizeable group of growing non nationals from other nations beside those who profess Islam, we need to get their views and experiences on how to prevent Islam from dominating the multicultural agenda. We also need to keep our non national intake as diverse as possible to avoid having a monolithic and united minority challenging our systems and beliefs and marginalising the native Irish.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »
Yes, it's awful
Yes, it's awful.
Do you get sad when people ruin your fantasies?
You really don't come across as sincere when you say "Yes, it's awful"0 -
10000maniacs wrote: »You really don't come across as sincere when you say "Yes, it's awful"
Why? Because I'm not trying to milk it to justify my agenda? Or because it doesn't make me want to hop on your hate wagon? They were two terrible incidents and the loss of life is awful, particularly the children.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Why? Because I'm not trying to milk it to justify my agenda? Or because it doesn't make me want to hop on your hate wagon? They were two terrible incidents and the loss of life is awful, particularly the children.
Yes its awful .....Positively Dick Emery in timing.
BTW, which hate are you talking about on my side?0 -
You seem to be conveniently forgetting that, not a thousand years ago but within living memory : it was illegal to be gay in Ireland and contraception was illegal. Irish Catholics in the main stood idly by while the Church openly engaged in the suppression of free thought . It remains illegal in Ireland for a woman impregnated from rape to get an abortion.A hell of a difference between a catholic fundamentalist and a muslim one now in fairness.
What often passes for a moderate muslim would probably be seen as a catholic fundamentalist, but few of the "I know a moderate muslim" group ever concede that point.
So no -- there is no 'hell of a difference' between fundamentalist Catholicism and fundamentalist Islam in themselves. The only difference is that liberalism got a foothold in Europe and eventually diluted the power of fundamentalist Catholicism, while in many Muslim countries liberalism is suppressed.That argument stinks of how the US or UK are up the holes of the Saudis and Qataris all because they have money and oil.
We aren't talking about shady plans for domination of the world's resources. We are simply talking about the fact that the Arab world is (thankfully) starting to emerge as a major market for trade. History has shown time and time again that trade is a corollary of conciliation and barrier-breaking.For all Britain's efforts and supposed success they have around 23,000 jihadists.
Yes France screwed up, but blaming it all on their colonial past is a bit much today.
And you talk about Belgium.
Why do they have problems ?
Their colonial past is linked to Congo, not a muslim country and their initial muslim immigrants came from Turkey and North Africa in the 1960s.
Yet they have terror attacks, al qeada cells, ISIS fighters, etc.
I did not blame it all on France's colonial past -- I blame it, as you say yourself, how they 'screwed it up' when dealing with the people from their former colonial possessions. This is why I constantly argue against those people who hold up France as an example of Muslims being incapable of integration -- when in reality it was a two-way street in France of Muslims not integrating and the French neither wanting nor trying to integrate them.
Belgium's immigration history is closely linked to that of France. They too sought workers from North Africa, and it was relatively easy for North Africans who had come to France to make the journey to the industrial areas of Belgium like Charleroi.For a start do not take anyone with unverifiable background, no matter where they claim they are from.
Stop importing unskilled uneducated immigrants from anywhere outside EU.
There are enough unemployed youth in the EU without importing anyone.
And this rules out the importation of those who hail from a totally incompatible cultural background.
Allow in skilled educated immigrants, but again I would favour countries that are secular and culturally compatible.
I presume by unverifiable backgrounds you are now referring to asylum seekers rather than immigration right (refugees being different from immigrants of course)? I already asked Gravelly if he could clarify what the current Irish rules are on unverifiable backgrounds. Unfortunately he must have missed that question --- or perhaps just didn't really know (though still had a strong opinion on it regardless). Perhaps you might explain to me.
As for getting in skilled migrants, I agree. The immigration system should be geared towards talent -- which it currently is. I note that this has nothing to do with religion though or generalising someone.
As for 'cultural compatibility' -- how do you police that? A blacklist of countries whose laws are very different from ours and therefor all the people live there obviously completely agree with those laws and should not be allowed into Ireland?Trying to equate the PIRA bombing campaign with what has been happening in Europe over the last couple of decades is whataboutery.
There was a massive Irish immigrant community and massive population of Irish descent in Britain for centuries that had totally assimilated into British society.
The Irish whilst keeping some traditions were not looking for segregation, in fact it was the opposite.
The PIRA were attacking UK and UK soldiers based overseas for a cause related to Ireland.
They didn't attack Britain, USA because they backed Indonesia who were subjugating catholics in East Timor.
Whataboutery is one of the most wonderfully overused terms in debate. "Hey ! That's whataboutery because I say it's whataboutery!" seems to be the process. In any case, the IRA were bombing London with shocking regularity in the 70s and 80s and killing people in the process. If a person in London was to say 'right ban the Irish from coming in' I suppose you would have said something like 'ah but what about the Irish living here already? What about all the good Irish people who live out their lives quietly? Dont' tar them all with same brush.'
'What about' indeed . . . .0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »You seem to be conveniently forgetting that, not a thousand years ago but within living memory : it was illegal to be gay in Ireland and contraception was illegal. Irish Catholics in the main stood idly by while the Church openly engaged in the suppression of free thought . It remains illegal in Ireland for a woman impregnated from rape to get an abortion.
So no -- there is no 'hell of a difference' between fundamentalist Catholicism and fundamentalist Islam in themselves. The only difference is that liberalism got a foothold in Europe and eventually diluted the power of fundamentalist Catholicism, while in many Muslim countries liberalism is suppressed.
What in blazes is this? Sure it was illegal here to be gay not too long ago but what was the penalty for it? Did we throw them off roofs? set them on fire? stone them to death? I am not a religious person but the abuse people throw towards the Catholics when trying to defend Muslims is beyond stupid.
What the Cathoics did here was awful and unforgivable. We are much better off without them in charge but lets not start saying they are the same as what is happening in Muslims countries around the world today.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why do you think this is the choice? I and others here have suggested a fair system where we take vetted immigrants (of any faith or race) based on a points system, like so many other countries do. There is no need to "ban muslims from Ireland" - this is just mindless hyperbole.
On a thread where the anti-Muslim immigration leaning people have posted links to hoax stories of Muslim donkey-rape, inconclusive videos of guys getting beat up 'for drinking outside a halal restaurant', calling Sweden a 'hellhole' despite it being pretty much around the top of every quality of life index, saying that France/Belgium/Sweden have 'no-go' areas . . . . it is odd that your seemingly rather selective hyperbole detection mechanisms were activated there.
In any case -- do you see now how you are actually agreeing with me? You are advocating a skills-based immigration system which takes vetted immigrants (of any faith or race). In other words, an immigration policy which does not generalise and which rests on the individual merits of people -- which is the very thing I have been advocating against those who have referred to me as a 'turkey voting for Christmas' and asking me 'why would you want to bring Muslims here'. Now, you advocate a points-based system which personally I don't think we particularly need . . . but I'm not ideologically opposed to it.
I have spoken in general support of the current Irish immigration rules which are not open border. Now, that is not to call the system perfect, nobody is naïve enough to suggest that this system is not open to skulduggery, fraud, criminality, bureaucracy or plain old human error. But that is the challenge -- it is a challenge which even the United States, with all its power, might, resources and lots of public support for anti-illegal migration polices -- has not managed to achieve. It's a difficult challenge. But the answer is not, and never will be, to alienate and generalise Muslim people. If they make it to Ireland then we must treat them as individual humans and not Jihadist caricatures who want to wipe us all out.
Whether it is the horrendous religious bile of Islam, or simply the failings of an immigration policy --- hate the system, not the ordinary everyday people.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »On a thread where the anti-Muslim immigration leaning people have posted links to hoax stories of Muslim donkey-rape, inconclusive videos of guys getting beat up 'for drinking outside a halal restaurant', calling Sweden a 'hellhole' despite it being pretty much around the top of every quality of life index, saying that France/Belgium/Sweden have 'no-go' areas . . . . it is odd that your seemingly rather selective hyperbole detection mechanisms were activated there.
In any case -- do you see now how you are actually agreeing with me? You are advocating a skills-based immigration system which takes vetted immigrants (of any faith or race). In other words, an immigration policy which does not generalise and which rests on the individual merits of people -- which is the very thing I have been advocating against those who have referred to me as a 'turkey voting for Christmas' and asking me 'why would you want to bring Muslims here'. Now, you advocate a points-based system which personally I don't think we particularly need . . . but I'm not ideologically opposed to it.
I have spoken in general support of the current Irish immigration rules which are not open border. Now, that is not to call the system perfect, nobody is naïve enough to suggest that this system is not open to skulduggery, fraud, criminality, bureaucracy or plain old human error. But that is the challenge -- it is a challenge which even the United States, with all its power, might, resources and lots of public support for anti-illegal migration polices -- has not managed to achieve. It's a difficult challenge. But the answer is not, and never will be, to alienate and generalise Muslim people. If they make it to Ireland then we must treat them as individual humans and not Jihadist caricatures who want to wipe us all out.
Whether it is the horrendous religious bile of Islam, or simply the failings of an immigration policy --- hate the system, not the ordinary everyday people.
All that to basically tell me you agree with me? Cool.
I see you threw in the old "hate the system, not the ordinary everyday people" bit at the end - I most certainly don't - I posted on the thread earlier that I do voluntary work where I regularly train lots of muslim lads.
If you believe what you posted above, then great, but I've a feeling that, like those backing your point of view on this thread, you are ideologically opposed to any reform of the immigration and asylum systems that would mean tougher entry requirements. You see our system is not "open borders" but the reality is that it might as well be - appeal after appeal, failure to do basic background checks etc. mean that anyone who wants to get in here and stay is unlikely to ever be deported. A classic example is the "mysterious" jihadi who stabbed that unfortunate Japanese man to death. He is likely to now end up here forever more, when the reality is he should never have been allowed set foot here.0 -
...the only religion that has a sect thats so actively anti-western. Were one in Myanamar, India or Sri Lanka its rather different.
Those are issues for those countries quite frankly but islam is the religious sect that has most of the ME in flames and unfortunately parts of Europe too it doesnt belong in liberal democracies never has done never will be why are so called liberals so willing to defend it when they would be the first to burn under a sharia government wake the hell up for all our sakes.0 -
All that to basically tell me you agree with me? Cool.
I see you threw in the old "hate the system, not the ordinary everyday people" bit at the end - I most certainly don't - I posted on the thread earlier that I do voluntary work where I regularly train lots of muslim lads.
If you believe what you posted above, then great, but I've a feeling that, like those backing your point of view on this thread, you are ideologically opposed to any reform of the immigration and asylum systems that would mean tougher entry requirements. You see our system is not "open borders" but the reality is that it might as well be - appeal after appeal, failure to do basic background checks etc. mean that anyone who wants to get in here and stay is unlikely to ever be deported. A classic example is the "mysterious" jihadi who stabbed that unfortunate Japanese man to death. He is likely to now end up here forever more, when the reality is he should never have been allowed set foot here.
Dont be fooled by certain folks on the left who dont want anything short of open borders their whole ideology is based on it note how quick they are to accuse others of racism when they want to implement tougher border controls that tells you all you need to know about their kind of mentality.0 -
All that to basically tell me you agree with me? Cool.
I see you threw in the old "hate the system, not the ordinary everyday people" bit at the end - I most certainly don't - I posted on the thread earlier that I do voluntary work where I regularly train lots of muslim lads.
If you believe what you posted above, then great, but I've a feeling that, like those backing your point of view on this thread, you are ideologically opposed to any reform of the immigration and asylum systems that would mean tougher entry requirements. You see our system is not "open borders" but the reality is that it might as well be - appeal after appeal, failure to do basic background checks etc. mean that anyone who wants to get in here and stay is unlikely to ever be deported. A classic example is the "mysterious" jihadi who stabbed that unfortunate Japanese man to death. He is likely to now end up here forever more, when the reality is he should never have been allowed set foot here.
This is a common theme on this thread. You read something which is clear and explicit and you just say 'nah I'm going to interpret this whatever way I want'. Defends Muslim people? He must love Islam. Defends Muslim immigration? He must want an open border. Says he wants reform of the immigration system? Must be lying.
I am all for our immigration system -- but I am also all for it working better and detecting more accurately illegal immigrants or people who pose a threat to security. The problem however is that those who talk the most about how immigration needs to be reformed base their criteria on the wrong things -- i.e. sensationalist generalising of Muslim immigrants.
And no matter how many times you tell yourself otherwise, we do not have an open border system -- neither in a de jure sense or the de facto sense you are trying to argue. Just because, like the immigration systems of all developed countries, it fails to detect every single illegal entrant or future crime-committer does not mean it amounts to an open border.
Now, if public discourse turned away from the Muslim-bashing sensationalism and more towards 'how do we make our system work better in terms of illegal migrants and criminals?', you would probably have more success. But you have sat here on this thread and have not argued against those who have demonised Muslims. In doing so you are allowing them to hijack the immigration debate, make it all about Muslims being bad and completely poison the argument. Politicians often don't want to talk about immigration because the Muslim-bashers have made it the most poisonous of chalices. So stand up to those who are telling us to generalise Muslims and you will actually help the debate on immigration policy.0 -
old_aussie wrote: »nuslims can help Ireland rid the country of churches.
All in the family
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/three-churches-targeted-in-indonesian-terror-attacks/news-story/edf55534a1e851eaa928fb074662be41
Another Muslim family blows themselves up today in Indonesia. This time the target is a police station. This is starting to look like a Muslim family lifestyle choice in Indonesia.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »You seem to be conveniently forgetting that, not a thousand years ago but within living memory : it was illegal to be gay in Ireland and contraception was illegal. Irish Catholics in the main stood idly by while the Church openly engaged in the suppression of free thought . It remains illegal in Ireland for a woman impregnated from rape to get an abortion.
So no -- there is no 'hell of a difference' between fundamentalist Catholicism and fundamentalist Islam in themselves. The only difference is that liberalism got a foothold in Europe and eventually diluted the power of fundamentalist Catholicism, while in many Muslim countries liberalism is suppressed.
We aren't talking about shady plans for domination of the world's resources. We are simply talking about the fact that the Arab world is (thankfully) starting to emerge as a major market for trade. History has shown time and time again that trade is a corollary of conciliation and barrier-breaking.
I did not blame it all on France's colonial past -- I blame it, as you say yourself, how they 'screwed it up' when dealing with the people from their former colonial possessions. This is why I constantly argue against those people who hold up France as an example of Muslims being incapable of integration -- when in reality it was a two-way street in France of Muslims not integrating and the French neither wanting nor trying to integrate them.
Belgium's immigration history is closely linked to that of France. They too sought workers from North Africa, and it was relatively easy for North Africans who had come to France to make the journey to the industrial areas of Belgium like Charleroi.
I presume by unverifiable backgrounds you are now referring to asylum seekers rather than immigration right (refugees being different from immigrants of course)? I already asked Gravelly if he could clarify what the current Irish rules are on unverifiable backgrounds. Unfortunately he must have missed that question --- or perhaps just didn't really know (though still had a strong opinion on it regardless). Perhaps you might explain to me.
As for getting in skilled migrants, I agree. The immigration system should be geared towards talent -- which it currently is. I note that this has nothing to do with religion though or generalising someone.
As for 'cultural compatibility' -- how do you police that? A blacklist of countries whose laws are very different from ours and therefor all the people live there obviously completely agree with those laws and should not be allowed into Ireland?
Whataboutery is one of the most wonderfully overused terms in debate. "Hey ! That's whataboutery because I say it's whataboutery!" seems to be the process. In any case, the IRA were bombing London with shocking regularity in the 70s and 80s and killing people in the process. If a person in London was to say 'right ban the Irish from coming in' I suppose you would have said something like 'ah but what about the Irish living here already? What about all the good Irish people who live out their lives quietly? Dont' tar them all with same brush.'
'What about' indeed . . . .Experience_day wrote: »Basically obfuscate the **** out of every argument til everyone gets bored and you "win".
People like you are genuinely the reason why idiots like Trump got elected and why situations like Brexit occured.
You simply will not let anything interfere in your idea of the world...
Some people you just cannot argue with. Comparing Catholicism extremism to Muslim extremism.
:rolleyes:0 -
Experience_day wrote: »Some people you just cannot argue with. Comparing Catholicism extremism to Muslim extremism.
:rolleyes:
You take one point from the many I have made -- and repeat your point about obfuscation. Tell me -- is it a case that I obfuscate or is it simply the case that now and again I make a point that you think is worthy of cheap dig? Or worse, is the term 'obfuscation' a personal euphemism of yours when 2-3 paragraphs is simply too much for you to process?
I have little time for those who snipe from the sidelines rather than engage. If you wish to be a cheerleader rather than a thinker -- that is a choice you make.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »If a fight and a mugging is all it takes to make somewhere a no-go zone for you then I'm surprised you leave the house. Or is it just because they were black men that made it so scary for you?
Just another made up right wing scandal to scare folk.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/claim-of-media-cover-up-on-cologne-sex-attacks-is-nonsense-1.2492574
Right, except the Chief of police in Cologne issued a statement on New Year's Day noting a “calm atmosphere” overnight in the city, with no reference to the attacks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/cologne-police-chief-ousted-over-new-year-s-eve-assaults-1.2490092
Then, as it says in your own link, the major German media organisations were 'slow' to pick up on what happened.
Then it takes about 4 days for the truth to filter outside of Germany.
After that we see the police in Cologne being pressured to remove the word 'rape' from the reports (I guess a migrant ramming his fingers into a German woman's vagina without her consent does not count as rape)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-police-ordered-to-remove-word-rape-from-reports-into-new-year-s-eve-sexual-assaults-a6972471.html
https://www.thelocal.de/20160407/cologne-cover-up-bid-came-from-the-top
Finally, after about six months the full scale of the sex attacks come out, not because the police and politicians decide to be honest, but because the details are leaked. 2000 migrant men beating, raping, sexually assaulting and robbing 1200 women in a number of cities across Germany (would not surprise if the real number of victims was 2-3 higher).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/11/why-it-took-half-a-year-for-the-full-extent-of-the-new-years-eve-assaults-in-germany-to-be-known/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.71bed1b736e5
No attempted cover up. Sure.
And while I am beyond disgusted at the betrayal from the political liberal elite, it is not unique to Germany as very similar things have happened in Sweden and Britain. All of which has turned me from a fairly middle of the road liberal centrist into a full on conservative nationalist.
So Captain Obvious, while you display Catholic archbishop levels of denial, you will agree that mass sexual assault is a very good reason to be against mass migration?0 -
Advertisement
-
A Pint of Goo wrote: »Right, except the Chief of police in Cologne issued a statement on New Year's Day noting a “calm atmosphere” overnight in the city, with no reference to the attacks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/cologne-police-chief-ousted-over-new-year-s-eve-assaults-1.2490092
Your own link says he was criticised by local politicians and was suspended from duty. If you are arguing some conspiratorial cover up does it not need more than one person? And that's assuming he was fully aware at the time of his statement the full extent of what happened.A Pint of Goo wrote: »Then, as it says in your own link, the major German media organisations were 'slow' to pick up on what happened.
Slow meaning within 24 hours.A Pint of Goo wrote: »Then it takes about 4 days for the truth to filter outside of Germany.
What relevance is that?A Pint of Goo wrote: »
I hate to break it to you but it's not considered rape in Ireland either.A Pint of Goo wrote: »Finally, after about six months the full scale of the sex attacks come out, not because the police and politicians decide to be honest, but because the details are leaked. 2000 migrant men beating, raping, sexually assaulting and robbing 1200 women in a number of cities across Germany (would not surprise if the real number of victims was 2-3 higher).
It's almost like it takes time to investigate sexual assaults and the media aren't given regular updates on them.A Pint of Goo wrote: »No attempted cover up. Sure.
I agree.A Pint of Goo wrote: »And while I am beyond disgusted at the betrayal from the political liberal elite, it is not unique to Germany as very similar things have happened in Sweden and Britain. All of which has turned me from a fairly middle of the road liberal centrist into a full on conservative nationalist.
I very much doubt that. I'd be fairly certain your views haven't changed in a long time.A Pint of Goo wrote: »So Captain Obvious, while you display Catholic archbishop levels of denial, you will agree that mass sexual assault is a very good reason to be against mass migration?
Yes, if a person has been convicted of a mass sexual assault they should certainly not be allowed into the country.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement