Migration Megathread

oscarBravo

markodaly wrote: »

Which race in particular, or was it just all races this amendment was targetting?

Jesus. If I say "xenophobic" instead of "racist", will you set aside the pedantry long enough to answer my question?

I am not asking you to change your mind at all, that is your right. However, your opinion on that matter concurred with the small minority as the amendment was passed with 80% of the vote. Therefore your personal opinion is absolutely outside the moral majority.

Yes, that happens. I don't set my moral compass by what the majority happen to believe at any particular moment in time.

You are of the opinion that the amendment in 2004 was racist.
Brian? for example, who would share much of your views on this thread about racist dog whistles would differ in that respect.

Are you more correct than he?

We have a difference of opinion. I suspect that we agree on more than we disagree on.

You still haven't answered the question: do you think this thread is completely free from islamophobia?

markodaly wrote: »

But can we say anything negative publicly about Islamists and their more extreme radical tenants of Islam, without incurring a backlash of being called Islamaphobes or accused of racist dog whistles? Not in a million years.

Of course you can. If this was a thread about radical Islam, and the radicalisation of vulnerable people, you'd find me all in favour of clamping down on that vileness. But it's not: it's about - and I quote the thread title - Muslim migration to Europe. The old title was something along the lines of "The Muslim takeover of Europe".

If you want to have a discussion about radical Islam and radicalisation, go for it. But instead you're arguing with people who are arguing against islamophobic dog whistles.

Tacklebox

I hope I'm not upsetting the decorum of the thread, but has any Shia's Allawites or Sufi's been responsible for delivering terrorism to mainland Europe ?

It seems to be always wahabbism and Salafist's.

James Brown

Tacklebox wrote: »

I hope I'm not upsetting the decorum of the thread, but has any Shia's Allawites or Sufi's been responsible for delivering terrorism to mainland Europe ?

It seems to be always wahabbism and Salafist's.

I believe it was terrorists mostly.

Dannyriver

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I believe it was terrorists mostly.

Thank you Matt

recedite

Tacklebox wrote: »

I hope I'm not upsetting the decorum of the thread, but has any Shia's Allawites or Sufi's been responsible for delivering terrorism to mainland Europe ?

It seems to be always wahabbism and Salafist's.

That's a good question, which gives me the opportunity to present The Recedite Pocket Guide to Militant Islam..


1. Ahmaddiya muslims; Islam's pacifists. These guys are so laid back that you would hardly know they were muslims. Being so meek, they can be picked on by more aggressive types of muslim, and as a result they are something of an endangered species. They frequently migrate to relatively safe western countries or any region of the world where they won't be bothered by others.
No threat to the West.



2. Allawites; are a type of Shia but relatively secular in their outlook. They are also persecuted by Sunnis but they can put up a spirited fight in self defence, as they have done in Syria under the leadership of President Assad.
No threat to the West.


3. Mainstream Shia; represented mostly by Iranians and the Hezbollah in Lebanon. These can be extremely aggressive but it seems to be mostly in self defence and in response to external threats coming from invasive Sunnis and Israelis.
Sometimes claimed to be a terrorist threat by Donald Trump and some European politicians (basically anyone trying to sell stuff to the Saudis) but IMO, No threat to the West.


4. Kurds; These are a moderate kind of Sunni and can be extremely aggressive but it seems to be mostly in self defence and in response to external threats coming from invasive Turks and ISIS fighters.
Their women like to wear camoflage trousers and frequently carry Kalashnikov assault rifles. Not to be messed with.
No threat to the West.


5. Mainstream Sunni; Most Arabs and Pakistanis etc they have a fairly strict version of Islam and like to export their ideology. They are not very tolerant of any other kind of Islam, or any other belief or disbelief.
Their threat to the West is based mainly on their tendency to migrate to it combined with their lack of much intention to integrate, and their passive support for No. 6 types, and their tendency to morph into No. 6 types after a generation or two living in the decadent West.
These guys would like us all to live under Sharia law, but they are generally willing to accept that its not happening yet. Their women tend to wear headscarves and will venture outside, but having a career is frowned upon.



6. Sunni Salafists and Wahabbis these are the guys that export holy war (jihad) from their ideological bases in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Bethnal Green and Molenbeek. Osama Bin Laden, Islamic state etc..

Their women tend to wear Burkas and are rarely allowed to venture out of the kitchen except to go shopping in small groups.
A serious threat to the West. These guys would like us all to live under Sharia law, and they are trying to make it happen. They are quite happy to kill a few infidels in the process.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Is Muslim immigration a threat to the west as right wingers say? No. Will it change the west back from hyper secularism. Yes.

We can see that in the schools in Birmingham right now. Multicultural societies will have to live with different views and tolerate those differences, even if tolerating those differences means tolerating intolerance.

Stephen15

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Is Muslim immigration a threat to the west as right wingers say? No. Will it change the west back from hyper secularism. Yes.

We can see that in the schools in Birmingham right now. Multicultural societies will have to live with different views and tolerate those differences, even if tolerating those differences means tolerating intolerance.

I have no interest in practising any sort of organised be that Christianity, Judaism, Budhism or Islam. As far as I see it Christians across the west are being lured away from Christianity but yet Muslims are encouraged to practice their faith.
Christians who are anti homosexuality or anti abortion are considered backward bigots but yet Muslims who hold the exact same beliefs are embraced under diversity. Complete double standards.

Islam is considered a peace loving and progressive religion by some and Christianity is considered a war mongering, bigoted and backward religion. It is hard to find anything good about Islam I don't have a problem with Muslims as I believe they are the biggest victims of the evil ideology of Islam. Look at all the terror that Islam has created on the west but yet we're still encouraging and embracing it.

Honestly what good has Islam done in the west I can't think of anything but plenty of evil such as the now near endless list of Islamic terrorist attacks, FGM, Sharia law the list goes on.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Phrasing matters. So does the messenger.

I would agree with the former, but the latter well that is dangerous in of itself. If the messenger is a white western male, does that mean he is automatically an Islamaphobe? Only Muslims can criticise Islam, or do people have to pass a virtue test first? It's all so tiring, opaque and confusing.

With phrasing, what I find is one has to be extraordinarily careful with the language they use and jump through many hoops and explanations before they actually come to the point. Most people just shy away from it as one slip of the tongue could cost them dearly.

Remember the now infamous clash between Ben Affleck and Sam Harris?

Sam Harris gets about 45 seconds in, before Ben Affleck jumps in and calls it 'gross and racist'.... that is the thinking and rationale we are dealing with here.

It is clear to me at least, that it is nigh on impossible to criticise Islamists and the bad tenants of Islam without incurring this backlash regardless of who you are how sincere you are or how much of a Muslim you are or are not.

People who sincerely want to tackle the problem of Islamism need to begin by recognising that there is no quick solution. Endeavours to involve normal Muslims are paramount in my opinion. Unfortunately, there is a pervasive "them and us" mentality which needs to be examined first and foremost.

Would you call think that Maajid Nawaz is sincere, or just another closest self hating Muslim?

The guy to my mind is a hero, and should be giving every platform available.
Yet in 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Centre put him on a 'Anti-Muslim Extremist, along the likes of Pamela Gellar'. They referenced that fact he visited a strip club once as part of the justification. It was just weird.

(I cant find the original article because they took it down)

He sued them,won and the SPLC had to issue a groveling apology, plus a payout, thus destroying the last remaining credibility they had.

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/

Someone else on the list was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who would be a little more right-wing that Nawaz and this fact alone is enough for the Ben Affleck's of the world to put a label on her as a 'Anti-Muslim Extremist', put her in 'THAT' box and go on ignoring the problem thinking that their own virtue singling actually does anything to alleviate or solve the problem.

In essence, if an outspoken brown Muslim male, whom himself was an Islamist once, along with a black ex-Muslim African woman, who suffered FGM at the hand of Islamists, sought asylum in Europe get put into the 'Islamaphobic anti-Muslim' box, then what real hope does anyone else really have?

Give the stage over for the Tommy Robinsons of the world? Because that is exactly what is happening.

ancapailldorcha

That's just cherrypicking though.

On your first video, a load of people screaming at each other just makes for good telly. No so much for good debate. I'm not going to watch that so I'll accept your summary of it in good faith.

Never read/watched Nawaz. A friend of mine follows him on Facebook. He used Sajid Javid's stripping away of Shamima Begum's citizenship to defend Trump.

oscarBravo

markodaly wrote: »

If the messenger is a white western male, does that mean he is automatically an Islamaphobe?

No. I'm a white western male, and I'm not islamophobic.

Only Muslims can criticise Islam, or do people have to pass a virtue test first? It's all so tiring, opaque and confusing.

It's only tiring, opaque and confusing if you consciously strive to avoid any critical thinking.

With phrasing, what I find is one has to be extraordinarily careful with the language they use and jump through many hoops and explanations before they actually come to the point.

It's not as difficult as you're working hard to make it seem.

Here's a simple rule of thumb for you: are you criticising Islam, or are you criticising Muslims?

Exhausting, I know.

The core premise underpinning this entire thread is a simple one: we don't want Muslims coming here. That's bigotry. If you can't see that that's bigotry, I respectfully suggest you check yourself for blind spots.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Stephen15 wrote: »

I have no interest in practising any sort of organised be that Christianity, Judaism, Budhism or Islam. As far as I see it Christians across the west are being lured away from Christianity but yet Muslims are encouraged to practice their faith.
Christians who are anti homosexuality or anti abortion are considered backward bigots but yet Muslims who hold the exact same beliefs are embraced under diversity. Complete double standards.

Islam is considered a peace loving and progressive religion by some and Christianity is considered a war mongering, bigoted and backward religion. It is hard to find anything good about Islam I don't have a problem with Muslims as I believe they are the biggest victims of the evil ideology of Islam. Look at all the terror that Islam has created on the west but yet we're still encouraging and embracing it.

Honestly what good has Islam done in the west I can't think of anything but plenty of evil such as the now near endless list of Islamic terrorist attacks, FGM, Sharia law the list goes on.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. There is literally nobody who is criticising the backwards views of one religion and embracing another.

Your analogy only makes a shred of sense if you logically followed through to say that we didn't accept anti-homosexual or anti-abortion Christians in our countries. We allow those people to live here under the laws of the majority... Christian, Muslim and otherwise.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just cherrypicking though.

Cherrypicking you say?
Yes, I missed all those other people who were both sincerely and legitimately criticising Islamists getting patronage by progressives. There are just so many of them to choose from....

On your first video, a load of people screaming at each other just makes for good telly. No so much for good debate. I'm not going to watch that so I'll accept your summary of it in good faith.

Well you could actually read up a little on it rather than passing the buck or address the subject matter but OK.

Sam Harris wrote about it after. On the Bill Maher show, there are is a set format. A guest is brought on to talk about a topic and there is also a panel. The guest normally gets a one and one with Bill Maher but that can also happen at the table. This can last up to 10 minutes and it's usually a courtesy by other guests to let this happen.

On this occasion, Sam Harris, who was plugging a book 'Waking Up, a guide to Spirituality without Religion', got about 45 seconds into it, before Ben Affleck started with the 'its so gross, its racist..' attack, the cause de jour of progressives. That is why it descended into a shouting match, but Ben Affleck made a complete tit of himself.

This is the same Ben Affleck by the way who asked PBS producers of 'Finding your Roots' to suppress the fact that they found some ancestor of his was a slave owner. It came out in Wikileaks. When it came out, cue another groveling apology. Not to mind his sexual harassment of women in the early 2000's and defending his brother who sexually assaulted a number of women. The man has no shame.

I referenced it as an example of how these debates go.
The line is, "Oh, of course, one can criticise Islamists and the bad tenants of Islam"...
Someone goes off and does just that, cue the shouts of racist and Islamaphobia...
Rinse and repeat.

Never read/watched Nawaz. A friend of mine follows him on Facebook. He used Sajid Javid's stripping away of Shamima Begum's citizenship to defend Trump.

He as in your friend or Nawaz? If the former, not sure what your friends' opinion on Begum has to do with anything but OK. Cherrypicking?

ancapailldorcha

Nawaz.

The difference is that I'm not throwing around mass generalisations based on cherrypicked examples. I was talking solely about Nawaz. Not all Muslims.

markodaly

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. I'm a white western male, and I'm not islamophobic.

Not the question I asked.

Have you ever publicly criticised Islamists and the bad tenants of Islam.
Hell have you ever done it anonymously on this forum?

It's only tiring, opaque and confusing if you consciously strive to avoid any critical thinking. It's not as difficult as you're working hard to make it seem.

Ah, more low-level insults.

Here's a simple rule of thumb for you: are you criticising Islam, or are you criticising Muslims?

Eh, I think I made is absolutely clear in this post.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109735447&postcount=1192

Yet, there is the assumption and suspicion that I am engaging in Islamaphobic dog whistling.

The core premise underpinning this entire thread is a simple one: we don't want Muslims coming here.

Exhibit A as per point above.

Even posting in this thread now is bigotry as the core premise is self-evident apparently.

So, it is crystal clear. One simply cannot discuss Islamists and the bad tenants of Islam as you are put in 'THAT' box.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nawaz.

So, you know nothing about him, yet you know he is a supporter on Donald Trump based on what your friend told you, from his Facebook feed?

Cherrypicking examples or what! LOL

The difference is that I'm not throwing around mass generalisations based on cherrypicked examples. I was talking solely about Nawaz.

I have no idea what your point here is, can you elaborate.

Not all Muslims.

Exhibit B.

When did I or Nawaz EVER say this?

Again, I made it clear here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109735447&postcount=1192

Do I need to preface this on every post?

markodaly

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus. If I say "xenophobic" instead of "racist", will you set aside the pedantry long enough to answer my question?

In fairness OB, you are not in the position of credibility yourself when it comes to this accusation, because you are quick out of the traps yourself if one doesn't use clear and concise language, as there is usually a quick glib response in waiting.

But, yes xenopbobic would be more correct. Someone should have told the Labour party. But the word racist is more weaponised.

You still haven't answered the question: do you think this thread is completely free from islamophobia?

Completely free? Well it subjective really but I would wager no. However, overt racism and Islamaphobia is against the charter and rules of Boards.ie so we definitely do not see that level of it here.
I answered that as honestly as I could, maybe you can do me the favor in return.

You think this thread is bigoted at its core, yet do you think we should even be debating this or it that just beyond the pale?

Of course you can.

Hmm, I see this a lot, yet its never that simple is it.

If this was a thread about radical Islam, and the radicalisation of vulnerable people, you'd find me all in favour of clamping down on that vileness. But it's not: it's about - and I quote the thread title - Muslim migration to Europe. The old title was something along the lines of "The Muslim takeover of Europe".

As I said, it is up to the moderators to clamp down on overt racism and Islamaphobia. Do you think they don't do this? What rules would you like to implement?

If you want to have a discussion about radical Islam and radicalisation, go for it. But instead you're arguing with people who are arguing against islamophobic dog whistles.

I am essentially arguing that those who call out Islamaphobes usually take a giant brush and tar everyone with it. It's self-evident in this thread.

ancapailldorcha

markodaly wrote: »

Cherrypicking examples or what! LOL

I never said what was in that quote and you know it.

If you're that desperate to post a lol comment that you have to infantilise the debate like this then I should perhaps leave it at that.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said what was in that quote and you know it.

If you're that desperate to post a lol comment that you have to infantilise the debate like this then I should perhaps leave it at that.

Well, I do notice that you have ignored the vast majority of the points I have made, so perhaps you are looking for an out. E.g. when have I mentioned ALL muslims.... I haven't!

But that's OK.

oscarBravo

markodaly wrote: »

Even posting in this thread now is bigotry...

I don't see any point replying to that level of petulance, frankly.

markodaly

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't see any point replying to that level of petulance, frankly.

Well, you could communicate and extrapolate the points more clearly rather than engaging in your MO, that is snide glib remarks.

recedite

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just cherrypicking though.

On your first video, a load of people screaming at each other just makes for good telly. No so much for good debate. I'm not going to watch that so I'll accept your summary of it in good faith.

Never read/watched Nawaz. A friend of mine follows him on Facebook. He used Sajid Javid's stripping away of Shamima Begum's citizenship to defend Trump.

Seems like you have created your own little bubble, filled with hand picked cherries.

Stephen15

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. There is literally nobody who is criticising the backwards views of one religion and embracing another.

Your analogy only makes a shred of sense if you logically followed through to say that we didn't accept anti-homosexual or anti-abortion Christians in our countries. We allow those people to live here under the laws of the majority... Christian, Muslim and otherwise.

No the same leftists shouting for abortion and gay marriage are the same ones shouting for open borders which would allow more Muslims who are anti gay and anti abortion into Ireland it's illogical but it's happening look at the likes of PBP pro abortion, pro gay marriage and pro third world mass immigration.

What's the logic to be being pro abortion, womens rights, pro gay marriage but yet pro mass immigration when the later completely contradicts the former. People on the left complain about conservatives if they're white Christians but encourage third world immigration even though the vast majority of migrants also hold the same conservative they're against and believe they're hate speech or islamophobic.

Stephen15

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. I'm a white western male, and I'm not islamophobic. It's only tiring, opaque and confusing if you consciously strive to avoid any critical thinking. It's not as difficult as you're working hard to make it seem.

There is no such thing as Islamophobia.

Phobia definition:
noun: phobia
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

There you go a phobia is an irrational fear. There is absolutely nothing irrational about fearing a 7th century barbaric ideology.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Stephen15 wrote: »

No the same leftists shouting for abortion and gay marriage are the same ones shouting for open borders which would allow more Muslims who are anti gay and anti abortion into Ireland it's illogical but it's happening look at the likes of PBP pro abortion, pro gay marriage and pro third world mass immigration.

What's the logic to be being pro abortion, womens rights, pro gay marriage but yet pro mass immigration when the later completely contradicts the former. People on the left complain about conservatives if they're white Christians but encourage third world immigration even though the vast majority of migrants also hold the same conservative they're against and believe they're hate speech or islamophobic.

It's this nonsense argument that they'll implement these policies that I take issue with. I really couldn't care less what one believes about abortion or gay marriage, once both are legal.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Stephen15 wrote: »

There is no such thing as Islamophobia.

Phobia definition:
noun: phobia
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

There you go a phobia is an irrational fear. There is absolutely nothing irrational about fearing a 7th century barbaric ideology.

Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say here? You don't fear Muslims, you hate Muslims?

recedite

Eminent biologist Richard Dawkins was "no-platformed" for allegedly being "an Islamophobe"...

I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. Far from attacking Muslims, I understand – as perhaps you do not – that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women,” wrote the author in his response. “I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?

Stephen15

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say here? You don't fear Muslims, you hate Muslims?

When did I say I hate Muslims? I view Muslims as equal as long as they are willing to integrate into our societies. Islam is not a race it's an ideology akin to Fascism and Communism that doesn't mean have anything induvidual Muslim people. I don't agree with the ideology that they often have no other choice but to follow.

In fact I believe that Muslims are often than not the victims of the evil ideology of Islam for example if one wants to leave or speak out about Islam the punishment under barbaric Islamic sharia law is death. Look at all the Islamic terror attacks which mostly take in Islamic countries targeting fellow Muslims, most victims of FGM are Muslims, the people flogged and stoned are mostly Muslims or ex-Muslims the list of Islamic barbarism on Muslims is endless.

Odhinn

Stephen15 wrote: »

No the same leftists shouting for abortion and gay marriage are the same ones shouting for open borders which would allow more Muslims who are anti gay and anti abortion into Ireland it's illogical but it's happening look at the likes of PBP pro abortion, pro gay marriage and pro third world mass immigration.

What's the logic to be being pro abortion, womens rights, pro gay marriage but yet pro mass immigration when the later completely contradicts the former. People on the left complain about conservatives if they're white Christians but encourage third world immigration even though the vast majority of migrants also hold the same conservative they're against and believe they're hate speech or islamophobic.

Bit of a nonsense there. Theres plenty of Irish born anti-gay, anti-abortion voters in the country - nobody is advocating they be deported.

Stephen15

Odhinn wrote: »

Bit of a nonsense there. Theres plenty of Irish born anti-gay, anti-abortion voters in the country - nobody is advocating they be deported.

There is campaigns for them to be taken off social media and there is some who believe that they should be locked up for hate speech. Name one thing Islam has contributed to the west.

James Brown

Stephen15 wrote: »

There is campaigns for them to be taken off social media and there is some who believe that they should be locked up for hate speech. Name one thing Islam has contributed to the west.

Oil and custom, (buying from the west). Many of the major oil companies and wealthy have Muslims to thank. In fact a large portion of the world economy centers on how oil prices fare.