Islamism in Europe.

[Jack Weber]

I cannot say I quite understand te Laodacean reference.

Laodocean..

The 7th letter to the Church of Laodocea...

3rd chapter of The Book of Revelation...

It describes not just a literal church of the period ,but more importantly,the attitude of the latter day Church age before the return of the Messiah...

I'm paraphrasing...

Jesus said to the Church of Laodocea...

"I know your works...I know that you are neither hot nor cold...I wish that you were hot or cold...But seeing as you are neither I will spew you out of my mouth!"

In otherwords,The Saviour is so disgusted with the lukewarm actions of the Church od Laodocea that it makes Him want to puke!...

An apt description of many modern Protestant sects...

[Bob]

Check out this video clip from an Italian talk show, where an Italian politician (Daniela Santanche) continually describes Muhammad as a pedophile, to the ire of a guest Imam and Muslim audience members. She had safety concerns for years, afterwards. By the way, you can find many videos on YouTube regarding the failure of Muslim integration into Italy, as well. Mainstream Canadian media virtually never discusses the issues of multicultural/immigration failures in Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpdCfbSsNzQ&feature=related

Here's a video about Muslim support for the veil in Italy.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmpzjIgu4vA&feature=related

[Remiel]

I was reading a critical article about Muhammad yesterday that, while it disputed many of the common Muslim defenses for his behaviour and concluded that he was not really as great a role model as they want to think, that the evidence did not, in fact, suggest an actual preference for young girls. It agreed, correctly, with DogOnPorch's assessment of him as a child molester, but did not the further charge of being a pedophile. One of the reasons was actually the captured quote from that video: that he had nine wives, yet only one of them was so young, despite the fact that he had plenty of opportunity for relations with young girls if that had been his real proliclivity.

[Black Dog]

Do you even acknowledge that Islamisation and Islamism is a threat to Western civilization within our own borders? Or are the concerns I'm expressing here all hysteria and fear/hate-mongering?

The latter. Islamism is a threat, but as such things go, it is a minor one when compared to past existensial threats as Nazism.

I find Islamism and Islamisation the threat to Western civilization as we know it, while you seem to think that addressing this threat is in itself the threat to Western civilization. As usual, reality seems to be upside down in your deranged world.

Because the measures you propose to deal with this threat would violate the very principles upon which our civilization was founded, you and your idealogical comrades like DoP and that chap in Norway are by far the greater threat.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh, give it a rest. I lead a normal, peaceful life. But, I'll be critical of the fact our local mosque segregates men and women even if losers like yourself will not.

Edited August 1, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[CANADIEN]

The latter. Islamism is a threat, but as such things go, it is a minor one when compared to past existensial threats as Nazism.

Because the measures you propose to deal with this threat would violate the very principles upon which our civilization was founded, you and your idealogical comrades like DoP and that chap in Norway are by far the greater threat.

I fear you may be underestimating the threat posed by Islamism. That being said, the threat of Islamisation is mostly in the mind of those raising it. Sorry folks, but European countries are not being turned into Muslim ones.

And like you, it amazes me how ready some are to toss what makes our societies the best ou the window.

[eyeball]

My answer is simple, do whatever is necessary.

Who are you trying to fool with your emphasis on necessary? Every one knows damn well this really reads as; do whatever is necessary.

[bush_cheney2004]

Check out this video clip from an Italian talk show,

He-he...looks like The Jerry Springer Show in Italian.

...and the host's cleavage....Mama Mia!!

[Bonam]

I don't think any radical, cruel, or violent "solutions" are what Bob or anyone really has in mind. In fact, no one's "human rights" need be violated. Immigration to a European country is not a human right of some Arab living in North Africa. It simply isn't. All that needs to be done is a reduction in immigration rates to sustainable levels. A rate that society can handle and assimilate, instead of a rate that overwhelms the host civilization with hordes of strangers.

[Shwa]

I don't think any radical, cruel, or violent "solutions" are what Bob or anyone really has in mind. In fact, no one's "human rights" need be violated. Immigration to a European country is not a human right of some Arab living in North Africa. It simply isn't. All that needs to be done is a reduction in immigration rates to sustainable levels. A rate that society can handle and assimilate, instead of a rate that overwhelms the host civilization with hordes of strangers.

Fair enough, sustainable rates, assimilation of the hordes, etc.

But tell me, why on earth did they set the rates at the current levels? I mean, do they have some sort of politically correct disease that blinds them to the terror of their present immigration rate? What other explanation could there be?

[Peter F]

Fair enough, sustainable rates, assimilation of the hordes, etc.

But tell me, why on earth did they set the rates at the current levels? I mean, do they have some sort of politically correct disease that blinds them to the terror of their present immigration rate? What other explanation could there be?

Blind? Of course not. Its a lefty plot to destroy European culture by replacing it with an Islamic one. Then destroying that one and bringing in the lefty commie govt to rule the world. Or something like that.

[eyeball]

I don't think any radical, cruel, or violent "solutions" are what Bob or anyone really has in mind. In fact, no one's "human rights" need be violated. Immigration to a European country is not a human right of some Arab living in North Africa. It simply isn't. All that needs to be done is a reduction in immigration rates to sustainable levels. A rate that society can handle and assimilate, instead of a rate that overwhelms the host civilization with hordes of strangers.

It seems to me if we're going to promote a border-less world for corporations we should extend the same courtesy to human beings who after all are people too.

[Bonam]

But tell me, why on earth did they set the rates at the current levels? I mean, do they have some sort of politically correct disease that blinds them to the terror of their present immigration rate? What other explanation could there be?

Why ask me? I'm not the one that set the current rates. Why did US politicians wait until the last day to work out a debt ceiling deal despite the harm and uncertainty that inflicted on their economy? Leaders don't always do the best thing for their country. It does not require willful malice or desire to ruin a country. But often partisanship comes ahead of anything else, and often it is simply a matter of stupidity or incompetence. For example, if a party thought it could gain some advantage in votes by implementing high immigration rates, that would always be the #1 consideration for party leaders, not the effect that such rates might have on the country in the long term (probably no one ever even though about long term effects, that's simply not part of the political calculus).

Edited August 2, 2011 by Bonam

[CANADIEN]

I don't think any radical, cruel, or violent "solutions" are what Bob or anyone really has in mind.

Indeed nobody here is suggesting that (although I suspect Lictor err I mean Dissenter wouldn't mind it one bit). But there are plenty of lunatics willing to do just that.

In fact, no one's "human rights" need be violated. Immigration to a European country is not a human right of some Arab living in North Africa. It simply isn't. All that needs to be done is a reduction in immigration rates to sustainable levels. A rate that society can handle and assimilate, instead of a rate that overwhelms the host civilization with hordes of strangers.

In the strict sense of the term, the is no human right for a migrant to be accepted by the host country. And it is perfectly legitimate for any country to set immigration levels and what skills immigrants should have.

At the same time though, one of best things about Western societies is the notion that things like place of origin, religion or skin pigmentation is not the measure of a person's rights (not that I blind to the fact it is at times more theory in practice). I for one am not ready to throw that out of the window because of a non-existing threat that western countries are turning Muslim.

[CANADIEN]

Blind? Of course not. Its a lefty plot to destroy European culture by replacing it with an Islamic one. Then destroying that one and bringing in the lefty commie govt to rule the world. Or something like that.

Nope. We lefty commies hate the West so much we do not care what replaces it. Or something like that.

Edited August 2, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Oleg Bach]

Someone comes into my house and attempts to dominate my domain - I kick them out - as for some mouth piece who comes in and insults me or threatens - I kick them out twice as fast...what's wrong with people these days _ A bar owner will toss out a troublesome drunk but we don't toss out trouble makers planing our demise? Again - we have been conditioned that survival is not important - what the hell is that about?

[lukin]

Malmo, Sweden is nothing but a peaceful little Swedish city.

[Shwa]

Why ask me?

Because this is a discussion board.

I'm not the one that set the current rates.

No shit Sherlock, but what is your opinion? Ah, here we go:

Why did US politicians wait until the last day to work out a debt ceiling deal despite the harm and uncertainty that inflicted on their economy? Leaders don't always do the best thing for their country. It does not require willful malice or desire to ruin a country. But often partisanship comes ahead of anything else, and often it is simply a matter of stupidity or incompetence. For example, if a party thought it could gain some advantage in votes by implementing high immigration rates, that would always be the #1 consideration for party leaders, not the effect that such rates might have on the country in the long term (probably no one ever even though about long term effects, that's simply not part of the political calculus).

So you are saying the immigration rates are directly in proportion to some sort of political factor and that politicians and leaders would deliberately hard their country in order to secure political power?

So politician A, having access to the same information as you - that unquestionably show there to be harmful effects to their current immigration rates, would sell the majority out in order to secure a few immigrant votes.

I find that hard to believe don't you?

[Shwa]

Nope. We lefty commies hate the West so much we do not care what replaces it. Or something like that.

No. Pinko lefty commies have such a self-loathing and feeling of spiritual emptiness (wot, with their liberal attitudes towards politics, religion and sex...) that they see no other recourse, but to acquiesce to Islam in order to feel better about themselves.

Once we are all Muslims, there will be World Peace. Or something like that.

[Bonam]

So you are saying the immigration rates are directly in proportion to some sort of political factor and that politicians and leaders would deliberately hard their country in order to secure political power?

So politician A, having access to the same information as you - that unquestionably show there to be harmful effects to their current immigration rates, would sell the majority out in order to secure a few immigrant votes.

I find that hard to believe don't you?

First of all, there is no information that shows anything "unquestionably". There are always doubts and questions, especially when trying to predict future trends. As for votes, it is not just "a few immigrant votes", but the votes of all those who have become convinced that multiculturalism is a good thing, which includes a substantial portion of the "majority" population. In any case, immigration has rarely/never been a significant electoral issue here in Canada, and is only now starting to arise as one in some European countries.

[dre]

First of all, there is no information that shows anything "unquestionably". There are always doubts and questions, especially when trying to predict future trends. As for votes, it is not just "a few immigrant votes", but the votes of all those who have become convinced that multiculturalism is a good thing, which includes a substantial portion of the "majority" population. In any case, immigration has rarely/never been a significant electoral issue here in Canada, and is only now starting to arise as one in some European countries.

Immigration is driven mostly by economics, and our negative birthrate, and our need for workers and laborers. The reality is that immigrants account for the majority of growth in the Canadian workplace since 1991. They are willing to perform both skilled and unskilled labor for less than their Canadian counterparts, and the unemployment rate for new immigrants is only a few percent higher than it is for Canadian born citizens.

The per capita immigration rate to Canada has been relatively constant since the 1950s, and recent years have seen a steady increase in the education and skill level of immigrants to Canada

Put quite simply theres demand for them in our economy, and most of them find work very quickly. Foreign engineers and doctors are in demand because the salaries expected by Canadians that do these jobs are so much higher than in the rest of the world, and they also take a lot of the unskilled jobs that most Canadians dont want to do.

Thats why its so silly to debate this as an "ideological/culture war" type issue.

[Shwa]

First of all, there is no information that shows anything "unquestionably".

This is what I am getting at, that it is incumbent on you to discover those reasons for yourself and not make pronouncements like "probably no one ever even though about long term effects, that's simply not part of the political calculus..."

Which is an unquestionably absurd notion. Especially after hundreds of years of data.

There are always doubts and questions, especially when trying to predict future trends.

Like what? That a particular religion is going to take over and enslave us all? Is that one of the questions?

As for votes, it is not just "a few immigrant votes", but the votes of all those who have become convinced that multiculturalism is a good thing, which includes a substantial portion of the "majority" population.

If the majority are "convinced" that "mulitculturalisn is a good thing" then the arguments and evidence that produced it must be pretty good. Judging from all those homies and tourists at all those multicultural events just in Toronto, multiculturalism seems to be working fine on the large so far.

In any case, immigration has rarely/never been a significant electoral issue here in Canada, and is only now starting to arise as one in some European countries.

You mean all those Muslim immigrants? I doubt the French are too concerned about all those Italians and Spanish flooding over borders.

[Bonam]

This is what I am getting at, that it is incumbent on you to discover those reasons for yourself and not make pronouncements like "probably no one ever even though about long term effects, that's simply not part of the political calculus..."

Which is an unquestionably absurd notion. Especially after hundreds of years of data.

You seem to have a lot more faith in our politicians than I do. From everything I've seen, the longest planning horizon any of them have is the maximum number of years they can serve. Politicians routinely mortgage the future in order to generate more support for themselves now. We see this constantly when it comes to deficits and entitlements. Same goes for immigration policy.

Like what? That a particular religion is going to take over and enslave us all? Is that one of the questions?

The questions I meant were of the accuracy and mechanics of the models used to predict future trends... that should have been pretty obvious from the context.

If the majority are "convinced" that "mulitculturalisn is a good thing" then the arguments and evidence that produced it must be pretty good.

A deeply fallacious statement. Large numbers of people often have incorrect beliefs, and often do so based on arguments that is certainly very far from "pretty good". What was the argument that made people believe that the Earth is flat? What is the argument that makes people believe in God? What was the argument that made people believe slavery was right and good? The fact that many people believe in multiculturalism says absolutely nothing about whether or not it will turn out for the best for our societies.

You mean all those Muslim immigrants? I doubt the French are too concerned about all those Italians and Spanish flooding over borders.

Yep, I doubt that too.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Bonam

[Shwa]

You seem to have a lot more faith in our politicians than I do. From everything I've seen, the longest planning horizon any of them have is the maximum number of years they can serve. Politicians routinely mortgage the future in order to generate more support for themselves now. We see this constantly when it comes to deficits and entitlements. Same goes for immigration policy.

The faith I have is provided by the historical evidence combined with the current high standard of living and relative freedoms we currently enjoy here. Including the immigration policies over the years. Do you have some other evidence that I should look at that would call this faith into question? Something in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that I missed that has caused this positive myopia I suffer from?

The questions I meant were of the accuracy and mechanics of the models used to predict future trends... that should have been pretty obvious from the context.

Exactly, which is what I was trying to get at earlier. What models do you have that are more accurate and mechanically sound that those that are employed by those elected and those hired to manage that for us? That is the context I am approaching from. It seems that you have some special information that leads to a certain conclusion, but that politicians, by their very nature, are exempt from seeing or using. I don't get that.

A deeply fallacious statement. Large numbers of people often have incorrect beliefs, and often do so based on arguments that is certainly very far from "pretty good". What was the argument that made people believe that the Earth is flat? What is the argument that makes people believe in God? What was the argument that made people believe slavery was right and good? The fact that many people believe in multiculturalism says absolutely nothing about whether or not it will turn out for the best for our societies.

Your confused. I didn't say it was a true statement, just a convincing argument that mulitculturalism is a good thing to the majority. One need not be truthful to be convincing right? However, in our current case, multiculturalism seems to be working out in the large of it. Do you have a broad argument that can show that it doesn't or the counter argument - just as convincing - that multiculturalism isn't a good thing? If you do, I'd love to hear it.

Yep, I doubt that too.

At least we are in agreement with the thread.

[dre]

Politicians routinely mortgage the future in order to generate more support for themselves now. We see this constantly when it comes to deficits and entitlements. Same goes for immigration policy.

Got an example of that? I dont really see that being the case. Weve had roughly the same immigration policy for about 50 years. We allow enough people to allow for a modest increase in our population each year which allows us to remain a growth economy.

Before mass immigration Canadas GDP was measured in roots and berries