|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 3, 2024 11:06:24 GMT
Research from the Pew Research Centre.  As I said previously, Islam is incompatible with anything, other than Islam. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 3, 2024 11:15:29 GMT
All of which has nothing to do with the vast majority of Muslims in this country. Do you take responsibility for every crime committed by people in your demographic group? I didn't mention the vast majority of any demographic. But I think if most people in this none Islamic country were asked which demographic, in their opinion, was the most aggressive, most disruptive, most demanding, most trouble, I think we both know what the popular response would be. "When I was born there were less than 50,000 Muslims in this non-islamic country. Today there are 4 million, that's the official figure, who knows what the actual figure might be. And as their numbers grow the more aggressive and demanding they become. Muslims do not integrate, islam is a throwback to the dark ages and is incompatible with anything other than islam." Your words. "But I think if most people in this none Islamic country were asked which demographic, in their opinion, was the most aggressive, most disruptive, most demanding, most trouble, I think we both know what the popular response would be." Men would be the answer given by some I suspect. Do you take responsibility for the crimes of all men in this country? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 3, 2024 11:16:06 GMT
I'm unsure about the claim 'it has nothing to do with the vast majority of Muslims in this country'. Don't the vast majority of Muslims live in areas which are overwhelmingly populated by other Muslims, areas which all exhibit the characteristics that Red Rackham has described? How can it possibly have nothing to do with them? Do they? Do you have a link? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 3, 2024 11:17:28 GMT
Research from the Pew Research Centre. As I said previously, Islam is incompatible with anything, other than Islam. There are a number of religious and political belief systems that are, on paper, incompatible with liberal democracy. Shall we ban them all? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 3, 2024 11:35:59 GMT
I didn't mention the vast majority of any demographic. But I think if most people in this none Islamic country were asked which demographic, in their opinion, was the most aggressive, most disruptive, most demanding, most trouble, I think we both know what the popular response would be. "When I was born there were less than 50,000 Muslims in this non-islamic country. Today there are 4 million, that's the official figure, who knows what the actual figure might be. And as their numbers grow the more aggressive and demanding they become. Muslims do not integrate, islam is a throwback to the dark ages and is incompatible with anything other than islam." Your words. "But I think if most people in this none Islamic country were asked which demographic, in their opinion, was the most aggressive, most disruptive, most demanding, most trouble, I think we both know what the popular response would be." Men would be the answer given by some I suspect. Do you take responsibility for the crimes of all men in this country? Like most people with your myopic viewpoint you refuse to see the elephant in the room. You claim 'men' are responsible for crime, lol. Tell me, when it comes to gang raping children on an industrial scale, type 1 CSE offences, or publicly beheading someone in the street, or leaving a bomb on a bus or in a theatre full of kids, or throwing acid in some poor sods face, or demanding death and vengence on anyone who dares to utter some dark age name, or demanding (In London) that our 9/11 is comming. When you think of these things and more, what men what minority are you immediately reminded of? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 3, 2024 11:38:03 GMT
I'm unsure about the claim 'it has nothing to do with the vast majority of Muslims in this country'. Don't the vast majority of Muslims live in areas which are overwhelmingly populated by other Muslims, areas which all exhibit the characteristics that Red Rackham has described? How can it possibly have nothing to do with them? Do they? Do you have a link? A link isn't really necessary, the good old Mk I eyeball will pretty soon show how Muslims have congregated in large numbers in a number of urban areas in England.
But have a butchers at this:
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 3, 2024 11:41:20 GMT
Sympathy is not criminal, but it clearly isn't an objective position. On this matter, they could take my position or yours - 1 ) These people are unfortunates who are in this situation through no fault of their own 2) These people are fraudsters, who should either go back home to help sort out their own country or apply for asylum in France, so they can be deported. My view has the British public as potential victims of a fraud and your view has these people as the victims of the British public's unwillingness to let everyone into their country. The BBC should ideally present both views dispassionately - it should not be championing causes like this. Where we might agree is that BBC reporters carefully pick the refugees they interview deliberately picking those who look most deserving (Such as a man with two young children.) I think they do this to counter the current narrative that none are deserving. Indeed your accusations of me evidence this point, for the moment I suggest some asylum seekers are genuine you immediately claim I want to invite the world to live here. "Of the 89,398 people who applied for asylum in 2022, two thirds (63%) were males aged 18 to 49."
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 3, 2024 11:51:56 GMT
Sympathy is not criminal, but it clearly isn't an objective position. On this matter, they could take my position or yours - 1 ) These people are unfortunates who are in this situation through no fault of their own 2) These people are fraudsters, who should either go back home to help sort out their own country or apply for asylum in France, so they can be deported. My view has the British public as potential victims of a fraud and your view has these people as the victims of the British public's unwillingness to let everyone into their country. The BBC should ideally present both views dispassionately - it should not be championing causes like this. Where we might agree is that BBC reporters carefully pick the refugees they interview deliberately picking those who look most deserving (Such as a man with two young children.) I think they do this to counter the current narrative that none are deserving. Indeed your accusations of me evidence this point, for the moment I suggest some asylum seekers are genuine you immediately claim I want to invite the world to live here. Firstly, well spotted. They do exactly that. This sort of bias is pretty hard to discern when you are sympathetic to the view being implied. They do this because they have a message they want you to receive that goes beyond the facts. They may consciously allow themselves to be deceived or even fabricate or exaggerate because they think that message is so important and moral that it overrides any moral duty for total honestly. One your second point - You aren't ONLY suggesting some of these 'asylum seekers' are genuine, you are indicating an action in response to this - namely that we do the work of sorting between the two groups. You do this knowing full well that committing to such an action in a way that makes sense will likely mean bringing them into the country and then finding ourselves unable to deport them. This is part of how the fraud works and so you are essentially arguing that the fraud be allowed (actually enforced wholesale) We have talked extensively about this before. All of the 'asylum' seekers in France who are trying to get into the UK, are attempting fraud. Why do we only see sympathetic renderings of the frauds. Why no sympathetic rendering of British people who don't want to be frauded and have their communities destroyed? The BBC clearly wades in on one side. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 3, 2024 12:02:55 GMT
I don't call myself English, I am English. What positive outcome are you trying to achieve by telling me otherwise? For three hundred years the British were in India, some were the result of ten generations of people being born in that country. To the Indians they were never Indian they were always the British. If a British man had said I am Indian the big question is would he have been accepted as such by the overwhelming majority of Indians? I understand the point you are trying to make regarding the perception of belonging to the tribe. Ive said numerous times national identity is a mindset. However , you have this back to front . The Indians were British Subjects/citizens and held British passports until independence. So a British man living in India legally could not be an Indian , because the Indians were British , like him. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 3, 2024 13:02:00 GMT
Do they? Do you have a link? A link isn't really necessary, the good old Mk I eyeball will pretty soon show how Muslims have congregated in large numbers in a number of urban areas in England.
But have a butchers at this:
That isn't proof that they all exhibit the characteristics RR described. Do you share the exact same religious, political and societal beliefs of your neighbours? Should we have arrested everyone who lived on Harold Shipman's road? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 3, 2024 13:52:05 GMT
I'm unsure about the claim 'it has nothing to do with the vast majority of Muslims in this country'. Don't the vast majority of Muslims live in areas which are overwhelmingly populated by other Muslims, areas which all exhibit the characteristics that Red Rackham has described? How can it possibly have nothing to do with them? How do you link them beyond proximity? A bloke less than half a mile from my home was arrested last year for possession of £80,000 worth of Cocaine. Does that make me a sympathiser? Accepting of him? Must have known? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 3, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
Research from the Pew Research Centre. As I said previously, Islam is incompatible with anything, other than Islam. What's your solution Red? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 3, 2024 14:30:42 GMT
They are not a separate entity to the communities they live in - they are a product of those communities and part of them. We paint a line because we want allies and don't want to believe how irresponsible we have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 3, 2024 14:31:58 GMT
They are not a separate entity to the communities they live in - they are a product of those communities and part of them. We paint a line because we want allies and don't want to believe how irresponsible we have been. So do you take responsibility for the actions of everyone in your local community? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 3, 2024 14:39:15 GMT
They are not a separate entity to the communities they live in - they are a product of those communities and part of them. We paint a line because we want allies and don't want to believe how irresponsible we have been. So do you take responsibility for the actions of everyone in your local community? No. However, my whole belief framework is western, not Muslim - my belief system doesn't often frame the victims of crimes as part of 'an enemy society that must be defeated by order of god' |
|
