Muslims Muslims Muslims

[daniel]

...

And you've avoided acknowledgment of Canada's parliamentary system of democracy. There's tons of other legislation passed by governments that various other people around the country throughout our history don't like. Enough of your childish whining - it's the country the voters had selected.

Edited September 4, 2009 by daniel

[lictor616]

And you've avoided acknowledgment of Canada's parliamentary system of democracy. There's tons of other legislation passed by governments that various other people around the country throughout our history don't like. Enough of your childish whining - it's the country the voters had selected.

ackwoledgement of the parliementary system has nothing to do with whether immigrants INCREASE our life quality index or not... NOTHING... NO RELATIONSHIP... why can't you answer the question?

And I do wonder why you insanely avoid the FACT that there never WAS a referendum SPECIFICALLY consulting the canadian people about ANY aspect of the multicultural act.. or even immigration caps! Yes its nice that we have a parliamentary system... hee haw.. now where are you?

so please retain sufficient decency to stop this obfuscating forum tag...

[JB Globe]

And once again, rather than dealing with the actual matters under discussion you swan off into irrelevancies in a frantic effort at demonizing your opponent in the discussion. It doesn't matter to you what I say so much as why I dare say it, and how you can demonize me so as to divert attention from the actual discussion.

My main point about why your worldview is the way it is has to do with an extreme tendency of yours towards confirmation bias (ignoring/discrediting things inconvenient to your worldview, over-emphasizing things which fit into it). The fact that when pressed for things that prove your worldview you resort to anti-Islamic websites actually fits into my argument. The whole purpose of those sites is to reinforce confirmation bias.

They're the other side of the coin to say, communist websites that have already decided that capitalism is evil, and spend their time ignoring evidence to the contrary and compiling things that "prove" this belief, even if it means taking them out of context.

In point of fact, it came from the London Evening Standard, which was doing stories on his coming to the UK, and calling him a "hate preacher".

That may be true, but as this is an old article - the only place you can get it now is on the anti-Islamic websites I mentioned earlier.

Not that that makes a bloody bit of difference, because the quote was exactly what you demanded. You asked for someone authoritative, and I give you the Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, and you delete it without comment and launch into a sniveling complaint about where I got it. What kind of debating tactic do you call that, anyway?

Your position all along has been "Islam is a backward religion" - a grand sweeping statement, and in order to prove something this huge, you need big facts. The words of two Imams just isn't going to cut it - this is Islam after all, not Catholicism. The Imam of the Grand Mosque isn't the Pope, even the most influential cleric in the world does not have a loyal following of much more than 1-2% of the population of the Muslim world.

So what your quotes do is basically say that there are problems within Islam that need to be resolved. Antisemitism is accepted in some quarters, violence encouraged by a small minority. I've never denied any of this - what I have a problem with is your claim that Islam in general is "backward" and not compatible with secular democracies or modernity. My problem with that statement simply is that it isn't true, and you've yet to prove it.

A word of advice - if you can't possibly back up your statements, don't make them, because otherwise they just end up looking like hyperbole - even if you're trying to be serious.

And again, I refer you to the Topkapi Declaration and Amman Message for a more true consensus within the Muslim world on many issues we discuss here regularly. 500 of the world's top clerics from dozens of countries are far more representative of what the world's Muslims actually believe in than any two clerics. There simply is no counterpart in terms of hundreds of Islamic clerics endorsing a declaration supporting terrorism

No? Why not? Ten thousand fatal terrorist attacks since 911.

This fact may be true, but again - your prejudice is blinding you to the fact that non-Muslims regularly commit acts of terrorism all over the world. Meaning - that yes Muslims do bad things, but human beings do bad things in general. You are seemingly unaware that conflicts which do not affect Western interests get almost no coverage in comparison to conflicts which do, hence why you are under the impression that most of the world's acts of terrorism are committed by Islamic Jihadi groups.

Go over a list of the nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and what does a neutral eye see? Corruption, violence, barbarism, depravity, vicious, brutal religious intolerance and hatred.

That list also includes some nations which don't fit that characterization, but your view that these societies are the way they are because of some inherent "backwardness" in Islam is just lazy determinism. Besides, you're ignoring two key facts - Western nations have either colonized every nation in that organization, and/or have interfered in their post-colonial political development routinely, by using various means to influence those societies towards their interests, and not necessarily in the interests of their own citizens, democracy, or human rights. Iran is a prime example - overthrowing a secular democratically elected government for oil interests, thus creating a climate where it's possible for a religious movement to claim power and repeal many human rights.

If the West stopped propping up dictators who play our game, than many people in the Muslim world would be able to actually deal with many of the problems you mentioned. I simply can't chastise Muslim nations for not doing enough to expand pluralism, democracy or human rights when we're sitting here working against them most of time.

I literally cannot imagine a western government appointing a man with such views to a high position, and then not being horrified and immediately firing him after he makes a speech like that.

That's what happens when religious (Wahhabi) forces control too much power in a given country. The issue here isn't that there's "too much Islam" in Saudi Arabia, it's that there's too much religion involved in the political system and not enough democratic institutions. That's how firebrands like this guy get to where they are.

Was it this thread or another one where last week someone posted a lively interview with a Kuwait university science professor discussing how anthrax could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, and how gleeful he would be to see it done, and speculating on another weapons of mass destruction and how wonderful the world would be with all the Americans and Jews dead?

Again, more cherry-picking. Of course there are people that think like this, but again - this does not represent the world's Muslims, it only represents an extremely small minority. For every one of these guys, there's a few thousand academics who denounce terrorism. Notice they specifically mention their opposition to one of the people you quoted earlier.

Again - what I am saying is that there are problems within the Muslim world that can be dealt with if Muslims and non-Muslims commit to dealing with them together using soft-power primarily, and hard power when absolutely necessary. I don't think that is an unreasonable view to most people - of course if you perceive ALL Muslims as the enemy, I suppose it would seem unreasonable to try and work with them.

Not representative of the world's Muslims? Should I go through today's media and pull out story after story from the Islamic world which has no counterpart in the west?

No, you shouldn't. You should not be comparing post-colonial nations which have had their internal affairs interfered with by outside forces for decades to those nations which did the colonizing, and are still doing the interfering. Of course there is going to be more unrest, poverty, instability, human rights violations, etc. in these nations - that's a natural result of being colonized and interfered with for so long.

You're comparing developed nations to developing nations - It truly is an apples and oranges comparison.

How about you go ahead and compare Muslim-majority developing nations to non-Muslim-majority developing nations? How about you compare Sudan to the Congo? Burma to Iran? Syria to North Korea? You're just not going to be able to prove that Muslim nations are more problematic than non-Muslim nations when it comes to the developing world. The differences you see in the Muslim world vs. the West have more to do with history and economics than religion, sorry to break it to you.

But that's not the point either. The point is a long history of the kinds of stories I posted above, one after the other, from all over the Muslim world, of vicious, brutal religious fanaticism and the violence it inspires in people throughout the Muslim world.

And my point, again - is that those stories aren't enough. It's not enough to cherry-pick the worst examples from a religion of 1.5 billion people, and leave everything else out. That's actually dishonest and lazy and it doesn't validate your worldview for the rest of us. You should know perfectly well that someone who is committed to misinformation can do the same kind of hack-job on any group of people - be it a religion, political movement, nation, cultural group, etc.

If you tried to use news articles alone to back up say, an essay (pick any topic) you'd get a failing grade - because they're simply not enough.

Grand sweeping statements require grand sweeping facts - news articles about individual incidents aren't enough. You need global opinion polls, declarations by international Muslim organizations, large research studies - etc. that back up what you're saying. The problem for you is of course, is that all of these undertakings actually repudiate your worldview. The global opinion polls show, for example Muslims aren't frothing at the mouth Jihadis as you make them out to be. That doesn't mean there aren't some problematic views - but rather that we can work to address those views with Muslims.

Oh bite me. You did the same. You deliberately looked for quotes from two religious figures which would support your views.

Actually as I've stated about 4 times now, the Topkapi Declaration and Amman Message are the result of over 500 of the world's top clerics and two of the largest religious gatherings of influential scholars in modern history. They are simply the pre-eminent documents on what Muslim scholars believe when it comes to democracy, secularism, pluralism, terrorism, etc. Meaning - that they're two of the BEST sources out there. I didn't have to seek out anything - all I did was go right to the best source available.

And if the first quote you'd found had said "Death to evil western scum!" you'd have passed it by and looked for another.

Not if it's from something equivalent to the Topkapi Declaration/Amman Message. Unlike yourself, my worldview on Islam has changed with what I've learned over the years. If I were to come across substantial evidence that proves your worldview correct, I'll change. The problem for you is, there is no substantial evidence to support your claim.

The best you can do is to troll news sites and post articles that "prove" your worldview, and not post the ones that disprove your worldview.

Finally . . .

1 - You never deny you are a White Nationalist, you just claim you've never called yourself that. I believe that this is simply a ploy to avoid articulating your views, in full, because if you did, they would be nearly identical to standard White Nationalist views.

2 - You have NEVER stated any solution that you have to the problem of "Muslim backwardness" - Either you have no solution and just enjoy making slanderous statements (which would make you a troll), or you do have a solution which you refuse to reveal (either because you know the solution sounds ridiculous and/or inhumanely brutal, ie - go to war with all Muslims and kill as many as possible).

3 - You have almost no direct experience with Muslims, so your news articles are really all you have. Personally I think it's incredibly naive to put that much faith in pieces of journalistic writing that rarely exceed 1000 words.

[JB Globe]

JB Globe -

Are you saying those statements weren't made?

No.

[JB Globe]

Would you agree that a segment of the Islamic religion is uncivilized and incompatible with Canada?

I would agree that a segment of virtually any group (religious, ethnic, political) is incompatible with basic Canadian values and society.

I don't use the terms civilized or uncivilized because I believe them to be culturally-specific definitions and not a good objective means of grouping people.

[Oleg Bach]

We must civilize the Muslims in Afghanistan! We must bomb civilians. We must make the son of the Muslim hate the west after we destroy his father. We must use the great prison system that is Judiac Christianity - preversed to the max to capture the hearts and minds of all the Muslims - and put them in a huge jail where the Pope can be the warden...Yes - we must civilize them..

[daniel]

... Yes its nice that we have a parliamentary system....

Good, and that our parliamentarians have done what they were elected to do. Now stop your childish whining.

[lictor616]

Good, and that our parliamentarians have done what they were elected to do. Now stop your childish whining.

Yes its nice.... it just hasn't been used in regards to multiculturalism and immigration restriction.

[Oleg Bach]

Evil people love to bring in evil people- and evil people are the ambitious ones who seek and attain power. Just like our evil ones release evil people who should be confined, to torment the good citizenry...that's the way it works - Get sick and go into a hospital - If you are evil - you will get the best treatment _ If you are good - well - don't get sick and stay out of hospitals... Look at the immgration out of Tiawan once the lease ran out....all the stealing thieving crooks came here - and they were welcome....

[Argus]

I can't think of one country, Muslim or otherwise, that I'd be willing to give up my citizenship to live in. Would you give yours up to live anywhere else? If so, why?

Australia/New Zealand.

For the weather.

[Argus]

My main point about why your worldview is the way it is has to do with an extreme tendency of yours towards confirmation bias (ignoring/discrediting things inconvenient to your worldview, over-emphasizing things which fit into it).

Just because I ignore YOU, doesn't mean I ignore valid, logical, factual information presented elsewhere.

The fact that when pressed for things that prove your worldview you resort to anti-Islamic websites actually fits into my argument.

Well, yeah, it would, since you posited that I do so, and have now adopted that completely unsupported (and dumb) opinion as an accepted fact.

That may be true, but as this is an old article - the only place you can get it now is on the anti-Islamic websites I mentioned earlier.

I doubt that's true. It's bound to be out there, but I didn't have to search the web. I took the quotes from one of my own posts here from 2004. One states the Sun was the source, the other is unsourced. Although later I cite the Free Muslims Coalition, which I rather doubt is anti-muslim.

But again, that isn't the point. You're trying to make it the point because whenever anyone says anything or gives an opinion a PC zealot like you doesn't like, your immediate inclination is to attack that person, to insult them, to demonize them, to suggest some great fault of morality and values - and only deal with the actual statement as a secondary issue, and only then if absolutely necessary.

Your position all along has been "Islam is a backward religion" - a grand sweeping statement,

Actually, my statement, if one chose to paraphrase it, is that the Muslim world is socially backwards.

and in order to prove something this huge, you need big facts. The words of two Imams just isn't going to cut it - this is Islam after all, not Catholicism. The Imam of the Grand Mosque isn't the Pope, even the most influential cleric in the world does not have a loyal following of much more than 1-2% of the population of the Muslim world.

I didn't quote a couple of major religious figures to prove anything. You demanded I quote some major religious figures to show radicalism so I complied. Now you've moved the yardsticks and pretended that quotes by religious figures are the substance of the argument.

I don't need to quote religious figures to show that the Muslim world is socially backwards. I don't have to recite examples of the backwards and racist newspaper editorials and opinions, the school textbooks, the governmental statements. I don't even have to list the endless brutal political and religious violence or the brutality of religious law as applied in Muslim nations. I could instead simply go over the rather well-known attitudes of the world's Muslim nations and societies with regard to such things as womens rights, gay rights, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. In every Muslim nation the majority of the population, in some cases a very substantial majority, are in favour of Sharia law. That alone is more than enough indication for a honest mind to consider them socially backward.

This fact may be true, but again - your prejudice is blinding you to the fact that non-Muslims regularly commit acts of terrorism all over the world.

Oh yes, for every thousand or so acts of Muslim terrorism, there are probably three or four by non-Muslims, too, maybe even half a dozen.

What was your point again?

That list also includes some nations which don't fit that characterization,

Like?

but your view that these societies are the way they are because of some inherent "backwardness" in Islam is just lazy determinism. Besides, you're ignoring two key facts - Western nations have either colonized every nation in that organization, and/or have interfered in their post-colonial political development routinely, by using various means to influence those societies towards their interests, and

Blah, blah, blah, blah blah. It's all whitey's fault!

Bullshit.

How long are you people on the far left going to continue to excuse the behaviour of nations and cultures because of colonialism? Most of the world was colonized, yet the level of barbarism from the Muslim world remains consistently above everyone elses. The level of democratic advancement remains below everyone elses. The level of educational and scientific achievement remains well below everyone else.

If the West stopped propping up dictators who play our game, than many people in the Muslim world would be able to actually deal with many of the problems you mentioned. I simply can't chastise Muslim nations for not doing enough to expand pluralism, democracy or human rights when we're sitting here working against them most of time.

The West has little interest in the Muslim world save to stop terrorism and to continue to ensure oil gets shipped out. I think most of us would prefer democratic nations in that region, but there seems to be no particular interest in such by the locals. There are anti-government pressures in all Islamic countries, but they are virtually all agitating for religious dictatorship, not democracy and democratic values.

No, you shouldn't. You should not be comparing post-colonial nations which have had their internal affairs interfered with by outside forces for decades to those nations which did the colonizing,

Don't be obtuse. I'm comparing their social backwardness to the West because the West is the epicentre of societal and cultural development today. And because part of the argument I've made is that bringing socially backward Muslims into Canada by the hundreds of thousands is not good for our cultural development as a nation.

How about you go ahead and compare Muslim-majority developing nations to non-Muslim-majority developing nations? How about you compare Sudan to the Congo? Burma to Iran? Syria to North Korea?

Now who's cherry picking? I don't need to pick and choose among Muslim nations. They're ALL socially backward. Remember that when the world court indicted Sudan's president for the slaughter in Darfur, the entire Muslim world, in the person of the Organization of the Islamic Congress, jumped in and defended him, saying he was doing nothing at all wrong. He then went on a tour of various Muslim nations, and was greeted as a friend and statesman.

And my point, again - is that those stories aren't enough. It's not enough to cherry-pick the worst examples from a religion of 1.5 billion people, and leave everything else out.

Well by all means, then, go ahead and post all the reams of positive information about the great cultural awakening of the Muslim world, it's social enlightenment and the great upwelling of equality and respect for individuality! Let's hear about the wonderful scientific accomplishments and achievements, the numerous Nobel prizes for literature and the arts directed to the Muslim world!

Fact is, the only thing that's come out of the Muslim world in the last century that has had any importance or relevence to the world is oil. And the Muslims didn't discover it, drill for it, build the pipelines or the refineries or the ports. They just sat on it and held their hands out for money from those who did.

1 - You never deny you are a White Nationalist, you just claim you've never called yourself that. I believe that this is simply a ploy to avoid articulating your views, in full, because if you did, they would be nearly identical to standard White Nationalist views.

You go on and on about the need for proof and then take it as a given that I'm a White Supremacist simply because I don't feel the need to dignify your moronic personal insults with a denial?

Here's a news item for you. I don't feel the need to respond to every loud-mouthed braying ass who makes sniveling accusations because he doesn't like my opinions and doesn't have the intellectual ability to counter them.

2 - You have NEVER stated any solution that you have to the problem of "Muslim backwardness"

-

Researched every post I've ever made, have you, chump? Read every word I've written on the subject? Or is that I'm expected to summarize everything in every single post?

3 - You have almost no direct experience with Muslims,

Spare me your drivel about personal anecdotes being so dreadfully important in understanding the Muslim world. I don't have any personal acquaintance with street gang members either, but I don't feel that's particularly relevant in condemning their behaviour.

[justme]

Digging up the Saudi past: some would rather not

The sensitivities run deep. Archaeologists are cautioned not to talk about pre-Islamic finds outside scholarly literature. Few ancient treasures are on display, and no Christian or Jewish relics. A 4th or 5th century church in eastern Saudi Arabia has been fenced off ever since its accidental discovery 20 years ago and its exact whereabouts kept secret.

In the eyes of conservatives, the land where Islam was founded and the Prophet Muhammad was born must remain purely Muslim. Saudi Arabia bans public displays of crosses and churches, and whenever non-Islamic artifacts are excavated, the news must be kept low-key lest hard-liners destroy the finds.

"They should be left in the ground," said Sheikh Mohammed al-Nujaimi, a well-known cleric, reflecting the views of many religious leaders. "Any ruins belonging to non-Muslims should not be touched. Leave them in place, the way they have been for thousands of years.''

In an interview, he said Christians and Jews might claim discoveries of relics, and that Muslims would be angered if ancient symbols of other religions went on show. "How can crosses be displayed when Islam doesn't recognize that Christ was crucified?'' said al-Nujaimi. "If we display them, it's as if we recognize the crucifixion.''

http://www.thestar.com/article/689341

[jbg]

We must civilize the Muslims in Afghanistan! We must bomb civilians. We must make the son of the Muslim hate the west after we destroy his father. We must use the great prison system that is Judiac Christianity - preversed to the max to capture the hearts and minds of all the Muslims - and put them in a huge jail where the Pope can be the warden...Yes - we must civilize them..

Are you off your meds tonight?

[jbg]

Australia/New Zealand.

For the weather.

Can you speak their languages?

[DogOnPorch]

Fosters, please.

Yup...I've got the lingo down.

[Argus]

Can you speak their languages?

Hey, since I've been watching the Sopranos I could even get by in New Jersey.

[Argus]

There are 1.6 million Muslims living in Britain and, according to the most extensive survey so far conducted, 45% of them believe that 9/11 was an American or Israeli conspiracy. Almost 25% argue that the 7/7 attacks in London were justified because of the British government's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same number, around a quarter, believe Britain is not their country and 30% would rather live under shariah law. Twenty-eight percent hope that Britain will eventually become a Muslim fundamentalist nation and a massive 78% advocate punishment for anybody who displays cartoons offensive to Islam, such as those of Muhammad published in Denmark.

Similar numbers are reflected in other surveys and what is particularly obvious and repeated is how little support there is within the Muslim community for notions of free speech when Islam is allegedly mocked or even critiqued

National Post

Wonder if surveys among Canadian Muslims would be any different.

[M.Dancer]

I've actually pointed this very fact out before... the most successful economic nations are HOMOGENEOUS: remember?

And you have been corrected before too...but you know what they say, repeat a lie enough times....

Fact is the worlds most vibrant and robust economies are virtually all multicultural with the US leading the pack.

A recent study on global competitiveness only highlights this.

1) Switzerland

2)United States

3) Singapore

4) Sweden (at last, the near homogenous societies!)

5) Denmark

6)Finland

7) Germany

8) Japan

9) Canada

10) Netherlands

And at the bottom end....

Almost all homogenous nations

Dominican Republic

Albania

Armenia

Kenya

Nigeria

Tanzania

Pakistan

Suriname

Benin

Guyana

Ecuador

Bangladesh

Lesotho

Uganda

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Cambodia

Cameroon

Zambia

Venezuela

Ghana

Nicaragua

Côte d’Ivoire

Mongolia

Ethiopia

Malawi

Bolivia

Madagascar

Tajikistan

Kyrgyz Republic

Paraguay

Nepal

Timor-Leste

Mauritania

Burkina Faso

Mozambique

Mali

Chad

Zimbabwe

Burundi

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/arc...ort_216524a.pdf

And what's more, some of the worlds worst economies are nations which are homogenous.

The logic flaw in lictor argument is wide enough to drive a truck through. There is possibly no correlation between ethnic diversity or the lack there of and economic health.

[Bonam]

And you have been corrected before too...but you know what they say, repeat a lie enough times....

Fact is the worlds most vibrant and robust economies are virtually all multicultural with the US leading the pack.

A recent study on global competitiveness only highlights this.

1) Switzerland

2)United States

3) Singapore

4) Sweden (at last, the near homogenous societies!)

5) Denmark

6)Finland

...

Of the top 6, most are really quite homogeneous, the US being the only exception. 73% of Swiss citizens are of Germanic origin, 21% french, 4% italian (that's 98% of the population from just three "white" groups, and many of the remaining 2% are also "white"). As you should know, immigrating to Switzerland is one of the most restrictive immigration processes out there. In Singapore, 97% of the population originates from three primary Asiatic groups (Chinese, Malay, Indian). Denmark's population is 91% of Danish descent, an overwhelming majority from just one very specific European heritage. Finland is also extremely homogeneous. Sweden is in fact the second least homogeneous of the top 6 of the list, after the US, so your information is plain wrong. It might also be interesting to note the recent violence and unrest in Sweden in regards to its Muslim minority, in places like Malmo. Certainly a greater level of unrest than in the other Scandinavian nations, which are more homogeneous.

And what's more, some of the worlds worst economies are nations which are homogenous.

Umm, that should be obvious why. Almost all of the countries that have "the worst economies" are absolute disasters to live in for a variety of reasons. No one in their right mind is immigrating TO those countries, people are immigrating AWAY from those countries. So of course the only people that are there are those that haven't managed to leave yet, whose parents were born there and their parents before them. So of course they are homogeneous.

The logic flaw in lictor argument is wide enough to drive a truck through. There is possibly no correlation between ethnic diversity or the lack there of and economic health.

Indeed, very possibly no correlation. We see many homogeneous societies on both the very top and bottom of the list.

Of course, if we did a similar comparison to see how the presence of certain specific ethnicities/races in a nation correlates with its economic performance we'd see some results which would indicate a lot more of a correlation. But posting that kind of information would get the poster labeled a "racist" I'm sure.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

In Singapore, 97% of the population originates from three primary Asiatic groups (Chinese, Malay, Indian).

Singapore, with 3 different asian groups is even more diverse than Switzerland...

Chinese 76.8%, Malay 13.9%, Indian 7.9%

Mandarin 35%, English 23%, Malay 14.1%, Hokkien 11.4%, Cantonese 5.7%, Teochew 4.9%, Tamil 3.2%, other Chinese dialects 1.8%, other 0.9% (2000 census)

[lictor616]

And you have been corrected before too...but you know what they say, repeat a lie enough times....

Fact is the worlds most vibrant and robust economies are virtually all multicultural with the US leading the pack.

A recent study on global competitiveness only highlights this.

1) Switzerland

2)United States

3) Singapore

4) Sweden (at last, the near homogenous societies!)

5) Denmark

6)Finland

7) Germany

8) Japan

9) Canada

10) Netherlands

And at the bottom end....

Almost all homogenous nations

Dominican Republic

Albania

Armenia

Kenya

Nigeria

Tanzania

Pakistan

Suriname

Benin

Guyana

Ecuador

Bangladesh

Lesotho

Uganda

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Cambodia

Cameroon

Zambia

Venezuela

Ghana

Nicaragua

Côte d’Ivoire

Mongolia

Ethiopia

Malawi

Bolivia

Madagascar

Tajikistan

Kyrgyz Republic

Paraguay

Nepal

Timor-Leste

Mauritania

Burkina Faso

Mozambique

Mali

Chad

Zimbabwe

Burundi

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/arc...ort_216524a.pdf

And what's more, some of the worlds worst economies are nations which are homogenous.

The logic flaw in lictor argument is wide enough to drive a truck through. There is possibly no correlation between ethnic diversity or the lack there of and economic health.

clutching and grabbing straws...

none of your top 10 are majority black or even all that "integrated". In fact the majority of the top countries cited are +95% white, with the duly noted exception of the US (which is progressively weakening).

In effect, this study is a sound refutation of the nostrum of equality.

Any white supremacist could use this study to make his points.

Edited September 9, 2009 by lictor616

[M.Dancer]

clutching and grabbing straws...

none of your top 10 are majority black or even all that "integrated". In fact the majority of the top countries cited are +95% white, with the duly noted exception of the US (which is progressively weakening).

In effect, this study is a sound refutation of the nostrum of equality.

Any white supremacist could use this study to make his points.

I'm sure you will.

What does black have to do with it? Venuzuela is pretty much white.

I thought you were trying to foist on us the fallacy of homogenousness as a benchmark?

Typical of your dishonesty, moving the goal posts when your fallacies are proven to be incorrect.

[M.Dancer]

clutching and grabbing straws...

none of your top 10 are majority black or even all that "integrated".

Canada is quite integrated as is the US, singapore et al...

[lictor616]

Canada is quite integrated as is the US, singapore et al...

Canada has 20% less non-white "minorities" then the US.. . i dunno how you figure..

[lictor616]

I'm sure you will.

What does black have to do with it? Venuzuela is pretty much white.

I thought you were trying to foist on us the fallacy of homogenousness as a benchmark?

Typical of your dishonesty, moving the goal posts when your fallacies are proven to be incorrect.

First off, by talking about global competitivness instead of GDP/ national debt etc which were the topics I chose ... YOU MOVED THE GOAL POSTS.

Venezuela is not pretty much white... it is about as diverse a place you can have... all shades of black brown and mestizo indians... miscegenation with part white part this part that... it is closely on par with Brazil as a diverse nation