Are the left being brainwashed by Islam?? - Mod warning in OP

WoolyJumper

Help!!!! wrote: »

I think the fact its a mass migration of them while people are still recovering from austerity that has put peoples backs up the most. That & the fact that if you disagreed with the left you were branded a racist. I have been an immigrant, am married to an immigrant so I am not against immigration as long as its controlled & the people of Ireland are not taken for mugs when being told we are taking children when infact its grown men with beards coming in

Yeah, and I understand that point of view and I wouldn't call you racist. But then it's still not the immigrants fault. They are just doing what they can to survive or escape. It's human nature. Immigrants shouldn't be blamed for poor immigration policy. I also agree that we need responsible immigration policy, not just on how many we let in but also how we help them integrate and feel welcome. Poor immigration policy will not only affect Irish people but also be detrimental to the immigrants themselves because naturally it will create tension and anger towards immigrants.

We also have to measure up immigration policy against that fact that we are living in an exceptional time where there are thousands of misplaced people are seeking asylum. What do you do in that situation. If staying in their country was viable, then they would. They didn't choose this situation. It's not their fault. Is it right to sit back and refuse to do anything?

I get it, letting in a lot of Immigrants is going to change the make up of our country and that is scary. Ireland has already changed so much, in terms of our recent immigration I think we have done pretty well. From what I can see there is a generation of young adults whose parents originate from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe who have all become part of Irish society and are pretty similar to the average Irish person. Change, whether we want it or not will happen. It's how we deal with it will make the difference.

Help!!!!

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Is it the beards you have a problem with? You've mentioned it twice now and it's starting to worry me.

What is it we should worry about beards?

No nothing to do with beards just the fact that some of the " refugees " think the west are so stupid that they can pretend that that are children or that they are from Syria when they are obviously African

WoolyJumper

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Just to make bit light of it amongst all this serious talk.

I find beards very worrying. Horrible fashion trend. Every second fella under 30 seems to have one these days.

I also have a problem with beards. I find them very attractive. The problem is they reel you in, but what happens when he shaves it.. Who knows what's under there.

ancapailldorcha

rachb wrote: »

Sorry?? It's a video of a Muslim woman sharing her views about her religion Islam. Is that not what this thread is about? Being able to express views on Islam without being politically corrected or being labelled racist by leftists because that is what the video is trying to explain.

You're welcome to post videos but they're meant to support your point, not to make it for you. Any more questions, please use the PM function.

Eric Cartman

I think the left are just reacting to the right. It's a simple case of 'whatever donald does is bad' Im 99% convinced that if he tweeted 'having sex with 10 year olds is wrong' they'd have a "stop hating paedo's" march organised within 24 hours.

Concerns about islamic culture replacing western culture are quite valid. Out of every group of migrants the world has seen, the chinese and the islamic communities have integrated the least (see china town's appearing worldwide / east london boroughs like tower hamlets being the islamic equivalent). This 'them and us' divide or intentional segregation causes problems. Luckily for the chinese , the stereotype in peoples heads is phone repair shops, takeaway foods and funny dragon based new year in february, Sadly for the muslim community all thats conjured up is child brides, sharia law, human rights violations and terrorist attacks. Due to the negative image of their culture, muslims really have no choice, either abandon your culture almost completely and adopt ours , or face continued suspicion and fear from the general public.

WoolyJumper

Help!!!! wrote: »

No nothing to do with beards just the fact that some of the " refugees " think the west are so stupid that they can pretend that that are children or that they are from Syria when they are obviously African

But is that really endemic, or is it something that has grown from the internet from people with their own agendas. I've not really seen evidence of this. I'm sure it happens but I don't its widespread as people want you to believe.

Things like this remind of that story that went around a few years ago. Of the African woman getting a taxi. She couldn't fit the buggie in the taxi so she left it on the side of the road and said she will just get another free one off the government. It *may* have happened but the way the story spread around Ireland everyone and their Mother had witnessed the event. When you really think about it the story didn't even make sense. Even if she were to get another free one she would have to wait at least a day...probably even over a week before getting another one. Which isn't practical if you have a small child i'm guessing.

MOH

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Help!!!! wrote:

will you be happy if the next group are grown men with beards instead of women & children that we were told we were going to get

Is it the beards you have a problem with? You've mentioned it twice now and it's starting to worry me.

What is it we should worry about beards?

I'd probably be less worried if it was blokes with beards rather than women and children with beards. That would be disturbing.

I always find it bizarre when Irish people are OK with discrimination on the basis of race or religion. Given the history of religious violence, the discrimination Irish people in the UK faced for a while largely as a result, and the sheer numbers that have benefited from the ability to migrate to other countries, we're really the last ones who should be demonstrating intolerance.

If you want to look for a religion that brainwashed an entire country, and abused women and children, you don't have to look very far.

Any kind of unquestioned, authoritarian rule is bad. Be it a religious state or a secular dictatorship.

I'd have no more respect for Islamic hardliners than I would for any other religion wanting to run a country on a religious basis. I've zero time for some of the right-wing 'Christian' groups and their members. But if you can't distinguish between an ideology and the hardliners who corrupt it to suit their own ends, you've got a problem.

Help!!!!

WoolyJumper wrote: »

But is that really endemic, or is it something that has grown from the internet from people with their own agendas. I've not really seen evidence of this. I'm sure it happens but I don't its widespread as people want you to believe.

Things like this remind of that story that went around a few years ago. Of the African woman getting a taxi. She couldn't fit the buggie in the taxi so she left it on the side of the road and said she will just get another free one off the government. It *may* have happened but the way the story spread around Ireland everyone and their Mother had witnessed the event. When you really think about it the story didn't even make sense. Even if she were to get another free one she would have to wait at least a day...probably even over a week before getting another one. Which isn't practical if you have a small child i'm guessing.

Well the first quota that the UK got was shown on the news, all grown men, uproar from the public, now theres boardings up where they get off the bus so no one can see who's getting off.
It happens more than some people would like you to know

KingBrian2

MOH wrote: »

I'd probably be less worried if it was blokes with beards rather than women and children with beards. That would be disturbing.

I always find it bizarre when Irish people are OK with discrimination on the basis of race or religion. Given the history of religious violence, the discrimination Irish people in the UK faced for a while largely as a result, and the sheer numbers that have benefited from the ability to migrate to other countries, we're really the last ones who should be demonstrating intolerance.

If you want to look for a religion that brainwashed an entire country, and abused women and children, you don't have to look very far.

Any kind of unquestioned, authoritarian rule is bad. Be it a religious state or a secular dictatorship.

I'd have no more respect for Islamic hardliners than I would for any other religion wanting to run a country on a religious basis. I've zero time for some of the right-wing 'Christian' groups and their members. But if you can't distinguish between an ideology and the hardliners who corrupt it to suit their own ends, you've got a problem.

I take it by secular dictatorships you are referring to Stalin, Pol Pot & Mao as we now are dealing more with organised terror cells that are opposed to the very concept of a state.

CMOTDibbler

Help!!!! wrote: »

Well the first quota that the UK got was shown on the news, all grown men, uproar from the public, now theres boardings up where they get off the bus so no one can see who's getting off.
It happens more than some people would like you to know

People decided they were grown men based on their appearance. They were photographed by tabloid newspapers despite the law requiring consent for minors to be photographed.

So now they cover them up because they are still being photographed.

MOH

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I take it by secular dictatorships you are referring to Stalin, Pol Pot & Mao as we now are dealing more with organised terror cells that are opposed to the very concept of a state.

I wasn't referring to any of those.

I'm talking about any state controlled by an individual, or clique of people, who disdain any checks or balances that might restrict their absolute power, and work to remove such impediments.

I take it by "organised terror cells that are opposed to the very concept of a state" you're talking about some kind of anarchist revolution?

I thought this thread was about whether the left was being brainwashed by Islam. Which I doubt.

donaghs

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I think what the left have a problem with is any hint of discrimination and generalisations based on religion. And rightly so. Similar to that line that is often (wrongly?) attributed to Voltaire that goes 'I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It'.
Thats how some 'left' may defend someone or something they don't necessarily agree with. Because they feel that someone is being discriminated against. We're nice people like that.

If that was the case, wouldn't you defend the right of ALL people to express their opinions? Even someone as disagreeable and who you would "disapprove of" like Donald Trump?

You should look at Voltaire's views on religion, and his play "Mahomet". Essentially about how people use religious fanaticism to manipulate others for their own ends.

It angered Catholics who saw it as an slyly indirect criticism of their religion, which it partly was. But even then, Voltaire survived any controversy over it. Enlightenment values were strong enough to protect him. Whereas today, don't expect to see someone putting this on in an Irish or UK theatre (the French did a few years ago by may not repeat that again) as many close-minded members of one particular religious sect would not allow this to go ahead.

KingBrian2

MOH wrote: »

I wasn't referring to any of those.

I'm talking about any state controlled by an individual, or clique of people, who disdain any checks or balances that might restrict their absolute power, and work to remove such impediments.

I take it by "organised terror cells that are opposed to the very concept of a state" you're talking about some kind of anarchist revolution?

I thought this thread was about whether the left was being brainwashed by Islam. Which I doubt.

Yes but the Jihadists want to create a Caliphate. A religious theocracy that would execute all infidels. Secular dictatorships are not. Take for example China a secular dictatorship it is not a threat to the globe nor is its rule on the scale of what ISIS is looking for. Other examples would include Russia, Syria, South Africa, Turkey and Myanmar all states that have autocratic rulers yet have no interest is starting a world war. The jihadists don't have a state yet but are enthusiastic for their upcoming holy war.

recedite

donaghs wrote: »

Or more recently, and much more pertinently, someone like the French philosopher Michel Foucault praising the wonders of the 1979 Iranian revolution. Despite being left-wing and gay, and the increased persecution of which the revolution brought to gay people and the once huge Iranian leftist opposition. Any why? An all-consuming Anti-American, anti-capitalist world-view I suppose.

http://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/reflections/80-michel-foucault-s-iranian-folly
Good quote from an Iranian feminist in 1978: "The Left should not let itself be seduced by a cure that is perhaps worse than the disease".

Great point on Iran in the 1970s. Its hard to believe these pictures were taken way back then.





But sometimes turkeys do vote for Christmas.

Hank Scorpio

There could be a zombie apocalypse and factions of the left would find reasons to defend the zombies rights.

Sureiknow

Has to be a link.
The left and Islam are against democracy.

Peregrinus

Help!!!! wrote: »

If there were a thousand snakes trying to get in to your house & you were told 100 of them are poisonous, would you leave your door open & invite them all in or would you close your door & take your time & bring in the nonpoisonous ones?

False dichotomy, since these are not the only two options. What I would actually do is ask by what bizarre perverted logic you imagine this analogy bears any relationship to the real world.

This analogy is a variation on one offered a couple of months back in an unguarded moment by one of Donald Trump's idiot children. He tweeted a picture of a bowl heaped with Skittles, comparing the Skittles to Syrian refugees and asking whether you would take Skittles from a bowl containing "a few that would kill you".

There were basically three reactions to this:

1. You think helping yourself to Skittles is a useful or meaningful analogy to affording protection to people suffering persecution on account of race, religion or national identity? What kind of an emotionally-stunted empathy-deficient sociopathic numskull are you?

2. Your analogy is based on a lie. Total number of people killed in the US by Syrian refugees: zero. Based on the evidence, you are lying when you claim there is a risk comparable to the risk of several poisoned Skittles in a bowl. You are lying to justify your bigotry. This is not a good thing. Go to your room and think about what you have done. No more internet posting privileges for you, young man!

3. Who in God's name serves Skittles in a bowl? Maybe that's how they're served in the Trump household; great bowls of sugar-coated gelatin sitting on all those marble-topped gilt tables in front of all those console mirrors and all those frescoes of Donald in heroic classical poses. It would explain a lot. If Donald Trump regularly sits up till 4 a.m. tweeting bile and swallowing Skittles by the bowlful, is it any wonder that he displays behaviour and demeanour familiar to parents of over-tired, over-sugared toddlers everywhere?

Walter H Price

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I would consider my self socially left. I'm also gay and an Atheist. From my point of view I don't agree with much of Islam, same with Christianity and Judaism. In fact I would say I strongly dislike Islam as a faith. I would be completely opposed to Sharia and would not like to see laws being built around any particular faith, including Islam. I am also completely opposed to setting up faith based schools. I would personally prefer to see all kids educated together, learning about each others faiths.

In saying that, while I dislike the religion I have no problems with Muslims themselves. I find myself coming to the defence of Muslims a lot. Mainly because as a group I find they are often unfairly judged, stereotyped and sometimes even ostracised. It's also my belief that these things only work to create more extremism. I am also aware that the actions of many western countries have lead to the development of many of the extremist groups that most average muslims get lumped in with.

I'm not pretending like there isn't a problem of extremism in Islam or that the average muslim views are more extreme than the average christian, however I don't think the way "the right" want to deal with the problem will resolve anything. In fact I think it will make things worse. Demonising a group will only work to create more extremism.

Basically what I'm saying is there is a difference between supporting Muslims and supporting Islam. I would guess that most on the left would share my line of thinking where they support muslims while disliking the religion itself. I would feel the same about Christianity if I felt they were persecuted (in the West) however generally they are not.

But how can you support people who support an ideology that at it's best criminalizes your'e sexual orientation and at worse punishes this crime with public floggings and execution.

As i said previous , the only Muslims i have ever found to be reasonable rational people are ex-Muslims or those looking for a way out. The guys i know in the UK there great to go watch a football match with but the way they talk about women , white girls in particular is disturbing to be honest goes far beyond the usual misogyny you get from a blokey chat at the football, i stopped meeting up with them after some comments they made around the Rochdale abuse case in the UK.

Would you equaly defend devout catholics who ofen take a bit of ridcule or or challenged on the actions of their church , an iona institute support or one of their ilk ? In my experience Muslims dont want to come to the west and pratice wester values unless they have left or are trying to leave their religion , they want halal meat , they want faith based schools , they want time off work etc.. to pray , they dont want to pay interest on loans a friend of mine works in a bank he has revived some level of abuse from Muslims over this issue, they don't want to deal with women in a work environment, we had muslim guys in college refuse to work with girls , we have had Muslim customers refuse to speak with female call agents in our call center. This is far beyond what even the most devout of Catholics look for.

I fully agree with you i would never jump to judge people based on the color of their skin or where they are from , i met a really nice girl from Saudi last year in college who was afraid to return to her country because of the oppression and violence twords women there , she has since claimed asylum here a number of us in the class helped her do this. But to be honest if someone told me they were a devout Muslim or expressed Islamic views in a conversation that would be me pretty much done with them.

I see sense in Trumps ban in that it is not permanent and it will allow time for tougher screening of people coming from those countries, Germany and France took the opposite approach they have ended up with an increased risk of terrorism and crime as well as massive unemployment and poverty among the migrants who have arrived, many of whom are not refugees.

constance tench

Walter H Price wrote: »

if it was a ban on immigration of people with hard christian right wing ideology would the the liberals still protest , would they be shouting Jesus saves at pro abortion women marches ? would they welcome their views on gay rights (i.e there should be none) what is the actual difference with Islam ? i accept all devout Muslims are not terrorists 100% , but all devout Muslims do subscribe to a value and belief system that is an absolute afront to western secular , liberal values arguably even more so then devout Catholics or Jews, so why the support ? Why the Islamophobic branding of anyone who disagrees ? How can Islam be called a Religion of peace when its Prophet was a war mongering pedophile ? you don't have to look at the brutality of ISIS , look at actual Muslim states Saudi , Pakistan etc... look at the brutality and inequality in those society's and explain how anyone in anyway liberally minded can stand in defense of Islam

It makes literally 0 sense for Islamic immigration to have the support it does among the socially left

'When somebody tells you who they are, believe them!'

https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/823256345893883905

Help!!!!

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

People decided they were grown men based on their appearance. They were photographed by tabloid newspapers despite the law requiring consent for minors to be photographed.

So now they cover them up because they are still being photographed.

Well I'll leave it up to other people to decide if they think they are grown men or not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1zQCEQWjc

Funny how all the posters with the " save the calais children " have a small child on them but these " children " were the first they could find

alastair

donaghs wrote: »

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I think what the left have a problem with is any hint of discrimination and generalisations based on religion. And rightly so. Similar to that line that is often (wrongly?) attributed to Voltaire that goes 'I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It'.
Thats how some 'left' may defend someone or something they don't necessarily agree with. Because they feel that someone is being discriminated against. We're nice people like that

.

If that was the case, wouldn't you defend the right of ALL people to express their opinions? Even someone as disagreeable and who you would "disapprove of" like Donald Trump?

Fringe idiocy, found in every ideology, aside, there's not really anyone saying that Trump shouldn't be allowed hold or express disagreeable opinions as an individual. It's the active imposition of those disagreeable opinions over the wishes of a majority, or where that imposition does more harm than good, is the issue. Highlighting idiotic or bigoted views is pefectly reasonable. Suggesting that idiocy or bigotry is a recipe for removal from society is quite a different thing.

Help!!!!

constance tench wrote: »

'When somebody tells you who they are, believe them!'

https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/823256345893883905

As has been posted on this thread a few times, there is no moderate Muslims. They are proud to say they do not want to sit with women & stoning should be allowed

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

As has been posted on this thread a few times, there is no moderate Muslims. They are proud to say they do not want to sit with women & stoning should be allowed

A notion disproved by awkward reality.

Help!!!!

alastair wrote: »

A notion disproved by awkward reality.

Sorry dont understand what you mean

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

Sorry dont understand what you mean

Your claim is undermined by it's obviously being incorrect.

constance tench

alastair wrote: »

Your claim is undermined by it's obviously being incorrect.

Tell us how it's obviously incorrect?

Help!!!!

alastair wrote: »

Your claim is undermined by it's obviously being incorrect.

How so??

FA Hayek

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it makes complete sense among the intelligent and the rational.

Ah, the obvious retort of the enlightened progressives. If you anyway support these actions, then by rational you are not intelligent and not rational.

Japan is a country that grants zero refugee visas to Muslims or allows any form of offical Islamic worship in their country. I guess they must un unintelligent and irrational.

wes

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ah, the obvious retort of the enlightened progressives. If you anyway support these actions, then by rational you are not intelligent and not rational.

Well, a bit rich, considering that you post easily disproven lies.

FA Hayek wrote: »

Japan is a country that grants zero refugee visas to Muslims or allows any form of offical Islamic worship in their country. I guess they must un unintelligent and irrational.

There are mosques in Japan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosques_in_Japan


Japan has taken in refugees:
One of the first Syrians granted refugee status in Japan discusses the hardships of status limbo


Sure, they aren't taken in many, but they have never take in many, Syrian or otherwise.

BTW, Japan isn't welcoming of foreigners in general. Sure, even people of Japanese descent, who came from Brazil didn't have a warm welcome:

Japan to Immigrants: Thanks, But You Can Go Home Now


When union leader Francisco Freitas has something to say, Japan's Brazilian community listens. The 49-year old director of the Japan Metal and Information Machinery Workers called up the Brazilian Embassy in Tokyo April 14, fuming over a form being passed out at employment offices in Hamamatsu City, southwest of Tokyo. Double-sided and printed on large sheets of paper, the form enables unemployed workers of Japanese descent — and their family members — to secure government money for tickets home. It sounded like a good deal to the Brazilians for whom it was intended. The fine print in Portuguese, however, revealed a catch that soured the deal: it's a one-way ticket with an agreement not to return.

Click here for rest of the story

That is how people of Japanese descent are being treated.

The lie that they target Muslims is being propogated by the usual suspects. Its easily disproven with with a quick google.

The question that needs to be asked, is why are people propogating easily disproven lies?

Wanderer78

FA Hayek wrote:

Japan is a country that grants zero refugee visas to Muslims or allows any form of offical Islamic worship in their country. I guess they must un unintelligent and irrational.

I'm sure Japan has a nation of intelligent irrational people, just like every other country on the planet

MOH

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Yes but the Jihadists want to create a Caliphate. A religious theocracy that would execute all infidels. Secular dictatorships are not. Take for example China a secular dictatorship it is not a threat to the globe nor is its rule on the scale of what ISIS is looking for. Other examples would include Russia, Syria, South Africa, Turkey and Myanmar all states that have autocratic rulers yet have no interest is starting a world war. The jihadists don't have a state yet but are enthusiastic for their upcoming holy war.

And there's plenty of right wing Christian nutjobs who'd love to go back to a fairly recent time when people were persecuted for sexual orientation, etc.
But the thread question is are the left being brainwashed by Islam. A religion of over 1.5 billion people. Not are the left being brainwashed by the extremist minority you're talking about.

Help!!!! wrote: »

As has been posted on this thread a few times, there is no moderate Muslims. They are proud to say they do not want to sit with women & stoning should be allowed

Posting utter drivel a few times doesn't make it through.

There's definitely brainwashing going on, but it's not "by Islam"

Help!!!!

MOH wrote: »

Posting utter drivel a few times doesn't make it through.

There's definitely brainwashing going on, but it's not "by Islam"

Did you not watch that link?? It is my personal experience that there are no moderate Muslims. Have you lived anywhere where there are a large number of Muslims? not just a couple down your local curry house

constance tench

alastair wrote: »

A notion disproved by awkward reality.

Here's the awkward reality Alastair.

https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/823256345893883905

Nody

constance tench wrote: »

Here's the awkward reality Alastair.

https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/823256345893883905

No here's the ankward reality; I've worked with Pakistan colleagues and trust me they are very devout believers as shown when I worked with them for a year inc. Ramadan time period. However they had no issues with sitting next to women, shaking hands with women or in fact interact like any normal person around women and to add insult to injury these were Indian women at that.

Your extremist examples are just that, fringe examples where as the reality is no where near that. Or should we take the white male Canadian terrorist killing Muslims and supporting Trump as the proof that all white males supporting Trump are terrorists as well? You can't have it both ways after all.

constance tench

Nody wrote: »

No here's the ankward reality; I've worked with Pakistan colleagues and trust me they are very devout believers as shown when I worked with them for a year inc. Ramadan time period. However they had no issues with sitting next to women, shaking hands with women or in fact interact like any normal person around women and to add insult to injury these were Indian women at that.

Your extremist examples are just that, fringe examples where as the reality is no where near that. Or should we take the white male Canadian terrorist killing Muslims and supporting Trump as the proof that all white males supporting Trump are terrorists as well? You can't have it both ways after all.

Did you note that none of them in that mosque consider themselves extremists?

Help!!!!

Nody wrote: »

No here's the ankward reality; I've worked with Pakistan colleagues and trust me they are very devout believers as shown when I worked with them for a year inc. Ramadan time period. However they had no issues with sitting next to women, shaking hands with women or in fact interact like any normal person around women and to add insult to injury these were Indian women at that.

Your extremist examples are just that, fringe examples where as the reality is no where near that. Or should we take the white male Canadian terrorist killing Muslims and supporting Trump as the proof that all white males supporting Trump are terrorists as well? You can't have it both ways after all.

No the reality is that in areas where Muslims are the majority they act in a totally different way than a couple of Pakistani work colleagues in Ireland.

Nody

Help!!!! wrote: »

No the reality is that in areas where Muslims are the majority they act in a totally different way than a couple of Pakistani work colleagues in Ireland.

Since it was out of Saudi Arabia I'd say they where quite comfortable in majority locally and from tradition.

To constance tench, fringes never see themselves as extremist. Take the Norweigan wannabie nazi who killed 100 odd social democrat youths; he did not think he was extremist either but simply doing his duty as a normal citizen.

wes

constance tench wrote: »

Did you note that none of them in that mosque consider themselves extremists?

The KKK wouldn't consider themselves extermists either. No one thinks there the bad guy. What exactly do you think that proves?

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Japan is a country that grants zero refugee visas to Muslims or allows any form of offical Islamic worship in their country. I guess they must un unintelligent and irrational.

Again, a notion at odds with the facts.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/11/japan-newest-largest-mosque-opens-doors-151125132433610.html

Japan grants very few refugee applications from any source or state, but they definitely do grant refugee visas to Muslims along with other applicants. In 2015, Japan accepted 27 refugees out of 7,500 applications from 69 countries - including Muslims.

FA Hayek

The left see the world in black and white. They see it as filled with oppressors and the oppressed. This is an updated version of Marxist view of the world of class, the workers versus the capitalists.

The west are the oppressors, especially the USA. Therefore anyone who is in conflict with the USA are the oppressed, namely Islam. It also helps of course that they are non-white as we have the narrative that white people are the oppressors and the oppressed are non-white. It is why the term white privileged is given such gravitas.

This has been going on for decades, in the west in the 50's and 60's we had the usual idiotic lefties spouting this nonsense, while Soviet tanks and soldiers were rolling through the streets of eastern Europe in places like Budapest.

Of course this outlook is stupid and deals with absolutes, but why else do self avowed feminists side with Islamists?

Wanderer78

FA Hayek wrote:

The left see the world in black and white. They see it as filled with oppressors and the oppressed. This is an updated version of Marxist view of the world of class, the workers versus the capitalists.

You could argue that some of the right also have a black or white view to on certain matters.

alastair

Help!!!! wrote: »

Did you not watch that link?? It is my personal experience that there are no moderate Muslims. Have you lived anywhere where there are a large number of Muslims? not just a couple down your local curry house

Your personal experience really means very little, try not to project your own blinkered bias onto a broader canvas. The facts don't support your personal anecdotes.

constance tench

Nody wrote: »

Since it was out of Saudi Arabia I'd say they where quite comfortable in majority locally and from tradition.

To constance tench, fringes never see themselves as extremist. Take the Norweigan wannabie nazi who killed 100 odd social democrat youths; he did not think he was extremist either but simply doing his duty as a normal citizen.

Why then did you mention Pakistani work colleagues rather than the society you were immersed in?

Help!!!!

Nody wrote: »

Since it was out of Saudi Arabia I'd say they where quite comfortable in majority locally and from tradition.

To constance tench, fringes never see themselves as extremist. Take the Norweigan wannabie nazi who killed 100 odd social democrat youths; he did not think he was extremist either but simply doing his duty as a normal citizen.

As with anything there is good & bad, through my own experience I have seen how they treat women & worse still young school girls on public transport. I have had conversations where they have spoken about white women in not so nice a way. I am not going by what the media says or what I've been told I am just saying what I have seen

Nody

FA Hayek wrote: »

The left see the world in black and white. They see it as filled with oppressors and the oppressed. This is an updated version of Marxist view of the world of class, the workers versus the capitalists.

And in the 50s the right were shouting themselves hoarse shouting communist at everyone who disagreed with them; before that it was that African slaves and descendants did not have the capacity to vote as they were sub humans. Now it's about how if LGBT people were allowed to marry it would destroy marriages but here's the fact you'll realize one day; no matter how much you keep resisting that the world and society evolve and changes it will continue to evolve and nothing you do will stop that.

wes

FA Hayek wrote: »

The left see the world in black and white.

The left aren't the ones making stuff up about Japan, last I checked.....

Widdershins

Are images allowed in this thread?

Help!!!!

alastair wrote: »

Your personal experience really means very little, try not to project your own blinkered bias onto a broader canvas. The facts don't support your personal anecdotes.

Really so I should just go by what you & the media tell me & not by my own experience of what I've seen & heard?? Baaa Baaa Baaa:rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

FA Hayek wrote: »

The left see the world in black and white. They see it as filled with oppressors and the oppressed. This is an updated version of Marxist view of the world of class, the workers versus the capitalists.

The west are the oppressors, especially the USA. Therefore anyone who is in conflict with the USA are the oppressed, namely Islam. It also helps of course that they are non-white as we have the narrative that white people are the oppressors and the oppressed are non-white. It is why the term white privileged is given such gravitas.

This has been going on for decades, in the west in the 50's and 60's we had the usual idiotic lefties spouting this nonsense, while Soviet tanks and soldiers were rolling through the streets of eastern Europe in places like Budapest.

Of course this outlook is stupid and deals with absolutes, but why else do self avowed feminists side with Islamists?

Criticises people for seeing the world in black and white. Proceeds to paint a black and white strawman.

Help!!!!

Widdershins wrote: »

Are images allowed in this thread?

Yeah dont see why not