eyeball Posted March 2, 2010 Report Posted March 2, 2010 Left-wing parties tend to advocate more strongly for immigrant and minority groups. Conservative groups tend towards more traditional values, and thus are far more likely to be distrusting of, say, Muslim groups. Both of these descriptions are overly broad, of course, but it's difficult to imagine Islamists being able to infiltrate the British Conservative party at any level. Immigrants also tend to come from more conservatively governed countries. In Canada at least its pretty clear Conservatives have made attempts to garner immigrant votes on the basis of their shared values - the application of sterner harsher justice especially comes to mind - values that most religions also cleave closely to and the very sort of thing the state is best suited for subjecting people to. I seem to recall reading that most immigrants come to Canada more for the economic opportunity than a chance to live a more liberal life. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Peter F Posted March 3, 2010 Report Posted March 3, 2010 This is disturbing, could it be happening in other countries and if so how can we stop it. Well, if you believe radical islamists are taking over certain political parties riding associations (which, by the way, is entirely normal in a democratic land, not to mention the preferred method of attaining political goals) then the answer is simple: Don't vote for them. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
ToadBrother Posted March 3, 2010 Report Posted March 3, 2010 Well, if you believe radical islamists are taking over certain political parties riding associations (which, by the way, is entirely normal in a democratic land, not to mention the preferred method of attaining political goals) then the answer is simple: Don't vote for them. I suspect that is what will happen, whether Labour were being taken over by Islamists or not. The question right now is whether the Conservatives can win a majority, or whether they'll be stuck with a hung parliament. Nobody seriously believes that Labour can win now. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 This is the beginning of the Islamification of Europe. I spoke of this a year ago and no one wanted to believe me. Oh well. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Michael Hardner Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 There are parts of major cities in Europe, including in the Uk, which are virtual no-go zones for police. They're ruled by Muslm groups and the authorities are terrified of inciting some sort of clash with "minorities" and so kowtow to them and keep the police out. That's odd. I thought I remembered you posting this about Australia a little while ago ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 Within 50 years a Western european nation will go through a civil war based on religion. I like the UK personally, but you could make a good argument for France or spain. I think if the Africans give the germans any trouble more then they already are the Germans will just expell the whole lot of them. The germans never had any qualms about other skin colors getting the rough treatment. The thing about racial intolerance is that it's such a powderkeg people refuse to discuss it rationally. So, you have reports of impending doom (Britain today, the deep south of the US in the 1960s) or ... nothing at all. ( Canada today. ) Although this report is credible, what the Islamists would gain by splitting and destroying the Labour party is questionable. Are there metrics for racial harmony/melting pot etc. ? I for one won't respond to sensationalist reports, thanks. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 (edited) This is the beginning of the Islamification of Europe. I spoke of this a year ago and no one wanted to believe me. Oh well. Yes, I still don't. I responded to all your posts at that time, and I think you drifted off from the board in response to my arguments. Or maybe you just drifted off. Edited March 4, 2010 by Michael Hardner Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 Well, if you believe radical islamists are taking over certain political parties riding associations (which, by the way, is entirely normal in a democratic land, not to mention the preferred method of attaining political goals) then the answer is simple: Don't vote for them. The Tea Partiers are trying to take over the Republican party in Texas with much the same result. They will wreck the party to save it, as extremists and true believers like to do. They can't deal with reality so they make their own, which is only real until the next election. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Mr.Canada Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 Yes, I still don't. I responded to all your posts at that time, and I think you drifted off from the board in response to my arguments. Or maybe you just drifted off. You need to wake up and take off the rosey glasses sir. Do you think Muslims are nice and friendly and want to blend into society? I tell them not to bomb me everytime I see them in person, they don't scare me. I will not submit. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Michael Hardner Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 You need to wake up and take off the rosey glasses sir. Do you think Muslims are nice and friendly and want to blend into society? I tell them not to bomb me everytime I see them in person, they don't scare me. I will not submit. How many Muslims do you know personally ? How many are your friends ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Bonam Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 Haha probably not very many if the first thing he says to them is "don't bomb me". Personally, I've met plenty of individual Muslims that seemed like perfectly reasonable and good people. Of course they were pretty much Atheists and only Muslims in name, but still. The problem arises not so much from individuals as from when you get a big enough proportion of them in a society. Simple example, if you have one Muslims at your workplace, they are just another person and they fit in with everyone else, and soon enough no one thinks anything of it. Just like if you had a member of any other group at your work, it's just normal and no one cares. But now suppose that several hundred people at your workplace are Muslims. Well, they share a certain common culture and it will be natural for them to be friends among each other and to mix less with the other workers. This is no different than members of any other religious or ethnic group congregating together. Now the problem becomes if there are a few radicals among them, and the influence they may be able to gain, especially if most others prefer to just stay out of it and not get involved. Then the most vocal voice of that group will be the most radical, and that will reflect on the entire group, and polarize the entire workplace, even though the majority of the individual Muslims, had they been there by themselves, would have been perfectly ordinary. That's pretty much what is now happening in some European countries. They are getting this "critical mass" of Muslims, where rather than just being a "tiny" minority that simply gets absorbed into the majority, they are big enough that they can stay in groups together, where the most radical will have the strongest voice while the more moderate stay silent. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 That's pretty much what is now happening in some European countries. They are getting this "critical mass" of Muslims, where rather than just being a "tiny" minority that simply gets absorbed into the majority, they are big enough that they can stay in groups together, where the most radical will have the strongest voice while the more moderate stay silent. They will melt in like every other religion has done. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Peter F Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 You need to wake up and take off the rosey glasses sir. Do you think Muslims are nice and friendly and want to blend into society? I tell them not to bomb me everytime I see them in person, they don't scare me. I will not submit. do you say that to the ones that dont want to bomb you or only the ones that do? Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Peter F Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 The Tea Partiers are trying to take over the Republican party in Texas with much the same result. They will wreck the party to save it, as extremists and true believers like to do. They can't deal with reality so they make their own, which is only real until the next election. Certainly. But then thats the nature of grass roots democracy. If the tea partiers see the republican party as thier preferred vehicle of getting the changes they want then the republican party will be subject to thier pressure. This is not unusual or strange. The Christian Right did the same in the early 80's. Either they succeed or meet too much resistance and fail. Its called politics and is the proper way of seeking political goals. There's nothing wrong here - or England apparently. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Bonam Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 (edited) They will melt in like every other religion has done. That depends on the immigration rate and the extent to which the prevalent society encourages them to assimilate. Put immigration rates high enough and incentives to assimilate low enough, and they will not in fact melt in. For example, Europeans immigrating to North America did not "melt in" with the existing population. Rather, they supplanted the existing population and created a new society based on their own culture and values. This is because they immigrated in large numbers and stayed together in cohesive units rather than dispersing amongst the natives. This is but one example, there are many examples in history of migrating peoples overwhelming and replacing the cultures of other areas. Now, Europe quite possibly faces the very same scenario. Except, unlike these previous examples, they have the power to do something about it, if they so choose. Edited March 4, 2010 by Bonam Quote
eyeball Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 (edited) Certainly. But then thats the nature of grass roots democracy. If the tea partiers see the republican party as thier preferred vehicle of getting the changes they want then the republican party will be subject to thier pressure. This is not unusual or strange. The Christian Right did the same in the early 80's. Either they succeed or meet too much resistance and fail. Its called politics and is the proper way of seeking political goals. There's nothing wrong here - or England apparently. The tea partiers are the Christian right and they've been infiltrating governments at least as long as Islamists have and for much the same reasons. Same crap - different bucket. This [the tea party movement] is being birthed by the Almighty. Link Edited March 4, 2010 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bloodyminded Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 This is the beginning of the Islamification of Europe. I spoke of this a year ago and no one wanted to believe me. Oh well. You mean you got it from Mark Steyn, who wrote about it way over a year ago. Oh, and his thesis has been discredited. By the same experts he (incorrectly) used to build his thesis. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Mr.Canada Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 You mean you got it from Mark Steyn, who wrote about it way over a year ago. Oh, and his thesis has been discredited. By the same experts he (incorrectly) used to build his thesis. I see. So Islam isn't spreading across Europe at a rapid pace? Is that your contention? Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
bloodyminded Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 I see. So Islam isn't spreading across Europe at a rapid pace? Is that your contention? Radical Muslims are not due to take over Europe. That's my contention. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Mr.Canada Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 Radical Muslims are not due to take over Europe. That's my contention. Ok so you agree that Islam is spreading across Europe very quickly. There's numbers to support that so it cannot be argued. Now let's say there are 10 million Muslims in Europe, there are a lot more than that but we'll use 10 million. If only 1% of Muslims were radical(it's estimated that about 6-10% are radical but we'll use 1%) that is still 100,000 radical muslims in Europe. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
bloodyminded Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 (edited) Ok so you agree that Islam is spreading across Europe very quickly. There's numbers to support that so it cannot be argued. Now let's say there are 10 million Muslims in Europe, there are a lot more than that but we'll use 10 million. If only 1% of Muslims were radical(it's estimated that about 6-10% are radical but we'll use 1%) that is still 100,000 radical muslims in Europe. Sure, let's parse the simpleton notions shrieked out by reactionary cowards and bigots everywhere; excellent idea: 1. You assume immigration levels will remain as they are; 2. You assume that "the estimated 6-10% are radical" is definitive and unquestionable; 3. You assume the radical portion of the population will remain static; 4. You assume "radical" means "active," which it decidedly doesn't, since we're not talking about activity, but rather beliefs. Consider: A sizeable portion of North America is made up of fundamentalist Christians who think Evolution is a hoax, that the earth is a few thousand years old, and that the Government should be specifically Christian in nature. There's a lot more of these than there are Muslims in Europe...never mind radical Muslims. So why haven't these hardcore religious fanatics made more inroads into taking over the government? Two reasons: one, there are strong institutional factors which prevent radicals from making too many fundamental changes too quickly (the same as in Europe); and two, because most people who hold radical beliefs simply do not get involved in politics. They have work, they have families, many are unknowledgeable about such matters, and many more don't care enough to get active. So if there are 100 000 radical Muslims in Europe (and I'm not saying there is...I'm not even confident that we can all agree objectively on the term "radical")--and even if that number grows...that does not mean that Radical Muslims are going to take over Europe. It's not going to happen. Meanwhile, as you guys collapse to the floor in a heap of shivering terror at the Crescent Shadow looming over Western civilization....tonight I'm going to have a beer with my special lady and watch a fun, mindless horror movie. Allahu Akbar. Edited March 4, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Argus Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 That's odd. I thought I remembered you posting this about Australia a little while ago ? Yes, in a report from an ex policeman named Tim Priest which, if I remember right, you said was too long for you to be bothered reading. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 Sure, let's parse the simpleton notions shrieked out by reactionary cowards and bigots everywhere; excellent idea: 1. You assume immigration levels will remain as they are; Immigration levels have remained pretty much as they are for twenty years. No major party has made any proposal to lower them. This seems, therefore, a reasonable assumption at the present time. 2. You assume that "the estimated 6-10% are radical" is definitive and unquestionable; Well, speaking for myself, I'd like to know what you define as radical. If a survey in the UK shows 40% of Muslims wanting sharia law in the UK, do they count as radical? Or is that not considered radical unless they're strapping on the TNT and blowing up subways? Do you consider that a moderate view? 3. You assume the radical portion of the population will remain static; My understanding is that extremism is on the rise, and has been for some years. 4. You assume "radical" means "active," which it decidedly doesn't, since we're not talking about activity, but rather beliefs. Consider: Define "active"? Given the contxt of this discussion, which revolves around Islamists infiltrating political groups we're not speaking of active as in "blowing up submways" active, but "agitating to change the political structure to one more accomodating to their fanatical beliefs". A sizeable portion of North America is made up of fundamentalist Christians who think Evolution is a hoax, that the earth is a few thousand years old, and that the Government should be specifically Christian in nature. Define "sizeable". the Muslim population in Canada is doubling every ten years (approximately). Are the numbers of "fundamentalist christians" similiarly increasing? There's a lot more of these than there are Muslims in Europe...never mind radical Muslims.So why haven't these hardcore religious fanatics made more inroads into taking over the government? There have been a number of posted accounts detailing the influence the religious right has on the Republican party, and American politics. Are you suggesting they've had no influence? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bloodyminded Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 (edited) Immigration levels have remained pretty much as they are for twenty years. No major party has made any proposal to lower them. This seems, therefore, a reasonable assumption at the present time. Well, speaking for myself, I'd like to know what you define as radical. If a survey in the UK shows 40% of Muslims wanting sharia law in the UK, do they count as radical? Or is that not considered radical unless they're strapping on the TNT and blowing up subways? Do you consider that a moderate view? My understanding is that extremism is on the rise, and has been for some years. Define "active"? Given the contxt of this discussion, which revolves around Islamists infiltrating political groups we're not speaking of active as in "blowing up submways" active, but "agitating to change the political structure to one more accomodating to their fanatical beliefs". Define "sizeable". the Muslim population in Canada is doubling every ten years (approximately). Are the numbers of "fundamentalist christians" similiarly increasing? There have been a number of posted accounts detailing the influence the religious right has on the Republican party, and American politics. Are you suggesting they've had no influence? Sicne you're cutting apart my quotes, and asking "Define active", which I already explicitly did (in the redacted part of the quote) I can only assume you are being mischievous and don't wish to debate this matter. But I'll generously make it simple for you. since your argument is wholesale lifted from Mark Steyn (I know, because I've read him on this matter), you can get most of your answers from a quick research of Steyn's own citations, where he cites demographic experts. His own sources disagree with his assessment of their own findings. Edited March 4, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Argus Posted March 4, 2010 Report Posted March 4, 2010 Sicne you're cutting apart my quotes, and asking "Define active", which I already explicitly did (in the redacted part of the quote) I can only assume you are being mischievous and don't wish to debate this matter. And since you haven't answered any of my questions I'll assume they make you uncomfortable, you don't like to think of them, and have no answers to give. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.