Migration Megathread

James Brown

splashuum wrote: »

14 shot in strasbourg last night by a radical islamist. 4 dead.

What's your point regarding this thread?

splashuum

Matt Barrett wrote: »

splashuum wrote: »

14 shot in strasbourg last night by a radical islamist. 4 dead.

What's your point regarding this thread?

Take a look at the thread title.

oscarBravo

splashuum wrote: »

Take a look at the thread title.

The Strasbourg shooter single-handedly took over Europe?

James Brown

splashuum wrote: »

Take a look at the thread title.

The French man likely guilty of the shooting is taking over Europe? I'd suggest if anything can be taken from recent weeks Macron is closer to resigning than leading the French to take over Europe, let alone one lone gunman.

splashuum

Who said anything about any nationality ? And who suggested any one person is taking over europe? Where are you getting these presumptions as I certainly didn’t suggest what you are saying.

oscarBravo

splashuum wrote: »

Who said anything about any nationality ? And who suggested any one person is taking over europe? Where are you getting these presumptions as I certainly didn’t suggest what you are saying.

So, what was the point of your post?

James Brown

splashuum wrote: »

Who said anything about any nationality ? And who suggested any one person is taking over europe? Where are you getting these presumptions as I certainly didn’t suggest what you are saying.

To be fair all I had to work with was your news post and telling me to read the thread title.
You've yet to clarify what your point is.

splashuum

To Matt and Oscar this thread is about the alleged “Muslim takeover” of Europe.
My most recent posts on this thread included the barbaric knifing of an Irish teacher by a enraged Muslim which happened last week.
As we know the teacher in question allegedly showed an image of Mohammed in class which seemed to have caused the enragement.
I also brought up the radical Islamist shooter who rampaged Strasbourg last night.
Many would interpret this weeks events as a possible catalyst or beginning of a “Muslim takeover”.
And many would agree this is the correct thread to discuss such matters.

DeadHand

The entirely predictable Strasbourg attack is a symptom of the Islamification of French society rather than a catalyst of any supposed “Muslim takeover” of Europe- though that is certainly something will be on the cards in a few generations time as demographics shift, Islam being an inherently supremacist force immune to any kind of reform.

The incident is certainly relevant to this conversation as it proves, yet again, the catastrophe mass Islamic immigration has been for European societies.

Attacks of this nature have increased in frequency and intensity as the Muslim portion of Europe’s population has grown and will continue to do so. Yet, the boats continue to cross the Med as Europe invites more misery upon itself.

The more politically minded Islamists most curse their more proactive brethern when these regular atrocities take place- they could achieve a dominant place for their ideology in Europe without the added violent insurgency given time, demographic realities and the current weakness of European culture.

Imagine their bemused glee when fellow Islamists can openly slaughter native Europeans, yet many Europeans will still make excuses, defend Islam, tolerate Islamism and insist we import more of it. They’ll still insist it’s imaginary “Nazis” that are the real threat while the Islamist death toll mounts.

European pro-immigration elites and their supporters do not so much have blood on their hands at this stage as they are bathing in it daily.

And we’ve seen nothing yet, we’re still at the start of what will be a sickening war for Europe’s future. It’s our children and grandchildren that will live with the worst consequences of Europe’s self-destruction.

James Brown

splashuum wrote: »

To Matt and Oscar this thread is about the alleged “Muslim takeover” of Europe.
My most recent posts on this thread included the barbaric knifing of an Irish teacher by a enraged Muslim which happened last week.
As we know the teacher in question allegedly showed an image of Mohammed in class which seemed to have caused the enragement.
I also brought up the radical Islamist shooter who rampaged Strasbourg last night.
Many would interpret this weeks events as a possible catalyst or beginning of a “Muslim takeover”.
And many would agree this is the correct thread to discuss such matters.

I don't believe a terrorist attack or crazed French Muslim killing people is an effort to assist Muslim immigrants in taking over Europe. I don't see any connection. The thread is about immigration. If you want to go by the title alone, how does a religious extremist aid in Muslims conquering say France or taking over Europe? Is that the part 'nobody knows', the part that makes no sense?

James Brown

DeadHand wrote: »

The entirely predictable Strasbourg attack is a symptom of the Islamification of French society rather than a catalyst of any supposed “Muslim takeover” of Europe- though that is certainly something will be on the cards in a few generations time as demographics shift, Islam being an inherently supremacist force immune to any kind of reform.

The incident is certainly relevant to this conversation as it proves, yet again, the catastrophe mass Islamic immigration has been for European societies.

Attacks of this nature have increased in frequency and intensity as the Muslim portion of Europe’s population has grown and will continue to do so. Yet, the boats continue to cross the Med as Europe invites more misery upon itself.

The more politically minded Islamists most curse their more proactive brethern when these regular atrocities take place- they could achieve a dominant place for their ideology in Europe without the added violent insurgency given time, demographic realities and the current weakness of European culture.

Imagine their bemused glee when fellow Islamists can openly slaughter native Europeans, yet many Europeans will still make excuses, defend Islam, tolerate Islamism and insist we import more of it. They’ll still insist it’s imaginary “Nazis” that are the real threat while the Islamist death toll mounts.

European pro-immigration elites and their supporters do not so much have blood on their hands at this stage as they are bathing in it daily.

And we’ve seen nothing yet, we’re still at the start of what will be a sickening war for Europe’s future. It’s our children and grandchildren that will live with the worst consequences of Europe’s self-destruction.

You're mixing yourself up. The shooter was French. As for Islam, do you know how many rapes, murders and drug deals are carried out by Christians? And they have already taken over, but I assume that's okay? And before you talk further about Muslims coming here and trying to mould society to their will, that's what people do in a democracy and are free to do. Do you think some fanatic killing people will assist in the take over? Or maybe you are playing right into the hands of ISIS who want fighting based on religion? How about we work on the murdering fanatics and leave people alone just because you might have a bigoted opinion of their beliefs?

4068ac1elhodqr

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is that the part 'nobody knows', the part that makes no sense?

Most (moderate) estimates are that several of the larger countries (France, Germany, Sweden) in Europe, will be circa 20% Muslim by 2050.

Takeover is perhaps much too strong a phrase (well, pending timeframes), but there would need to be significant adjustment in the normal lifestlye of all Europeans, to accomodate their cultural beliefs.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As for Islam, do you know how many rapes, murders and drug deals are carried out by Christians? And they have already taken over, but I assume that's okay?

For the prison polulation in Eng & Wales 2016, there is an almost 300% over-represenation from the followers of Islam. I.e. 15% of the prison population. If anything, Christians are very much under-represented, so too are buddists, jews, hindus, pagans etc etc.

Very sorry for all the facts and details.

DeadHand

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're mixing yourself up. The shooter was French??

Ask yourself, why is Islam, an ideology alien to France for most of the history of both, such a powerful force on the current French cultural landscape that a young French man can end up radicalized in prison and carry out Islamic Jihad on his countrymen?

How are we at that point?

I’ll give you a clue: it begins with “I” and has eleven letters.

recedite

Being born in a stable does not make you a horse.
To be French is to be a citizen of La Republique, the secular country which prides itself in the hallowed concept of Laicite.
To support the Enlightenment and its principles of liberty, fraternity, and equality for fellow citizens.
Islam is the opposite to all that.

Midlife

recedite wrote: »

Being born in a stable does not make you a horse.
To be French is to be a citizen of La Republique, the secular country which prides itself in the hallowed concept of Laicite.
To support the Enlightenment and its principles of liberty, fraternity, and equality for fellow citizens.
Islam is the opposite to all that.

No. Hardline Islam is the opposite of that. Even the link you posted about the concept of secularism has a big section about secularism in Turkey.

If you can't see that lumping all of Islam together and villifying the entire culture doesn't help, then I don't know what to say to you.

What did Liberty, Fraternity and Equality say about Empire by the way?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Being born in a stable does not make you a horse.

So, no true Frenchman?

To be French is to be a citizen of La Republique, the secular country which prides itself in the hallowed concept of Laicite.
To support the Enlightenment and its principles of liberty, fraternity, and equality for fellow citizens.
Islam is the opposite to all that.

Yeah, nothing says "secular republic" like "adherents of the wrong religion can't be citizens".

James Brown

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Most (moderate) estimates are that several of the larger countries (France, Germany, Sweden) in Europe, will be circa 20% Muslim by 2050.

Takeover is perhaps much too strong a phrase (well, pending timeframes), but there would need to be significant adjustment in the normal lifestlye of all Europeans, to accomodate their cultural beliefs.

If that's the will of the people so be it. You can't treat someone like a criminal or second class citizen because they want to ban abortion or vote in Renua.

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

For the prison polulation in Eng & Wales 2016, there is an almost 300% over-represenation from the followers of Islam. I.e. 15% of the prison population. If anything, Christians are very much under-represented, so too are buddists, jews, hindus, pagans etc etc.

Very sorry for all the facts and details.

Yes and the same is true of other minorities and the poor, but we could work towards addressing that.

James Brown

DeadHand wrote: »

Ask yourself, why is Islam, an ideology alien to France for most of the history of both, such a powerful force on the current French cultural landscape that a young French man can end up radicalized in prison and carry out Islamic Jihad on his countrymen?

How are we at that point?

I’ll give you a clue: it begins with “I” and has eleven letters.

When the IRA were carry out attacks in England, would you back moves towards all Irish or was that different? The only difference I can see is allegiance to a religion over a country, guilty and innocent alike.

James Brown

recedite wrote: »

Being born in a stable does not make you a horse.
To be French is to be a citizen of La Republique, the secular country which prides itself in the hallowed concept of Laicite.
To support the Enlightenment and its principles of liberty, fraternity, and equality for fellow citizens.
Islam is the opposite to all that.

What bull.
So to be Irish you need play Hurling and wear Aran sweaters?

Midlife

If you read history, you'll see that there's a recipe for religious extremism and an antidote to it.

**** sake, there's even Buddhist terrorism if you create the conditions for it.

splashuum

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't believe a terrorist attack or crazed French Muslim killing people is an effort to assist Muslim immigrants in taking over Europe. I don't see any connection. The thread is about immigration. If you want to go by the title alone, how does a religious extremist aid in Muslims conquering say France or taking over Europe? Is that the part 'nobody knows', the part that makes no sense?

As creator of this thread, I never once used the word immigration in the opening post. To suggest this thread is solely about immigration would be false. I intended for people to reasonably discuss the potential dangers, impacts etc of what Steyn talks about. Immigration is certainly one of these topics but is not limited to such.

In addition the "nobody knows" part are not my words but the words of the author Steyn, who included it in the articles title. If we are to civilly discuss the statistics in the article, it suggests we are being vastly out-bred by the muslim population. If this is to be true, that obviously means we will have a much much larger muslim population in the EU, which inevitably means a much higher risk of islamic based attacks. If you look at Poland for instance, They have had zero terror attacks mainly down to strict policies implemented by the government.
I didn't intend or want terror attacks to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but the topic certainly qualifies for discussion.

weisses

splashuum wrote: »

As creator of this thread, I never once used the word immigration in the opening post. To suggest this thread is solely about immigration would be false. I intended for people to reasonably discuss the potential dangers, impacts etc of what Steyn talks about. Immigration is certainly one of these topics but is not limited to such.

In addition the "nobody knows" part are not my words but the words of the author Steyn, who included it in the articles title. If we are to civilly discuss the statistics in the article, it suggests we are being vastly out-bred by the muslim population. If this is to be true, that obviously means we will have a much much larger muslim population in the EU, which inevitably means a much higher risk of islamic based attacks. If you look at Poland for instance, They have had zero terror attacks mainly down to strict policies implemented by the government.
I didn't intend or want terror attacks to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but the topic certainly qualifies for discussion.

So without significant immigration how do you believe this "takeover" would take place ?

splashuum

weisses wrote: »

splashuum wrote: »

As creator of this thread, I never once used the word immigration in the opening post. To suggest this thread is solely about immigration would be false. I intended for people to reasonably discuss the potential dangers, impacts etc of what Steyn talks about. Immigration is certainly one of these topics but is not limited to such.

In addition the "nobody knows" part are not my words but the words of the author Steyn, who included it in the articles title. If we are to civilly discuss the statistics in the article, it suggests we are being vastly out-bred by the muslim population. If this is to be true, that obviously means we will have a much much larger muslim population in the EU, which inevitably means a much higher risk of islamic based attacks. If you look at Poland for instance, They have had zero terror attacks mainly down to strict policies implemented by the government.
I didn't intend or want terror attacks to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but the topic certainly qualifies for discussion.

So without significant immigration how do you believe this "takeover" would take place ?

“Steyn explained, it will take only two generations for the current Muslim population (sitting at about 10-percent) to have as many grandchildren as post-Christian secularists (who currently make up the other 90 percent). This is due, he said, to Muslims having on average 3.5 children per couple compared to post-Christian secularists who have only 1.3 children per couple”

Take into consideration the word “current Muslim population”.
This segment is literally from the very first post in this thread. It’s very unfortunate that some Boards.is users will not even read the OP’s original thread starting post before commenting and asking answered questions.

4068ac1elhodqr

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If that's the will of the people so be it.

Suppose sending Europe back to the dark ages wouldn't be so bad, divorce proceedings would be speedy and there might be less female car drivers on the road. Not so sure about all that FGM, and painful slaughter slow of livestock though.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes and the same is true of other minorities and the poor, but we could work towards addressing that.

(One) other very small culture of sorts in Ireland, but that's about it really.

Ah the poor... Would supporting all women folk into further education and university help much to address that? Or is schooling towards independent thought and critical opinionated thinking still largely frowned upon?

recedite

Midlife wrote: »

No. Hardline Islam is the opposite of that. Even the link you posted about the concept of secularism has a big section about secularism in Turkey.

Turkey is an interesting case, and I'm a big fan of Mustapha Ataturk who founded the modern secular state. But Atatturk was no fan of Islam. This is one of his best quotes...

For nearly five hundred years, these rules and theories of an Arab Shaikh and the interpretations of generations of lazy and good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey. They have decided the form of the Constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learned in his schools, his customs, his thoughts-even his most intimate habits. Islam – this theology of an immoral Arab – is a dead thing. Possibly it might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for modern, progressive state. God’s revelation! There is no God! These are only the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down. A ruler who needs religion is a weakling. No weaklings should rule!

The Turk's downfall came when those same illiterate arab camelherders were bought over by the British army 100 years ago, and as they turned they stabbed the Turks in the back.
Here's the Islamic view of Ataturk and secular Turkey; A brief history of the life and policies of one of the most vehement enemies of Islam, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was the founder of the secular Turkish state


Turkey, as a state, has ebbed and flowed ever since between these two conflicting ideologies. Currently we are in a waning phase, as Erdogan is a former card-carrrying Muslim Brotherhood member.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, no true Frenchman? Yeah, nothing says "secular republic" like "adherents of the wrong religion can't be citizens".

Your mistake is in thinking Islam is only a religion.
It is that, but more importantly it is an ideology.

One that is incompatible with secularism, democracy, liberalism, feminism, gay rights, equal rights, freedom of religion, free speech, or basically any values that that western civilisation holds dear.

James Brown

splashuum wrote: »

As creator of this thread, I never once used the word immigration in the opening post. To suggest this thread is solely about immigration would be false. I intended for people to reasonably discuss the potential dangers, impacts etc of what Steyn talks about. Immigration is certainly one of these topics but is not limited to such.

In addition the "nobody knows" part are not my words but the words of the author Steyn, who included it in the articles title. If we are to civilly discuss the statistics in the article, it suggests we are being vastly out-bred by the muslim population. If this is to be true, that obviously means we will have a much much larger muslim population in the EU, which inevitably means a much higher risk of islamic based attacks. If you look at Poland for instance, They have had zero terror attacks mainly down to strict policies implemented by the government.
I didn't intend or want terror attacks to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but the topic certainly qualifies for discussion.

I am telling you that a number of posters and the vast number of posts are on immigration. I then went on to go solely by the title and discuss how a lone French muslim shooter could be taking over Europe.

James Brown

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Suppose sending Europe back to the dark ages wouldn't be so bad, divorce proceedings would be speedy and there might be less female car drivers on the road. Not so sure about all that FGM, and painful slaughter slow of livestock though.



(One) other very small culture of sorts in Ireland, but that's about it really.

Ah the poor... Would supporting all women folk into further education and university help much to address that? Or is schooling towards independent thought and critical opinionated thinking still largely frowned upon?

That's the way the world works. It happened in Ireland with DeValera and the RCC. We might not like it, but if the majority does, that's how it will be. Unless you are suggesting we carry out immoral and illegal activity to fight people because we don't like how they think, become like ISIS?

Minorities and the poor, people like you and I but poorer, taking up the lions share in prison's is a socio economic issue. There's kicking someone to death in Tallaght and kicking someone to death in D4 for example, (getting let out for your degree exams and having a pint on St. Patrick's day).
And yes, if the critical thought doesn't suit you, seems you'd have a problem. Free thought as long as you agree with it.

James Brown

recedite wrote: »

...


Your mistake is in thinking Islam is only a religion.
It is that, but more importantly it is an ideology.

One that is incompatible with secularism, democracy, liberalism, feminism, gay rights, equal rights, freedom of religion, free speech, or basically any values that that western civilisation holds dear.

Your mistake, putting it mildly, is taking the vast minority extremist element who claim to follow Islam, (many Muslims say they are not) and crediting the entire people with the same characteristics. It's quite literally an ignorant point of view.

4068ac1elhodqr

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's the way the world works. It happened in Ireland with DeValera and the RCC. We might not like it, but if the majority does, that's how it will be. Unless you are suggesting we carry out immoral and illegal activity to fight people because we don't like how they think, become like ISIS?

Minorities and the poor, people like you and I but poorer, taking up the lions share in prison's is a socio economic issue. There's kicking someone to death in Tallaght and kicking someone to death in D4 for example.

1/10 poor attempt.

The RCC is very far from perfect, but has been the majority for multiple, upon multiple of generations.

What your suggesting, indeed encouraging is the 'forced replacement of the majority' with a somewhat backwards 'minority'. The way the world works, is that it is made up of many countries, each with their own sovereign borders, languages, laws, traditions and culture.

Unless your suggesting the cleansing of modern western cultures and the forced, unwanted imposition of other slightly backward medieval cultures, just for the sake of it.

Maybe you would be first in line to help burn artworks, scultpures and any iconology as ISIS has done in Syria?

Your 'random and somewhat desperate' point regarding wealth distribution, has little to do with culture, but rather global fiscal policy and habits of the super-rich like the Sultans of SA who are often seen blocking Harrods with their supercars.

Ireland already offers more in charity and direct overseas aid than perhaps any other nation per head.

recedite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your mistake, putting it mildly, is taking the vast minority extremist element who claim to follow Islam, (many Muslims say they are not) and crediting the entire people with the same characteristics. It's quite literally an ignorant point of view.

What entire people? What same characteristics?

We are not talking about a race of people here. We are talking about an ideology.
There are rules and laws about everything. Its called sharia.
People who follow the rules are not extremists. They are simply followers of Islam, doing it right.