British College: Non-Muslims are "filth", "pigs" and "dogs"

by Elsewhere 65 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abaddon

  double post
• 

  stillajwexelder

  History has shown that powerful empires grow - Rome, Greece, Babylon. Great Britain, USA when you have loads of immigration and a strong gene pool - not by limiting Immigration. As most people know, I am no lover of Islamic fundamentalists, but xenophobia is the wrong way to go. PERIOD.
• 

  Abaddon

  HellRider

  Yes, you used 'if', but the 500 years period you mentioned is not supported by comparison with the West. Western secularism is not 500 years old (as a social phenomena). Turkey has gone from traditional Muslim to a secular democracy, still very Muslim but becoming more secular socially with a commitment at governmental levels to further bring laws and practise in line with Western Democratic norms so as to gain EU membership in 83 years. And where societies have gone before, others will follow and take less time to achieve the same things by benefit of emulation.

  To slap in 500 years and then say 'I said if!' is to ignore how unreasonable that figure is. It isn't hyperbole to make a point, it's gross exaggeration liable to cause alarm.

  And this assumption is based on what exactly? Turkey? Turkey is a whole different matter, it has a long history of strong ties to Europe and Russia (both as an enemy and as an allie, doesn`t matter, the influence is there either way), and cannot be compared to the middle east what so ever.

  Yes, up to now, which is largely my point. If Western governments give the Middle East the same opportunities Turkey has had then the Middle East will have the environment that Turkey has had to achieve its changes.

  Bringing up Turkey in this matter shows how little you understand about Islam and the middle east. Oh, and by the way, yes, it did get screwed around with like Iran. Actually, Turkey has been screwed around with a whole lot more than Iran, and for several centuries.

  And when was a democratic government overthrown, and a puppet King put in its place in Turkey? Did the King then act like a petty tyrant, still receive Western support, and then be overthrown by a popular religious revolution that would have never had the dry tinder of discontent in a affluent, oil-rich democracy? the interference in Turkey this century has been far far less dramatic than that in Iran, or Iraq for that matter.

  I really do get Turkey and the Middle East, even if you've a different opinion.

  >>>>>Judicial executions using methods that could well leave the victim in agony whilst they asphixiate is a practise of a Christian state

  And what has that got to do with anything? Am I American? No, I am not. Have I in this thread, or ever, defended christian fundamentalism? No, never. Am I a christian? No. I have never glorified the U.S. in any way. But still, at least in the United States they dont whipe and stone women for having been raped. They don`t cut off the arms of a 14-yearold kid who stole a bread due to starvation. They don`t stone and hang people for homosexuality, or for having spoken about the "prophet" (piss be upon him) in less than flattering terms.

  Just like you go for the dramatic and emotive 500 years, you go for what EVERYONE worth listening to agrees is wrong (Sharia law). If you stop looking at the problem so hard, maybe you will see the solution. We know what the problem is. We know why there is a problem. We know how other similar countries overcame that problem. Wringing our hands and saying '500 years' and listing the human right violations of Islamic countries doesn't actually achieve anything or bring any new information to the debate. It's emotive and dramatic, not a way to a solution.

  In your own country, the moviemaker Theo van Gogh was attacked and beheaded with a butcher knife on a street in broad daylight, because he had had the audacity to insult precious Islam. You would make excuses for the assailant, I assume, and place the responsibility for that attack on van Gogh himself, for not having "understood Islam"? Yes, the americans should get rid of the death penalty. But they are not nearly as barbaric as moslem nations ruled by the Sharia-law.

  Oh don't be bloody silly. You know I wouldn't support that. And again, the barbaric nature of the Sharia system is not at dispute with us. But concentrating on that simply turns the discussion into unprofitable hand-wringing. Those being harmed would far rather we supported reforms that would bring a speedier end to their suffering than we feel really sorry for them. I'm pretty sure you agree with this, so don;t know why you seem drawn to the emotive arguments that aren't arguments.

  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hijacking planes in the name of Allah, "the most merciful"...

  >>>>>>>>>..Is it any better if it's in the name of the 'Glorious People's Revolution' or 'A million dollars or everyone dies'? Check your history of hijacking, Muslims are a minority group.

  Not only is that irrelevant, because we are now discussig current events, but I even think you are wrong. I would like to see some statistics on that. From what I remember, the wave of hijackings in the 80s were also done by moslems, although politically orientated and not fundamentalistic ones (the PLO).
  
  Yeah, sure, there's billions of Muslims, but there are not billions of problem Muslims;

  No, there are not billions of muslims in the world. There is a little over one billion.

  One billion of problem muslims.

  By your maths, virtually all Muslims are problem Muslims. Could you please state that clearly just so I know what your agenda is?

  >>>>>>>>>>>>Even if terrorists "took out" one or two major cities (which they have thus far failed to do), the end of extremism is inevitable; the West just has to be careful not to make many allies of the extremists by being heavy-handed or dishonest... we are facing a Generation where there will be tens of thousands of victims of terrorism, but not the escalation to Holy War so desired of the real nut-jobs. It will be a train here, a building there, but Western society (and those who want to share in its riches and freedoms) is simply too powerful force to derail.

  Well, of course, if you think that is ok. Unless you happen to be on that particular train, of course. Of the 200 that died on the trains in the Madrid bombings, how many of them do you think wanted to have Muslims in their country in the first place? I bet a pretty low number. The same goes for the London-bombings, at least most surveys show that europeans in general are against immigration (you, sir, are the exception rather than the rule). So basically, all these people died because of the decisions of politicians doing exactly the opposite of the peoples will, doing exactly the opposite of what the people on the trains and in the buses wanted. That is unfair, it is not democratic, and the Europeans won`t put up with it in the long run!

  Oh my... so you can do your 'rivers of blood' stuff (which may well never happen) and I am realistic and say this current situation won't end tomorrow and people will die because of it just like they have been doing (which is a statement of fact), and you have the gall to say "if you think that is ok". It is not a question of thinking it is okay, it's a question of being realistic. I don't have to get re-elected. I don't have to sell people little made-up stories to help them sleep at night about how the War on Terror will make the beardy-weirdies go way to stay in power. I'm just an interested observer and member of the society affected. I grew up in a country that had few years with no terrorist attack in the 70's-90's (UK). This is nothing new to me. I don't have to sugar coat my opinion and am suspicious of those emotionally manipulating the discussion.

  Of course, what those against Immigration don't talk about a lot is how, without immigration, Western European social systems will have to be drastically changed due to the lower percentage of the population are working at any one point and higher health-care costs (both due increased lifespans).

  In England in the Sixties they imported Caribbeans to do the jobs no one wanted. They settled, had families, and then when there were less jobs 'everyone' thought they should go home as they'd out-stayed their usefulness and were taking jobs away from 'real' English people.

  Some people think that is okay. I think it's disgusting.

  Some politicians pander to the xenophobic attitudes in some communities and build Immigrants up to be big bad monsters, draining cash from the economy, so 'something must be done'. But their arguments are not credible, they're simply whoring to the voters. It does unfortunately work as recent successes of far right-wing (often 'sanitised' versions of previously openly-racist political parties) parties shows.

  Democracy is a wonderful thing, but that doesn't mean the public is always right. It isn't in politicians interests to educate the voters; it would be FAR harder to win the votes of a more politically aware populace, and would typically result in a large number of political parties reducing the level of power available to any one. Some European countries are better in this respect than others - some like the UK are terrible and even have non-proportional voting systems that normally further concentrate power in one large party.

  But politicians are in it to win votes; and if getting ill-informed votes for stupid policies is easier than educating the electorate to make hard choices, they'll go for the easy option.

  People thinking Europe will stay rich and white if Immigration is strictly controlled are kidding themselves. It might stay white (although without mass repatriation some areas would become charmingly coffee coloured over a few generations - and I mean through inter-marriage, not the higher birth rates of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants who don't intermarry). Oh, and I'm not implying you're racist; but effectively Immigration is a white - non-white issue, even if that is not the difference that motivates you.

  Oh, such a Europe wouldn't be very rich. Lower per-capita GDP.

  And most populations would slowly start shrinking... imagine having 1 in 10 schools close every two generations...

  But yeah, stopping immigration is a far better idea than learning how to be human being and share this planet. The years of being a three-year-old hiding all it's toys in the corner so no one else can play with them - and taking any other child's toys when it felt like it - have gone for the West. It's enlightened self-interest to work to raise the whole world's economic prosperity; things will be worse any other way.

  MaudDib

  True. That's why it's so dangerous to have Bush in power right now.

  I wish I'd thought of that reply, LOL.
• 

  MuadDib

  Hellrider, my point wasn't that you must be a Bush supporter - I didn't state that, nor did I even imply it. My point was merely that American neoconservatism is more dangerous than radical Islam, a proposition with which I see you agree, at least somewhat.

  As for your idea about "closing down the borders" - I pointed out why that won't work in the long term. You might not be a Bush supporter, but you certainly sound like a xenophobe.
• 

  daystar

  Ooohhh... *wanders in, wanders right the hell back out.* You guys can duke it out amongst yourselves, I'm sure.
• 

  Hellrider

  MuaDib:

  Hellrider, my point wasn't that you must be a Bush supporter - I didn't state that, nor did I even imply it. My point was merely that American neoconservatism is more dangerous than radical Islam, a proposition with which I see you agree, at least somewhat.

  The key word here is "at least somewhat". I agree, because of the development in the muslim countries, both the (poor) socioeconomic development, but also (to a certain extent) the development within the religion Islam itself. What many people don`t understand about Islam, is that it isn`t just a religion/religious movement, it is also a political movement. This is how it started out. Mohammad was no Jesus Christ teaching "turning the other cheek" and peace and forgiveness, he was a political and military leader, and this side of Islam is highly reflected both in the Quran in the Hadith. While christianity was born as a religion of peace, although it evolved into violence a few hundred years after Jesus` death, Islam was born in violence, and consequently, the Quran resembles much more the OT than the NT (in my opinion). Islam spread out in the first few hundred years after Mohammad, entered into Europe, and Islamised parts of Spain, before they were stopped. They stopped, not because they felt that they had enough, but because Europe was growing stronger, and resisted the moslems (ok, this is oversimplifying, but basically...). Had it not been for that, you and I would be praying five times a day, today, facing the east. Islam has had no international intentions since then, because they haven`t had a chance, Europe grew to strong. And after a while, Islam "calmed down". But now they seem to be getting back to their violent roots, the Islam of Mohammad, the Islam of the peninsula 1300 years ago. Really cool, that is, I like seing people finding back to their roots. They are showing us all what Islam originally was.

  As for your idea about "closing down the borders" - I pointed out why that won't work in the long term. You might not be a Bush supporter, but you certainly sound like a xenophobe

  I`m sorry, I didn`t quite get what you said about why closing down the border wouldn`t work. Xenophobe? Not really. I have nothing against people of other races. Any afro-american can come and live in my country anytime. Non-moslem africans are also ok. But please, no moslems. As for American politics, I think Pat Buchanan has a lot of interesting things to say.