NationStates Jolt Archive

Afterall, there are around 400,000 people in the UK who are "sympathetic to violent jihad around the world" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/5142908.stm ) and overall, what, 2 million muslims (?) living in UK?....And the goverment is idiotic at best, freeing criminal illegal immigrants instead of deporting them. :rolleyes:
I wonder, when France becomes Islamic Republic of France within this century, with 25% of young people already muslim, although, 10% of the population overall is muslim (another sign that they breed like rabbids) ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/26/do2601.xml ),will France and UK begin legendary battles again? Or would UK be overrun too and will they form cordiale entente islamice?

Wow. So, according to the Beeb, 20 percent of Muslims in the UK are sympathetic to violent jihad.

I would expect that makes for quite a few safe houses, quite a few people who will look the other way, and quite a few people who will actively participate.

Two million out of a 60m population, that's "over-run" only if you are of the opinion that one is too many. :rolleyes:

Wow. So, according to the Beeb, 20 percent of Muslims in the UK are sympathetic to violent jihad.

I would expect that makes for quite a few safe houses, quite a few people who will look the other way, and quite a few people who will actively participate.

It's not actually true.

17% of Muslims in the UK think of the underground bombers as matyres for their cause because it fits what their definition of what a matyre is.

However it's more like 4% who actually support them.

Afterall, there are around 400,000 people in the UK who are "sympathetic to violent jihad around the world" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/5142908.stm ) and overall, what, 2 million muslims (?) living in UK?....And the goverment is idiotic at best, freeing criminal illegal immigrants instead of deporting them. :rolleyes:
I wonder, when France becomes Islamic Republic of France within this century, with 25% of young people already muslim, although, 10% of the population overall is muslim (another sign that they breed like rabbids) ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/26/do2601.xml ),will France and UK begin legendary battles again? Or would UK be overrun too and will they form cordiale entente islamice?


Racist. Honestly so what if France were to become an Islamic nation? If thats what the people want, then its what they get.. And whats with the "THEY" breed like rabbids(or do you mean like rabbits?)?

Racist. Honestly so what if France were to become an Islamic nation? If thats what the people want, then its what they get.. And whats with the "THEY" breed like rabbids(or do you mean like rabbits?)?
If there is one thing you can say about Radical Islamists, they are very overtly sexual people.

Racist. Honestly so what if France were to become an Islamic nation? If thats what the people want, then its what they get.. And whats with the "THEY" breed like rabbids(or do you mean like rabbits?)?

It has nothing to do with race- but religion. Islamophobia (which I happen to have a mild case of). I hope France will be wide enough awake in time before they fall to sharia law.

I hope France will be wide enough awake in time before they fall to sharia law.
:rolleyes: Here we go.

It's not actually true.

17% of Muslims in the UK think of the underground bombers as matyres for their cause because it fits what their definition of what a matyre is.

However it's more like 4% who actually support them.

Shhhh. Stop bringing sense and actual facts into this rant.

Two million out of a 60m population, that's "over-run" only if you are of the opinion that one is too many. :rolleyes:
It's not "over-run".

But it is a significant problem.

It's inevitable that a country will be a target for terrorism when it lets muslims in.

Two million out of a 60m population, that's "over-run" only if you are of the opinion that one is too many. :rolleyes:

I was talking about future based on current trends. 58 million is decreasing slowly while that 2 million is increasing. Remember simple math...Read the "within this century" part and "will" is future tense...:rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with race- but religion. Islamophobia (which I happen to have a mild case of). I hope France will be wide enough awake in time before they fall to sharia law.


Niaman, you are a christian, right? So why do you fear Islam? Didn't our saviour promise us protection from our enemies? You need to stop listening to the gov't spreading it fear among people. Its how they keep their power, through fear.

It's inevitable that a country will be a target for terrorism when it lets muslims in.
How long did it take you to come up with that?

Shhhh. Stop bringing sense and actual facts into this rant.

Lol. Ok, i also add that Tony Blair is a muslim extremist and wants to convert the UK into training grounds for terrorists.

Racist. Honestly so what if France were to become an Islamic nation? If thats what the people want, then its what they get.. And whats with the "THEY" breed like rabbids(or do you mean like rabbits?)?

Ummm... Tactical Grace told us earlier today that we're not allowed to call each other "racist".

It's not actually true.

17% of Muslims in the UK think of the underground bombers as matyres for their cause because it fits what their definition of what a matyre is.

However it's more like 4% who actually support them.

Links on that 4% and explanation of 17%?

Ummm... Tactical Grace told us earlier today that we're not allowed to call each other "racist".
How about we use the word "Hotcakes", instead? As in: This thread is full of Hotcakes.

Racist. Honestly so what if France were to become an Islamic nation? If thats what the people want, then its what they get.. And whats with the "THEY" breed like rabbids(or do you mean like rabbits?)?

That's not what French people want, silly. 2/3 of French is for tighter immigration rules...

It's funny how people act as thought the likelyhood of some form of Shaira law being imposed on a country that becomes majority Muslim is so far fetched - particularily in light of the fact that I can't think of a Muslim country that doesn't have it to one degree or another.

Links on that 4% and explanation of 17%?

Well i heard it on the radio. I'll try to find something.

It's inevitable that a country will be a target for terrorism when it lets muslims in.


It is inevitable that a country will be a target for an Inquisition when it lets Christians in:rolleyes:

That's not what French people want, silly. 2/3 of French is for tighter immigration rules...


And if in the future there is a majority of Muslims there? then it is ok.

It's inevitable that a country will be a target for terrorism when it lets muslims in.
Is that what happened to Britain with the IRA? :eek:

Jeepers Billy, the IRA were Muslims in disguise.

How about we use the word "Hotcakes", instead? As in: This thread is full of Hotcakes.
I actually believe we need a completely generic word for anything derogatory. Hotcakes will do. :fluffle:

Is that what happened to Britain with the IRA? :eek:

Jeepers Billy, the IRA were Muslims in disguise.
You know what I meant, islamic terrorism.

It is inevitable that a country will be a target for an Inquisition when it lets Christians in:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: * 1 billion...
Dont be silly. There are no "christian" country that still practices Inquisition but there are LOTS OF "muslim" countries with primitive theocratic systems...

And if in the future there is a majority of Muslims there? then it is ok.

People, except a minority suffering from soviet (idealisticall starting and then self destroying) syndrome, dont want that kinda future . That's the point. If you like muslims so much, go to UAE. It's both rich and with low unemployment levels and great climate. Just dont pollute "christian" countries with your BS.

You know what I meant, islamic terrorism.
How am I supposed to know what you meant? I'm not fucking psychic.

:rolleyes: * 1 billion...
Dont be silly. There are no "christian" country that still practices Inquisition but there are LOTS OF "muslim" countries with primitive theocratic systems...


Well you gotta be careful, if you give the christians too much power, THEN they will unleash the inquisition.

How am I supposed to know what you meant? I'm not fucking psychic.

However it's so blatently obvious. Especially when it is the topic of discussion.

People, except a minority suffering from soviet (idealisticall starting and then self destroying) syndrome, dont want that kinda future . That's the point. If you like muslims so much, go to UAE. It's both rich and with low unemployment levels and great climate. Just dont pollute "christian" countries with your BS.


IIRC, there are no "Christian" countries. Most countries with a christian population are secular. But anywho, who's not to say that the minority of Muslim now aren't feeling that they are facing this "soviet style" persecution? its all about Point of View, i guess.

seems to me alot of the people on NSG think that Islam=destruction.
Is it SO Inconceivable that a country/community can have an Islamic majority and not destroy itself?

However it's so blatently obvious. Especially when it is the topic of discussion.
It's inevitable that a country will be a target for terrorism when it lets muslims in.

Is vastly different to

It's inevitable that a country will be a target for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism when it lets muslims in.

I reiterate: I'm not psychic. Say what you mean, don't make people guess.

seems to me alot of the people on NSG think that Islam=destruction.
Is it SO Inconceivable that a country/community can have an Islamic majority and not destroy itself?

No. It's fairly inconcievable. Just look at Europe, which is imploding very quickly.

No. It's fairly inconcievable. Just look at Europe, which is imploding very quickly.

Hardly.

No. It's fairly inconcievable. Just look at Europe, which is imploding very quickly.
How are they "imploding"?

Wow. So, according to the Beeb, 20 percent of Muslims in the UK are sympathetic to violent jihad.


Really? I thought the article said
"MI5 believes, from polls, that around 400,000 people in the UK are "sympathetic to violent jihad around the world", said Frank Gardner."
I suspect that those 400,000 are all Neo-con Americans...or WASPs...or members of Opus Dei. Afterall, the article doesn't state anywhere that the 400,000 are all Muslism or that even 1 is a Muslim. Interesting that you put that spin on it though. Deep seated fear or deliberate attempt to incite religious hatred?

And, on a related note, of those 400,000 people who are sympathetic how many are anything other than 'sympathetic'? How many would actively support a cause? How many would provide safe houses to people who have deliberately targeted innocent civilians?

Seriously, this is a pretty laughable attempt.

seems to me alot of the people on NSG think that Islam=destruction.
Is it SO Inconceivable that a country/community can have an Islamic majority and not destroy itself?


Obviously if you are a muslim you hate everything, including yourself. just ask Keruvalia, he was(maybe still is) a muslim at one point. I know he hated everything sooooo much:rolleyes:

Is vastly different to

I reiterate: I'm not psychic. Say what you mean, don't make people guess.
Nontheless, you jumped to conclusions yourself. Saying "It's inevitable that letting muslims in will make us targets for terrorism" is a hell of a long way from saying "Only muslims are terrorists"

How are they "imploding"?

It's no big secret that their economies are suffering, and are not getting better. There's a host of things involved in that, and I don't have the time nor the energy to explain it all. Their GDP's aren't growing, their population isn't (it's rapidly declining), and their immigration problems aren't helping any.

No. It's fairly inconcievable. Just look at Europe, which is imploding very quickly.

The city i live in(Deaborn, MI, U.S.A ) has a huge population of Muslims, probably 70%, in the apartment complex I live in 90% or the people speak either, Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi. I have yet to see any public beheadings, women being executed for adultery, or thieves getting their hands chopped off. No protests of any sort and the words "Martyr, Infidel, and Sharia" have yet to grace my ears, except on fox news.

No. It's fairly inconcievable. Just look at Europe, which is imploding very quickly.


OH that must be breaking news! "Europe Implodes on itself today; Muslims to blame":p

It's no big secret that their economies are suffering, and are not getting better. There's a host of things involved in that, and I don't have the time nor the energy to explain it all. Their GDP's aren't growing, their population isn't (it's rapidly declining), and their immigration problems aren't helping any.
Reality would seem to be at odds with you :eek:

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2005/images/swe0504b_c1.gif

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2005/swe0504b.html

Reality would seem to be at odds with you :eek:

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2005/images/swe0504b_c1.gif

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2005/images/swe0504b_c1.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2005/swe0504b.html&h=256&w=400&sz=31&hl=en&start=10&tbnid=KrkUx5cYznpkHM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deurope%2Bgdp%2Bgraph%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft: en-US%26sa%3DN


-giggles-

Reality would seem to be at odds with you :eek:

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2005/images/swe0504b_c1.gif

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2005/swe0504b.html

pwnt

Nontheless, you jumped to conclusions yourself. Saying "It's inevitable that letting muslims in will make us targets for terrorism" is a hell of a long way from saying "Only muslims are terrorists"
By saying "It's inevitable that letting muslims in will make us targets for terrorism" you are in fact saying that having no Muslims in the country would not make the country a target for terrorism.

That is bollocks, however which way you look at it

By saying "It's inevitable that letting muslims in will make us targets for terrorism" you are in fact saying that having no Muslims in the country would not make the country a target for terrorism.

That is bollocks, however which way you look at it

Actually, PM, I am O'Brien.

Actually, PM, I am O'Brien.
You're... um... wait...*scratches head*.... err... who? What?.... Gah!? :eek:

You're... um... wait...*scratches head*.... err... who? What?.... Gah!? :eek:
You're in the Ministry of Truth.

You're in the Ministry of Truth.
Ahhh. You got me.

Very good. Very good. ;)

pwnt

indeed, nothing quite like a visit from the reality fairy to crush the dreams of xenophobe

It's inevitable that a country will be a target for terrorism when it lets muslims in.

Where the hell did you come up with that idea?

indeed, nothing quite like a visit from the reality fairy to crush the dreams of xenophobe
How come I have a feeling it is going to be ignored ... he did not have the time to suposedly inform me

He did not even have the time to google "europe gdp graph" which is all I really did (I figured pictures are better then words)

I was talking about future based on current trends. 58 million is decreasing slowly while that 2 million is increasing. Remember simple math...Read the "within this century" part and "will" is future tense...:rolleyes:
Current trends are bullshit. There is really very little that can be extrapolated linearly. Pretty much everything exhibits nonlinear behaviour. Things approach limits, things oscillate, etc. There will be no pair of intersecting straight line paths, because your model is rubbish.

And nonlinearity, that is to say unpredictability, is especially true of complex societies.

Well you gotta be careful, if you give the christians too much power, THEN they will unleash the inquisition.

There is no christian inquisitions today but there are still primitive islamic systems so I guess your only argument is based on imaginary situations, huh? Pathetic....

IIRC, there are no "Christian" countries. Most countries with a christian population are secular. But anywho, who's not to say that the minority of Muslim now aren't feeling that they are facing this "soviet style" persecution? its all about Point of View, i guess.

There are no Christian Countries? No Shit! I guess I should have put quotes on christian...Oh wait, I did! :rolleyes:
Soviet syndrome is self destructive. Like when they are trying to be "equal", idealistic, they get soo inefficient that their economy collapse and most of them become equal in starving....So there is no point of view.

Won't happen. Ever.

Irrespective of the quantity of Muslims in either Britain or France, they hold no power or influence within government, industry or the armed forces.

Won't happen. Ever.

Irrespective of the quantity of Muslims in either Britain or France, they hold no power or influence within government, industry or the armed forces.

You know it won't happen when even the Daily Mail runs a piece on how the majority of Muslims are peaceful people, and how there are Muslim British Soldiers dying in Iraq.

Racist. Honestly so what if France were to become an Islamic nation? If thats what the people want, then its what they get.. And whats with the "THEY" breed like rabbids(or do you mean like rabbits?)?

Umm for one, Charles Martel would be rolling over in his grave. This also doesn't bode well for the rest of Europe, as militant as those in France are, they will want to spread their cancer to the rest of europe....bad stuff.

You know it won't happen when even the Daily Mail runs a piece on how the majority of Muslims are peaceful people, and how there are Muslim British Soldiers dying in Iraq.

Jesus tittyfucking Christ! You got a link to this?

Current trends are bullshit. There is really very little that can be extrapolated linearly. Pretty much everything exhibits nonlinear behaviour. Things approach limits, things oscillate, etc. There will be no pair of intersecting straight line paths, because your model is rubbish.

And nonlinearity, that is to say unpredictability, is especially true of complex societies.

Things change? No Shit! Things (at least stuff related to politics) change because policies change . And policies change based on current projections. :rolleyes: Projections arent ignored because "societies are complex". :rolleyes:
So it's normal that we talk about future based on todays projections. When we are talking about Global Warming, we arent saying "Oh, **** it, pretty much everything exhibits nonlinear behaviour, therefore tempratures might oscillate" No. We say immidiate action is needed. Similarly, I'm saying immidiate action is needed as well, about other stuff.

Is this about the terror plot in the UK where they were trying to smuggle liquid explosives onto about 20 flights to the US?

Probably Ahemnanerighnutjob's August 22nd suprise to the west....

:D

When we are talking about Global Warming, we arent saying "Oh, **** it, pretty much everything exhibits nonlinear behaviour, therefore tempratures might oscillate"
Intelligent people do.

No. We say immidiate action is needed. Similarly, I'm saying immidiate action is needed as well, about other stuff.
And those with a simplistic understanding have a knee-jerk reaction.

Intelligent people do.


Intelligent people do? I suggest you look up to dictionary about what intelligent means, since you seem to have no clue about the meaning of the word and since most intelligent scientists and overall most scientists suggest immidiate action.


And those with a simplistic understanding have a knee-jerk reaction.


:rolleyes: You are far from commenting about simplistic understanding of some people with such one sentence simplistic answers. Or maybe you are suffering from "projection" as psychologists call...

Jesus tittyfucking Christ! You got a link to this?

It was in the paper only, but the Mail did a huge piece on it. Compared one of the London Suicide Bombers to a Muslim British soldier killed in Iraq whilst defedning his friends. Then there was a big editorial bit on how 99% of British Muslims were peaceful, flag-waving patriots, and it was only the 1% that should be hated and feared.

I had to close the paper and check I was reading the Mail; I was stunned. It was about a month ago, maybe less.

Heh, way to prove my point.

An intelligent observer never makes an automatic deduction that an observed trend is permanent and linear. A reactionary will however, and this is where reactions which are not thought through, come in. In the case of global warming, examples include green energy purchase schemes and carbon credits, which for all their urgency, do not alter the facts on the ground. In the case of the ethnic mix of nations, knee-jerk reactions would be the oppression one may infer you envision, given your history of posting about the mere presence of muslims on European soil, being a problem that will come to a head with some bizarre Malthusian catastrophe reminiscent of the "missile gap" of the Cold War era. A fertility gap? Absurd.

So here we have you snapping back at me, denying complexity, selling your simplistic interpretation of a country's demographics, criticising me of all people for failing to understand the meaning of intelligence.

Two million out of a 60m population, that's "over-run" only if you are of the opinion that one is too many. :rolleyes:
One terrorist sympathizer IS too many.

seems to me alot of the people on NSG think that Islam=destruction.
Is it SO Inconceivable that a country/community can have an Islamic majority and not destroy itself?It seems inconceivable to me that an Islamic country can have equality, justice, and properity because none of the Islamic countries in the world today have those. Islamic nations always seem to become either dictatorships or theocracies or some combination of both. If more and more nations fall to Islam there will be no place for secular, Christian, Jewish, or other types of people to live free and unencumbered by the unequal treatment and second class status institutionalized in Sharia law.

Afterall, there are around 400,000 people in the UK who are "sympathetic to violent jihad around the world" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/5142908.stm ) and overall, what, 2 million muslims (?) living in UK?....And the goverment is idiotic at best, freeing criminal illegal immigrants instead of deporting them. :rolleyes:
I wonder, when France becomes Islamic Republic of France within this century, with 25% of young people already muslim, although, 10% of the population overall is muslim (another sign that they breed like rabbids) ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/26/do2601.xml ),will France and UK begin legendary battles again? Or would UK be overrun too and will they form cordiale entente islamice?

Well, before I leave this thread on the grounds that it's idiotic, I'd like to point out that you are here admitting that not all Muslims are terrorists, especially since it's entirely possible not all of those 400,000 people are Muslims.

It seems inconceivable to me that an Islamic country can have equality, justice, and properity because none of the Islamic countries in the world today have those. Islamic nations always seem to become either dictatorships or theocracies or some combination of both. If more and more nations fall to Islam there will be no place for secular, Christian, Jewish, or other types of people to live free and unencumbered by the unequal treatment and second class status institutionalized in Sharia law.Now Turkey may not be the beacon of equality, justice, or prosperity, but it certainly is very far from being a theocracy or dictatorship...

especially since it's entirely possible not all of those 400,000 people are Muslims.
Yes, I'm sure you're going to find so many non-muslims who are sympathetic to violent jihad.

The city i live in(Deaborn, MI, U.S.A ) has a huge population of Muslims, probably 70%, in the apartment complex I live in 90% or the people speak either, Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi. I have yet to see any public beheadings, women being executed for adultery, or thieves getting their hands chopped off. No protests of any sort and the words "Martyr, Infidel, and Sharia" have yet to grace my ears, except on fox news.
American Muslims tend to be well behaved. They're mostly well educated, employed, and often wealthy. They integrat into US society.

In Europe, well, look at the Muslim enclaves in the French suburbs. They're not integrating into French society well. They're poor, many drop out of school, they're unemployed, and they're getting radicalized. That's a great population to draw extremists from. An alienated, uneducated, angry kid will buy into any supremecist philosophy, like radical Islam, that teaches him that he's superior to the wealthier, better educated people around him and he suddenly becomes a potential terrorist and a guaranteed supporter for any extremist Muslim political party.

American Muslims tend to be well behaved. They're mostly well educated, employed, and often wealthy. They integrat into US society.

In Europe, well, look at the Muslim enclaves in the French suburbs. They're not integrating into French society well. They're poor, many drop out of school, they're unemployed, and they're getting radicalized. That's a great population to draw extremists from. An alienated, uneducated, angry kid will buy into any supremecist philosophy, like radical Islam, that teaches him that he's superior to the wealthier, better educated people around him and he suddenly becomes a potential terrorist and a guaranteed supporter for any extremist Muslim political party.Don't be silly. Not all kids in the banlieus are muslim.

Now Turkey may not be the beacon of equality, justice, or prosperity, but it certainly is very far from being a theocracy or dictatorship...
Good point. Where's Attaturk when you need him? That dude knew how to modernize a Muslim country.

Yes, I'm sure you're going to find so many non-muslims who are sympathetic to violent jihad.

I'm sure you'll find at least one, if you poll everyone in Britain. That's all I need to be validated.

I'm sure you'll find at least one, if you poll everyone in Britain. That's all I need to be validated.
Well if you're going to use a handful of lunatics or jokers to deny what's clearly true then there's nothing I can say which will convince you otherwise.

Interesting. I just saw one of the neighbors commenting on the alleged hijackers. Supposedly they no longer went to their mosque and took private islam lessons. Maybe the islamic communities aren't entirely to blame for the radicalization of some of their members after all.

It seems inconceivable to me that an Islamic country can have equality, justice, and properity because none of the Islamic countries in the world today have those. Islamic nations always seem to become either dictatorships or theocracies or some combination of both.
You may be right. What do you say about Malaysia? Is it a dictatorship or a theocracy? Or bit of both? It's a predominantly Islamic monarchy all right, but has a judiciary system based on the English common law...

To me, an outside observer, it seems a pretty OK place. I wouldn't go as far as to say there's equality, justice and prosperity for all - because we all know only Finland has that - but...

Interesting. I just saw one of the neighbors commenting on the alleged hijackers. Supposedly they no longer went to their mosque and took private islam lessons. Maybe the islamic communities aren't entirely to blame for the radicalization of some of their members after all.
I, for one, would feel better if members of those communities would make a list of names of people they think are involved in, or sympathetic to terrorist causes.

And turn that list into the government. And inform on whatever those people do.

It seems inconceivable to me that an Islamic country can have equality, justice, and properity because none of the Islamic countries in the world today have those. Islamic nations always seem to become either dictatorships or theocracies or some combination of both. If more and more nations fall to Islam there will be no place for secular, Christian, Jewish, or other types of people to live free and unencumbered by the unequal treatment and second class status institutionalized in Sharia law.

Algeria, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria

Algeria, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria
Makes you wonder why so many swim to France.

I hear the countryside there is wonderful, if you don't mind roving bands of radical Islamists coming through in the night for a mass slitting of throats.

Don't be silly. Not all kids in the banlieus are muslim.
I'm sure Muslims make up a big percentage, if not an outright majority.

You may be right. What do you say about Malaysia? Is it a dictatorship or a theocracy? Or bit of both? It's a predominantly Islamic monarchy all right, but has a judiciary system based on the English common law...

To me, an outside observer, it seems a pretty OK place. I wouldn't go as far as to say there's equality, justice and prosperity for all - because we all know only Finland has that - but...
No equality. http://www.domini.org/openbook/malay20030414.htm
I wouldn't want to live someplace where people don't have the basic freedom to read what books they want or practice the religion they've chosen because they happen to be Christian or Jewish or Atheist or whatever.

Makes you wonder why so many swim to France.

I hear the countryside there is wonderful, if you don't mind roving bands of radical Islamists coming through in the night for a mass slitting of throats.

I don't wonder, like 70% of their economy is oil exports the one-industry-economic-system isn't giving their entire population a job. France however has a welfare system were you don't need a job to be succesful.
As far as radical Islamo-fascists, thy tried to gain a say in the gov't through the democratic system there, then the gov't craed down on them in 1991 during the Algerian civil war

Algeria, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria
Not a theocracy, but elements of Sharia law exist in their legal system and are discriminatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Family_Code

I'm sure Muslims make up a big percentage, if not an outright majority.Perhaps, but I doubt that religion is seriously something that the kids use to define themselves. There's more of a mutual feeling of being from the former colonies, which would include the senegalese, the ivorians, and the other francophonic countries.

To be honest, who fucking cares! I am sick of this "oh you hate the poor wittle Muslims" bullshit. Anyway...no, not surprised at all! It was imminent. Now instead of focusing our attention on reform in Europe we must waste time with some morons who have nothing better to do than kill civilians...bloody worthless cowards.

I don't wonder, like 70% of their economy is oil exports the one-industry-economic-system isn't giving their entire population a job. France however has a welfare system were you don't need a job to be succesful.
As far as radical Islamo-fascists, thy tried to gain a say in the gov't through the democratic system there, then the gov't craed down on them in 1991 during the Algerian civil war

Apparently, the crackdown only provides for security in major urban areas. If you're in the countryside, they slit peoples' throats for sport.

Not a theocracy, but elements of Sharia law exist in their legal system and are discriminatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Family_Code

which the president said should be scratched off the constitution, which it should be

No equality. http://www.domini.org/openbook/malay20030414.htm
I wouldn't want to live someplace where people don't have the basic freedom to read what books they want or practice the religion they've chosen because they happen to be Christian or Jewish or Atheist or whatever.
Right. Never said it was perfect (like a certain Nordic country). What's funny is that they only banned the translated books... you can 'enjoy' them in english all you want. Weird. (I adore the source, I must add. "Documenting the Persecution of Christians in the Islamic World". I wonder if they bothered to list the Islamic books the Malaysian authorities decided to ban..?)

Sucks to be an Iban, though. This far, I always thought IBAN is just International Bank Account Number, never realizing it's the people living in Sarawak. This site is very educational.

It's no big secret that their economies are suffering, and are not getting better. There's a host of things involved in that, and I don't have the time nor the energy to explain it all. Their GDP's aren't growing, their population isn't (it's rapidly declining), and their immigration problems aren't helping any.
GDP keeps going up, slowely.

If your population drops, it means you're wealthy. That's a proven fact.

Immagration does help. It brings in more youth, with the European populaton going grey. Maybe we're even going to have to return to the time where we were asking for them to come.

GDP keeps going up, slowely.

If your population drops, it means you're wealthy. That's a proven fact.

Immagration does help. It brings in more youth, with the European populaton going grey. Maybe we're even going to have to return to the time where we were asking for them to come.
Heh, we will see. Boosting our birth rates to about 2.0 would do the trick just as well, without the cost entailed in integrating immigrants. Immigration would be fine if the welfare state were to be made leaner, and it were to be based on the consent of the native population.

Heh, way to prove my point.

An intelligent observer never makes an automatic deduction that an observed trend is permanent and linear. A reactionary will however, and this is where reactions which are not thought through, come in. In the case of global warming, examples include green energy purchase schemes and carbon credits, which for all their urgency, do not alter the facts on the ground. In the case of the ethnic mix of nations, knee-jerk reactions would be the oppression one may infer you envision, given your history of posting about the mere presence of muslims on European soil, being a problem that will come to a head with some bizarre Malthusian catastrophe reminiscent of the "missile gap" of the Cold War era. A fertility gap? Absurd.

So here we have you snapping back at me, denying complexity, selling your simplistic interpretation of a country's demographics, criticising me of all people for failing to understand the meaning of intelligence.

Heh...You are still far away from understanding the meaning of intelligence. Many political trends arent linear precisely because policies change. And as I said policies change because of current trends and projections. They are raising the age of retirement in many countries? Why? Because populations get older and the projections say there will be a huge strain on pention funds. I guess, in this situation, someome following your idiotic "logic" would do nothing because "societies are complex" and "an intelligent observer never makes an automatic deduction that an observed trend is permanent and linear". So that someone following your idiotic "logic" would wait, I guess. It's a reasonable thing to say projections might not be a reality but it's another thing to suggest to ignore projections because something MIGHT change the trends.
As for Global Warming, green energy purchase schemes and carbon credits might not be a "cure". However they are a start. For someone who is obsessed with complexity such as you, I find it overtly simplistic that you hold the opinion that those "do not alter the facts on the ground" so we should wait and hope for that something which MIGHT change the warming trend on climate. You almost sound as a religious fundementalist (Maybe that's why you are a muslim apologist as well) in your belief that things will change better by themselves simply because things change. And you "believe" since what you are saying isnt supported by any data. There is no indication of changing of any trend regarding both global warming and fertility rates. .
As for "Malthusian catastrophe", european populations are under replacement level for decades. Muslim population in Europe is between 15 and 20 million now and will double by 2025*. A doubling population below 20 years is a FAST growing population. And we know that european native populations are declining. If you are going to claim to be "An intelligent observer" and expect to be not laughed at, learn some basic math instead of making silly analogies or believing things will change while there is no data to support that.

* http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84409/robert-s-leiken/europe-s-angry-muslims.html

i believe that it is simply an attempt by the government to scare us so we accept this whole new fiasco. i am not getting onto a us or uk bound plane until these regulations are struck down.

i believe that it is simply an attempt by the government to scare us so we accept this whole new fiasco. i am not getting onto a us or uk bound plane until these regulations are struck down.

So, you don't believe there's a plot?

24 arrested in the UK. Several in Pakistan. Several more known to be at large.

Copies of their plans. Materials acquired. Plans for a dry run made.

all made up, in your estimation?

i believe that it is simply an attempt by the government to scare us so we accept this whole new fiasco. i am not getting onto a us or uk bound plane until these regulations are struck down.
Indeed. How funny that this should occur just after the latest terrorism act in the UK failed to pass.

So, you don't believe there's a plot?

24 arrested in the UK. Several in Pakistan. Several more known to be at large.

Copies of their plans. Materials acquired. Plans for a dry run made.

all made up, in your estimation?
The UK government could not have coordinated this? It's not beyond its powers.

The UK government could not have coordinated this? It's not beyond its powers.

Prove it then.

No, I'm not surprised, because it's well known that terrorists are out to get the West.

Prove it then.
If I had deep access into the UK government, I probably could. Not being able to prove it will not remove the doubt from my mind. So don't ask me for things you know to be impossible.

i believe that it is simply an attempt by the government to scare us so we accept this whole new fiasco. i am not getting onto a us or uk bound plane until these regulations are struck down.
Why would the Polish government go to such lenghts..? Scare the British and all of us...? You must give your vote to overturn such a government, come next election!

Why would the Polish government go to such lenghts..? Scare the British and all of us...? You must give your vote to overturn such a government, come next election!
He meant the British government. :rolleyes:

Imagine how awesesome it would have been for them ?


Are you nUTS ????

He meant the British government. :rolleyes:
No, YOU suck!

No, YOU suck!
Yep, and damn well.

Yep, and damn well.
Good sport. ;)

Good sport. ;)
*thinks of the advantages of Finland*

civilian owned suppressors....
nice and cold
saunas
high tech jobs
no fucking terrorists

hmmm...

*thinks of the advantages of Finland*

civilian owned suppressors....
nice and cold
saunas
high tech jobs
no fucking terrorists

hmmm...
Loads of blonde guys (and girls, I suppose) too! ^^

Well, before I leave this thread on the grounds that it's idiotic, I'd like to point out that you are here admitting that not all Muslims are terrorists, especially since it's entirely possible not all of those 400,000 people are Muslims.

Yeah, I'm sure 300 000 of them are jews...:rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm sure 300 000 of them are jews...:rolleyes:
Really? My guess would've been peace loving Buddhists. ^^

*thinks of the advantages of Finland*


Not those old ones! As our president said in an Al-Jazeera interview (yes!)... three words; education, education, education, education.

Yeah, had to add the fourth ;)

Right. Never said it was perfect (like a certain Nordic country). What's funny is that they only banned the translated books... you can 'enjoy' them in english all you want. Weird. (I adore the source, I must add. "Documenting the Persecution of Christians in the Islamic World". I wonder if they bothered to list the Islamic books the Malaysian authorities decided to ban..?)

Sucks to be an Iban, though. This far, I always thought IBAN is just International Bank Account Number, never realizing it's the people living in Sarawak. This site is very educational.

You mean Norway? :D

You mean Norway? :D
No... ... I mean Sarawak.


;)

Racist. Honestly so what if France were to become an Islamic nation? If thats what the people want, then its what they get.. And whats with the "THEY" breed like rabbids(or do you mean like rabbits?)?
France can't be allowed to turn Taliban. All that culture would be destroyed. It would be a human catastrophe.

It is inevitable that a country will be a target for an Inquisition when it lets Christians in:rolleyes:
In countries without Christian majorities, Christians are often a persecuted minority.

Well you gotta be careful, if you give the christians too much power, THEN they will unleash the inquisition.
Christians have held power continuously in Europe for 1700 years. Inquisitions stopped around 400 years ago.

So you think that Christians are a deadly danger if they are given power, but Muslims will be utterly benign? Are you living on the same planet?

But anywho, who's not to say that the minority of Muslim now aren't feeling that they are facing this "soviet style" persecution? its all about Point of View, i guess.
No, it's all about facts. The facts say that they are not facing such persecution.

Really? I thought the article said
"MI5 believes, from polls, that around 400,000 people in the UK are "sympathetic to violent jihad around the world", said Frank Gardner."
I suspect that those 400,000 are all Neo-con Americans...or WASPs...or members of Opus Dei. Afterall, the article doesn't state anywhere that the 400,000 are all Muslism or that even 1 is a Muslim. Interesting that you put that spin on it though. Deep seated fear or deliberate attempt to incite religious hatred?
The type of terrorism is religion specific. It's jihad. So any rational, honest assessment would conclude that most of them are Muslims.

It's no big secret that their economies are suffering, and are not getting better. There's a host of things involved in that, and I don't have the time nor the energy to explain it all. Their GDP's aren't growing, their population isn't (it's rapidly declining), and their immigration problems aren't helping any.
Our economies are not dying, our population density is still at least twice that of the US, and we have rioting problem with immigrants.

France can't be allowed to turn Taliban. All that culture would be destroyed. It would be a human catastrophe.
Agreed.

In countries without Christian majorities, Christians are often a persecuted minority.
True. Especially in some of the more radical Islamic nations, and China not too long ago.

Christians have held power continuously in Europe for 1700 years. Inquisitions stopped around 400 years ago.
Heh, you mean they actually stopped burning people at the stake? :eek:


The type of terrorism is religion specific. It's jihad. So any rational, honest assessment would conclude that most of them are Muslims.
Remember, when dealing with lefties, rational honest assessment is usually suspended.

Our economies are not dying, our population density is still at least twice that of the US, and we have rioting problem with immigrants.
When I hear Americans talking about how the EU economy is dying, I am reminded of Europeans who tell me how the US economy is dying.

Hey, the West rocks economically.


If you want to see a dying economy, go to North Korea or Zimbabwe.

The rioting in France is an economic thing more than anything else, and the product of warehousing the poor in concentrated housing projects. And yes, the US found that by un-warehousing them, you can reduce the crime rate by 65 percent.

I'm sure you'll find at least one, if you poll everyone in Britain. That's all I need to be validated.
So a abag of 400,000 marbles, one of which is blue, 399,999 of which are red, can't be called a bag of red marbles. And that it would be an unfair, bigoted generalisation to call it a bag of red marbles?

Remember, when dealing with lefties, rational honest assessment is usually suspended.
I'm a lefty.

I'm a lefty.
I'm referring to those who are left-wing relative to cultural policies.

So a abag of 400,000 marbles, one of which is blue, 399,999 of which are red, can't be called a bag of red marbles. And that it would be an unfair, bigoted generalisation to call it a bag of red marbles?No. In a bag of 2 milion red marbles, 400,000 of which are blue. All the rest 1,6 millon get called blue too, because they are near the 400,000... That's a bit unfair.

I'm referring to those who are left-wing relative to cultural policies.
If you don't feel like getting into an annoying debate, then you needn't answer, but I don't regard "cultural relativists" as true leftists. They don't support women's rights, workers rights, peace, democracy, and all the other things that right-wing Islam is against, but that lefties are meant to be for.

No. In a bag of 2 milion red marbles, 400,000 which are blue, all the rest 1,6 millon are called blue too, because they are near the 400,000.
Very few people are claiming that all Muslims in the UK are sympathetic to violent jihad. They're claiming that all people who are sympathetic to violent jihad are Muslims. A very different, and much more reasonable claim.

A very different, and much more reasonable claim.
Agreed.
They're claiming that all people who are sympathetic to violent jihad are Muslims.They might be right.

If you don't feel like getting into an annoying debate, then you needn't answer, but I don't regard "cultural relativists" as true leftists. They don't support women's rights, workers rights, peace, democracy, and all the other things that right-wing Islam is against, but that lefties are meant to be for.
Often they do. They just don't see the inherent contradiction. They preach that one should adopt a "morally superior" welfare system, whilst at the same time they see nothing wrong with nations whose ideals are diametrically opposed to theirs. However, yes, you are correct for the most of them. They are intellectual frauds. I am vehemently opposed to left-wing economic policies, but I am for cultural conservatism.

They might be right.
To be honest, I don't even believe that all of them are Muslims. Probably about 350,000 Muslims, and 50,000 OceanDrive types, and other assorted fringe ideologues.

Often they do. They just don't see the inherent contradiction. They preach that one should adopt a "morally superior" welfare system
Moral superiority is rarely used as an argument for welfare.

I am vehemently opposed to left-wing economic policies, but I am for cultural conservatism.
So would you oppose Walmart coming along and putting all the native small businesses out of business?

I would oppose that for cultural reasons, but it would require a government intervention in the market. Would you agree?

...but I am for cultural conservatism.
Which is silly.

Wanting to protect a culture from change is impossible, because culture is change. It changes all the time.

Go back fifty or so years. Where were these ideals you pretend to support then? Women were at home and wouldn't get a job, in your home land people were being oppressed in their millions, gays were lucky if they didn't get lynched for breaching sodomy laws (if they dared to do anything, most probably just committed suicide somewhere).

Then you had the exact same people who profess "cultural conservatism", talking about all the great virtues of their culture, and how the savages from wherever with their sexual promiscuity were clearly inferior cultures.

Fact of the matter that culture cannot be conserved, because it never stands still. If it does, that means it no longer exists.

This doesn't mean relativism, it means real and complete commitment to the values which can be considered worthwhile, namely "live and let live". Our society in the West may be better if judged by those values (and I certainly agree), but that hardly means they're perfect. I mean, there are still people who will try and exclude others based on how they look or where they were born, for crying out loud!

And personally, I make absolutely no distinction between someone who will think less of someone because of their gender or sexual orientation, and someone who will think less of another person because they weren't born in XYZ country.

Moral superiority is rarely used as an argument for welfare.
Actually, it is often used for it. That it would be unjust for a economically "superior" society to leave the less fortunate without help etc.

So would you oppose Walmart coming along and putting all the native small businesses out of business?

I would oppose that for cultural reasons, but it would require a government intervention in the market. Would you agree?
I oppose all monopoly action, as a proper minarchist. This is one of those areas we condone government action. And yes, you would be correct.

*snip*
Hardly silly. What I meant is that I am for slow change. Neither do I like modern cultures as they are. This has nothing really to do with inequality for some etc. It has to do with the structure of modern societies, overpopulation etc. In that sense, I am a cultural conservative, in that I prefer smaller societies over larger ones etc. Like it or not, to most culture matters. Stripping people of their traditions and so on instantly will not make them happy. Materialism is not for all. The only proviso I will add is that anything incompatible with live and let live should be abolished over time.

This has nothing really to do with inequality for some etc.
It most certainly does. I don't give the slightest hint of a shit about your motivations, because those are your own. It's when you start hurting innocent people that things go out of hand.

The only proviso I will add is that anything incompatible with live and let live should be abolished over time.
Exactly. Mainly your worldview.

You are happy to destroy people's lives, their chances in life, their hopes and their dreams for some abstract brainfreeze, motivated not by thought or reason, but by giving in to undefined subconscious emotions that tell you that anything foreign must be bad.

On this website (http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&artmon=07&fyear=2006#), under the July 19 show you will find a feature called "Dutch Detention". Watch it. Watch that family being evicted and thrown on the street, and tell me they deserve it because their birth place doesn't happen to be on your list. Tell me that you have the right to rule over their lives through force of government, although they have done nothing to you or your livelihood.

It most certainly does. I don't give the slightest hint of a shit about your motivations, because those are your own. It's when you start hurting innocent people that things go out of hand.
Except that...I oppose all forms of positive discrimination. As for negative discrimination, let the free market decide. When it comes to government, again I oppose it, but I will not dictate individual's choices in the private sphere. If they choose to discriminate, it is their affair...so long as it is only negative and not positive (in Milton Friedman's sense of the word).


Exactly. Mainly your worldview.

You are happy to destroy people's lives, their chances in life, their hopes and their dreams for some abstract brainfreeze, motivated not by thought or reason, but by giving in to undefined subconscious emotions that tell you that anything foreign must be bad.

On this website (http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&artmon=07&fyear=2006#), under the July 19 show you will find a feature called "Dutch Detention". Watch it. Watch that family being evicted and thrown on the street, and tell me they deserve it because their birth place doesn't happen to be on your list. Tell me that you have the right to rule over their lives through force of government, although they have done nothing to you or your livelihood.
Odd allegations you are making, especially since I said that all mentalities inconsistent with live and let live should be slowly done away with. People should be free to associate and disassociate with others as they like on a private level. I did not, however, state that one should be discriminated against positively for their particular features or circumstances.

Except that...I oppose all forms of positive discrimination. As for negative discrimination, let the free market decide.
What free market? You've taken to hide behind the concept.

The free market would mean that anyone who can find the strength would move to richer places because their labour would pay them better. The only factor stopping large scale immigration is the government.

When it comes to government, again I oppose it, but I will not dictate individual's choices. If they choose to discriminate, it is their affair...so long as it is only negative and not positive.
I'm not talking about the labour market. I'm talking about immigration laws.

Odd allegations you are making, especially since I said that all mentalities inconsistent with live and let live should be slowly done away with.
Do you, or do you not support measures to cut immigration into Britain or the EU?

What free market? You've taken to hide behind the concept.

The free market would mean that anyone who can find the strength would move to richer places because their labour would pay them better. The only factor stopping large scale immigration is the government.
Or the fact that simply rooting yourself up from your native country is not so easy an affair as most fancy it to be. In any case, the free market would also entail to other requirements: finding employment and property in the nation you are heading to. Even if the government were to do nothing, this could still hinder it. Truly free immigration is the situation where immigration is analogous to demand for it. Not government quotas and such.


I'm not talking about the labour market. I'm talking about immigration laws.
Funny, because I oppose them too. It should be up to property sellers and employers, not the government. Ie the citizens of the nation. Its bureaucracy's role should be minimal.

Do you, or do you not support measures to cut immigration into Britain or the EU?
No, actually I don't. Unless you consider what I mentioned to be of that nature.

Not those old ones! As our president said in an Al-Jazeera interview (yes!)... three words; education, education, education, education.

Yeah, had to add the fourth ;)
Ugh, I LOVE your country.:)

No, actually I don't. Unless you consider what I mentioned to be of that nature.
You know, I'm trying really hard to understand what happened to you. You've turned into a real South African, like I know so many here - you know the kind.

When did you start valuing life based on where people were born? When did diversity become a bad thing? When did you start to associate with racialists like NN? When did it become a good thing that more French people call themselves racist?

Truly free immigration is the situation where immigration is analogous to demand for it. Not government quotas and such.
There are no government quotas, no minimum number is required. There is a maximum (which is a gross violation of individual freedoms) though, so much is true.
Fact of the matter is that lifting immigration controls now would result in a much bigger influx of immigrants. Cheap labour is always in demand. The result (http://www.mises.org/story/2135) will be a more diverse society. Why you would want to oppose this, I don't know.

You know, I'm trying really hard to understand what happened to you. You've turned into a real South African, like I know so many here - you know the kind.

When did you start valuing life based on where people were born? When did diversity become a bad thing? When did you start to associate with racialists like NN? When did it become a good thing that more French people call themselves racist?
You shouldn't take everything I say so seriously. I have my mood swings, and sometimes I become a shock-jock. Yes, I am a little racialist...however, that does not mean I simply disassociate myselves with others whom I consider worthy of my time. If I find a black person to be up to these standards, say, I will easily befriend them. I am an elitist to the extreme, so colour is not something I choose to discriminate upon, except in romantic relationships. Nor do I advocate any form of government imposed segregation. So, it really has no impact on the lives of others.

There are no government quotas, no minimum number is required. There is a maximum (which is a gross violation of individual freedoms) though, so much is true.
Fact of the matter is that lifting immigration controls now would result in a much bigger influx of immigrants. Cheap labour is always in demand. The result (http://www.mises.org/story/2135) will be a more diverse society. Why you would want to oppose this, I don't know.
According to theory, yes. In reality? Who knows. I do not oppose it. I simply want immigration to rest in the hands of those who demand it, not the government. Then it will reflect its true levels. If a nation wants to discriminate, so be it...it might end up poorer for it in the end. In any case, I prefer diversity in its truer form...many different, distinct nations. That is just my personal preference.

Actually, it is often used for it. That it would be unjust for a economically "superior" society to leave the less fortunate without help etc.
Or rather, that it is in the financial interest of the majority. I support welfare because, although I must pay for it all the time, I'll be glad for it if I ever need it.

I oppose all monopoly action, as a proper minarchist. This is one of those areas we condone government action. And yes, you would be correct.
We agree, but not for the same reasons, it would appear.

Or rather, that it is in the financial interest of the majority. I support welfare because, although I must pay for it all the time, I'll be glad for it if I ever need it.
Yes, there is that aspect too, usually something most socialists refer to when their moral appeals fail.

Yes, there is that aspect to, usually something most socialists refer to when their moral appeals fail.
That is one of the better arguments. I rarely even bother to use the moral argument, because I often resort to using my religion... that doesn't go down well with the atheists or relativists.

That is one of the better arguments. I rarely even bother to use the moral argument, because I often resort to using my religion... that doesn't go down well with the atheists or relativists.
Well I'll conclude by saying this: of all the left-wingers, the only ones I can really stomach are those who too believe that relativism is sheer nonsense. I may disagree with them, but at least we'll see eye-to-eye on some matters.

Well I'll conclude by saying this: of all the left-wingers, the only ones I can really stomach are those who too believe that relativism is sheer nonsense. I may disagree with them, but at least we'll see eye-to-eye on some matters.
That's because many of the outspoken relativsts on the left just shout "racists!" all the time instead of talking about issues. They're not the majority of the left. Most of us don't think that honour killing is OK no matter where it takes place.

But as an absolutist, I must warn you that your ideology is wrong. Mine will finally be victorious, because we are confident in the victory of good over evil.

That's because many of the outspoken relativsts on the left just shout "racists!" all the time instead of talking about issues. They're not the majority of the left. Most of us don't think that honour killing is OK no matter where it takes place.
Good to know. Anyway, I know they are a minority...it is simply that they are so vocal and prolific that renders them intolerable.

But as an absolutist, I must warn you that your ideology is wrong. Mine will finally be victorious, because we are confident in the victory of good over evil.
The Invisible Hand will prevail. Against it, you are naught but gnats. ^^

The Invisible Hand will prevail. Against it, you are naught but gnats. ^^
*uses invisible hatchet to deftly trim invisible fingernails down to the invisible wrist*

*uses invisible hatchet to deftly trim invisible fingernails down to the invisible wrist*
And now, time for the Invisible Hand to tuck me into bed! ^^ It says thanks for the manicure. XD

I simply want immigration to rest in the hands of those who demand it, not the government. Then it will reflect its true levels.
But since immigration is not the act of asking for someone to come in, but of leaving for somewhere else, the only "demand" there is for immigration is a demand for labour.
It's not like Australia asked my family to move here.

And importantly, if there is only one employer who will accept it (and there always will be), the rest of society has no business interfering whatsoever.

If a nation wants to discriminate, so be it...it might end up poorer for it in the end.
No, you can't tolerate it. "Nations" have no rights, individuals do. If a "nation" is infringing upon the individual liberties of anyone, then that's not a case of "so be it".

In any case, I prefer diversity in its truer form...many different, distinct nations. That is just my personal preference.
Which has no reasonable grounds, of course and is purely based on emotions.

But since immigration is not the act of asking for someone to come in, but of leaving for somewhere else, the only "demand" there is for immigration is a demand for labour.
It's not like Australia asked my family to move here.
Yes, exactly. That is precisely what I mean by true demand for labour.

And importantly, if there is only one employer who will accept it (and there always will be), the rest of society has no business interfering whatsoever.
I didn't say otherwise. So long as they can find a job and find property to buy or rent, the rest of society indeed has no role to play. However, this is with a welfare-lite nation in mind, a minarchist country as it were. Not with a social democracy in mind.

No, you can't tolerate it. "Nations" have no rights, individuals do. If a "nation" is infringing upon the individual liberties of anyone, then that's not a case of "so be it".
I am referring to the nation as the totality of its citizens, not as the State. Its population in other words. What I meant was that if all (or most) citizens chose to discriminate and not to "invite" labour in from abroad, they may well end up poorer because of it. The nation qua State's only part to play here would be to keep out threats to security, seeing as one if its few roles would be keeping law and order.

Which has no reasonable grounds, of course and is purely based on emotions.
Lest we forget, humans are not wholly rational beings. We all have our tastes and predilections...my point is simply that I am not suggesting that my own personal views be imposed on a population at large. I hope I am clear on that.

The true tragedy is not that such sentiments are present, it is that we have fostered them through the fallacy of multicularism, acceptance and prolonged immigration.

Whilst integration and assimilation may disabuse immigrants of their cultural identity, I would question their justification for immigration if they seek to maintain cultural isolation, and, in light of the evolution of settlements of Bradford, the merits of immigration.

But oh no! Its terribly racist to insinuate that immigration is anything other than a divine boon.:rolleyes:

The true tragedy is not that such sentiments are present, it is that we have fostered them through the fallacy of multicularism, acceptance and prolonged immigration.

Whilst integration and assimilation may disabuse immigrants of their cultural identity, I would question their justification for immigration if they seek to maintain cultural isolation, and, in light of the evolution of settlements of Bradford, the merits of immigration.

But oh no! Its terribly racist to insinuate that immigration is anything other than a divine boon.:rolleyes:


Watch out. They already call me a racist when it has nothing to do with race.

Watch out. They already call me a racist when it has nothing to do with race.

Doesn't concern me in the slightest. Immigration has no racist connotations whatsoever.

I will tell you what shocks me. Nobody is calling for racial profiling to begin for air travel. 100% of those who take out airplanes through terrorist acts are male, muslim, and between 18 and 40. Yet when I go to the airport my father who is ex NYPD or my 78 year old grandmother will get searched for explosives while a shady looking arab guy who is traveling alone with a huge bag goes right through. This random searching has to stop because it is illogical. We would all be a lot safer if they could target people who better fit the profile of a terrorist.

I will tell you what shocks me. Nobody is calling for racial profiling to begin for air travel. 100% of those who take out airplanes through terrorist acts are male, muslim, and between 18 and 40. Yet when I go to the airport my father who is ex NYPD or my 78 year old grandmother will get searched for explosives while a shady looking arab guy who is traveling alone with a huge bag goes right through. This random searching has to stop because it is illogical. We would all be a lot safer if they could target people who better fit the profile of a terrorist.
The Muslim lobby groups and the liberals would have a field day. Keep wishing.

I will tell you what shocks me. Nobody is calling for racial profiling to begin for air travel. 100% of those who take out airplanes through terrorist acts are male, muslim, and between 18 and 40.
Leila Khaled wasn't male, and Patrick Arguello wasn't Muslim.

The Muslim lobby groups and the liberals would have a field day. Keep wishing.


Ah, yes. That's how to spot traitors and disloyal persons: they seem to think anything can trump considerations of national security.

The Muslim lobby groups and the liberals would have a field day. Keep wishing.

So it comes down to making Muslim lobby groubs and liberals happy vs. security. I know what side I take any day.

Leila Khaled wasn't male.

one woman, in 1970. IN the past 30 years the demographic has been very consistant despite this one occurance in 1970. Leila Khaled is a Muslim too, and 26 at the time....so she fits into 2 of the 3 risk factors anyway. Definatly screen her more too.

I will tell you what shocks me. Nobody is calling for racial profiling to begin for air travel. 100% of those who take out airplanes through terrorist acts are male, muslim, and between 18 and 40. Yet when I go to the airport my father who is ex NYPD or my 78 year old grandmother will get searched for explosives while a shady looking arab guy who is traveling alone with a huge bag goes right through. This random searching has to stop because it is illogical. We would all be a lot safer if they could target people who better fit the profile of a terrorist.

If we start waving people through just because their white or any other non-arab race, all AQ has to do is brainwash a white guy and our whole security system is impotent.

I think there is racial profiling at security gates now even before the UK plot. Every airport security checkpoint i've been through has had a bunch of Arabs/Sikhs/Indians having their luggage torn apart

Ah, yes. That's how to spot traitors and disloyal persons: they seem to think anything can trump considerations of national security.

well, seriously, when a particular group is the only one that poses a risk to air safety why not watch them more? It seems flawlessly logical. Yet many oppose it because it might hurt people's "feelings". This is one of the reasons I feel uneasy flying. For Gods sake, if the only people blowing up planes were 18-40 year old white male Catholics I would not mind being screened more heavily at all. Unless....of course I sympathized with those committing the terrorism, which seems to be the case with many Muslims. For example, In Britain....a recent poll suggested that only 7% of Muslims in Britain said they considered themselves British first and followers of Islam second.

If we start waving people through just because their white or any other non-arab race, all AQ has to do is brainwash a white guy and our whole security system is impotent.
Kinda like John Walker Lindh...
Puts a spanner in that 'racial profiling' theory alright.

There are no government quotas, no minimum number is required. There is a maximum (which is a gross violation of individual freedoms) though, so much is true.
Fact of the matter is that lifting immigration controls now would result in a much bigger influx of immigrants. Cheap labour is always in demand. The result will be a more diverse society. Why you would want to oppose this, I don't know.I have two points to make about cheap labor.

1. It's bad for the economy because it hampers technological progress. Why invest in new technology or try to find solutions to get the job done more efficiently when you've got some dumb poor immigrants willing to do the job for less than the minimum wage?

2. You're talking about these people as if they were property, slaves. They are human too, they are more than just cheap labor.

I like diversity as much as the next guy, I love the fact that there's a chinese food restaurant and a pizza parlor (italian) down the street. What I like even more, however, is law and order, because that's what keeps society from degenerating into chaos. If there is a specific group that actively seeks to undermine law and order, I don't want them in my country.

I think we all know what that group is.

Ah, yes. That's how to spot traitors and disloyal persons: they seem to think anything can trump considerations of national security.
In fact, national security is the most important thing. This is not just some abstract concept, this concerns you, your safety and your freedom.

Kinda like John Walker Lindh...
Puts a spanner in that 'racial profiling' theory alright.
He would have been spotted by the El Al interview though.

I think their method is much better than all this shoe, lighter, and hair gel business (not to mention all the x-rays).

Kinda like John Walker Lindh...
Puts a spanner in that 'racial profiling' theory alright.

I think there should be some profiling but check other suspicious looking people too. example: [insert non-arab race] guy with a bottle full of strange cloudy liquid that has wires leading from it to a clock in his bag: might wanna ask a question or two

I think there should be some profiling but check other suspicious looking people too. example: [insert non-arab race] guy with a bottle full of strange cloudy liquid that has wires leading from it to a clock in his bag: might wanna ask a question or two

Ya think?

Personally, I feel that anybody that fits that description is likely not to be a terrorist. Which is not to say they shouldn't be checked.

If we start waving people through just because their white or any other non-arab race, all AQ has to do is brainwash a white guy and our whole security system is impotent.

I think there is racial profiling at security gates now even before the UK plot. Every airport security checkpoint i've been through has had a bunch of Arabs/Sikhs/Indians having their luggage torn apart
It is possible to "brainwash" a non-arab into islamic terrorism. However, the majority of terrorists will be arabs in the near future and that's who we need to go after.

Just for the record, I have no problem at all with Sikhs. They seem like law-abiding people who contribute to society, instead of planning terrorist attacks.

Kinda like John Walker Lindh...
Puts a spanner in that 'racial profiling' theory alright.

well lets see. that man has nothing to do with airline hyjakings the facts remain that 90% of better of terrorist attacks on commercial airlines are performed by arabic males over 18 and under 40. Can you tell me why on Earth you believe my 78 year old catholic grandmother in a wheelchair should be searched as much as a 21 year old arabic male? Isnt it just common sense to search him more? To say no is to say that a supermarket should I.D. a 90 year old who is buying some beer. It is just illogical.

In fact, national security is the most important thing. This is not just some abstract concept, this concerns you, your safety and your freedom.

Did you think I'm begging to differ?

I assure you I'm not.

Just for the record, I have no problem at all with Sikhs. They seem like law-abiding people who contribute to society, instead of planning terrorist attacks.


yup

Ya think?

Personally, I feel that anybody that fits that description is likely not to be a terrorist. Which is not to say they shouldn't be checked.

NO one group is "likely" a terrorist but one particular physical description happens to account for more than 90% of terrorism on airlines. This means we should check them more. It just seems like common sense. It is one of the few issues that I take with President Bush, I wish he would consider how much profiling could aid the TSA.

Did you think I'm begging to differ?

I assure you I'm not.
This is what you said before:

"Ah, yes. That's how to spot traitors and disloyal persons: they seem to think anything can trump considerations of national security."

Naturally, I assumed that you considered things like political correctness more important than your life.

well lets see. that man has nothing to do with airline hyjakings the facts remain that 90% of better of terrorist attacks on commercial airlines are performed by arabic males over 18 and under 40. Can you tell me why on Earth you believe my 78 year old catholic grandmother in a wheelchair should be searched as much as a 21 year old arabic male? Isnt it just common sense to search him more? To say no is to say that a supermarket should I.D. a 90 year old who is buying some beer. It is just illogical.
You said:
Nobody is calling for racial profiling to begin for air travel. 100% of those who take out airplanes through terrorist acts are male, muslim, and between 18 and 40.

Racial profiling would not prevent non-Arab, males from hijacking planes.

There are non-Arab male terrorists.

Like John Walker Lindh. Its irrelevant to assume he is the only one and because he wasn't a hijacker, others couldn't be.

Racial profiling would leave lethal gaps in security.

NO one group is "likely" a terrorist but one particular physical description happens to account for more than 90% of terrorism on airlines. This means we should check them more. It just seems like common sense. It is one of the few issues that I take with President Bush, I wish he would consider how much profiling could aid the TSA.


I already think there is racial profiling

[/B]


yup

Indeed.

http://www.sikhnet.com/Sikhnet/Register.nsf/Files/Poster/$file/StandTogetherInPrayer.jpg

The current system of treating all travelers as an equal security risk is dangerous at best and suicidal at worst.

This is what you said before:

"Ah, yes. That's how to spot traitors and disloyal persons: they seem to think anything can trump considerations of national security."

Naturally, I assumed that you considered things like political correctness more important than your life.

Heck, no I don't!

If I were an American, I'd define as undersirable whatever does NOT describe to the view expressed by these young Sikhs.

http://www.sikhnet.com/Sikhnet/Register.nsf/Files/Poster/$file/StandTogetherInPrayer.jpg

Stand together in prayer for your Country.

You said:


Racial profiling would not prevent non-Arab, males from hijacking planes.

There are non-Arab male terrorists.

Like John Walker Lindh. Its irrelevant to assume he is the only one and because he wasn't a hijacker, others couldn't be.

Racial profiling would leave lethal gaps in security.


yes it would. The basic level of screening would apply to all and higher screeing would go towards those who fit the risky profile. You bring up Lindh...he never had anything to do with taking out a plane.....if you can show me ...in the last 30 years..that white Christians pose an equal risk to air safety as young arab males than you win.

Indeed.

http://www.sikhnet.com/Sikhnet/Register.nsf/Files/Poster/$file/StandTogetherInPrayer.jpg

I don't mean to flamebait but,

What would you say if those were muslims?

You said:


Racial profiling would not prevent non-Arab, males from hijacking planes.

There are non-Arab male terrorists.

Like John Walker Lindh. Its irrelevant to assume he is the only one and because he wasn't a hijacker, others couldn't be.

Racial profiling would leave lethal gaps in security.
Not racially profiling would leave even more lethal gaps in security. I'll concede that something to the tune of 1% of all terrorist attacks on the West are not perpetrated by muslims. That leaves the other 99%.

Are you saying that you'd rather have 99 terrorists get through simply because they're Arabs, just so you can nab the one loony white guy?

Not racially profiling would leave even more lethal gaps in security. I'll concede that something to the tune of 1% of all terrorist attacks on the West are not perpetrated by muslims. That leaves the other 99%.

Are you saying that you'd rather have 99 terrorists get through simply because they're Arabs, just so you can nab the one loony white guy?

You don't think AQ knows there is a profile for their nutjobs?

I don't mean to flamebait but,

What would you say if those were muslims?
I don't know what Boggy would say, but I would say what I've been saying for a while-that not all muslims are bad, and some of them even serve in the military.

I don't mean to flamebait but,

What would you say if those were muslims?

Same thing.

Considering that there are good, patriotic muslims here in the UK, who take pride to serve in Her Britanic Majesty's Royal Army, it would ill suit me to claim that being a muslim means that you cannot be a good, God-fearing Patriot.

Islamists are our natural enemies, not muslims per-se.

You don't think AQ knows there is a profile for their nutjobs?
What's AQ?

You don't think AQ knows there is a profile for their nutjobs?
Profiling and questioning works for El Al. Only one airliner hijacked, in 1968.

Same thing.

Considering that there are good, patriotic muslims here in the UK, who take pride to serve in Her Brittanic Majesty's Royal Army, it would ill suit me to claim that being a muslim means that you cannot be a good, God-fearing Patriot.

Islamists are our natural enemies, not muslims per-se.
God Save the Queen!! ;)

yes it would.
Ok, so you admit that racial profiling would leave lethal gaps in security? Thank you, that was my point.

The basic level of screening would apply to all and higher screeing would go towards those who fit the risky profile.
Despite the fact I have given you different examples of people who don't fit the profile who have or who could possibly hijack planes....

You bring up Lindh...he never had anything to do with taking out a plane.....
:rolleyes: Which is why I broke it done for you:
Racial profiling would not prevent non-Arab, males from hijacking planes.

There are non-Arab male terrorists.

Like John Walker Lindh. Its irrelevant to assume he is the only one and because he wasn't a hijacker, others couldn't be.

if you can show me ...in the last 30 years..that white Christians pose an equal risk to air safety as young arab males than you win.

1979 June 20 and June 21: An American Airlines flight from New York to Chicago was hijacked by a Serbian nationalist demanding the release of a jailed fellow nationalist. Unable to secure his comrade's release, the hijacker released all hostages except for the pilot, co-pilot and one flight attendant. They flew from Chicago back to New York where he transferred to a Boeing 707, which flew to Ireland where the hijacker surrendered and was returned to the United States for trial. Weapon used was a home-made bomb. There were no casualties

1994: FedEx Flight 705 hijacked by disgruntled employee Auburn Calloway as it left Memphis, Tennessee, with the intention of using it as a cruise missile against FedEx HQ. He was subdued by the flight crew before an emergency landing back at Memphis

There's two.

Ok, so you admit that racial profiling would leave lethal gaps in security? Thank you, that was my point.


Despite the fact I have given you different examples of people who don't fit the profile who have or who could possibly hijack planes....


:rolleyes: Which is why I broke it done for you:
Racial profiling would not prevent non-Arab, males from hijacking planes.

There are non-Arab male terrorists.

Like John Walker Lindh. Its irrelevant to assume he is the only one and because he wasn't a hijacker, others couldn't be.


1979 June 20 and June 21: An American Airlines flight from New York to Chicago was hijacked by a Serbian nationalist demanding the release of a jailed fellow nationalist. Unable to secure his comrade's release, the hijacker released all hostages except for the pilot, co-pilot and one flight attendant. They flew from Chicago back to New York where he transferred to a Boeing 707, which flew to Ireland where the hijacker surrendered and was returned to the United States for trial. Weapon used was a home-made bomb. There were no casualties

1994: FedEx Flight 705 hijacked by disgruntled employee Auburn Calloway as it left Memphis, Tennessee, with the intention of using it as a cruise missile against FedEx HQ. He was subdued by the flight crew before an emergency landing back at Memphis

There's two.


Explain then how El Al managed to only have one plane hijacked, in 1968. They profile and interrogate.

1979 June 20 and June 21: An American Airlines flight from New York to Chicago was hijacked by a Serbian nationalist demanding the release of a jailed fellow nationalist. Unable to secure his comrade's release, the hijacker released all hostages except for the pilot, co-pilot and one flight attendant. They flew from Chicago back to New York where he transferred to a Boeing 707, which flew to Ireland where the hijacker surrendered and was returned to the United States for trial. Weapon used was a home-made bomb. There were no casualties

1994: FedEx Flight 705 hijacked by disgruntled employee Auburn Calloway as it left Memphis, Tennessee, with the intention of using it as a cruise missile against FedEx HQ. He was subdued by the flight crew before an emergency landing back at Memphis

There's two.
These attacks were motivated by nationalism, not Christian jihad. Most terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Muslims, so it makes sense to go after them. Why is this so hard to understand?

These attacks were motivated by nationalism, not Christian jihad. Most terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Muslims, so it makes sense to go after them. Why is this so hard to understand?
Chrisitan jihad? What is this? Move the goalposts day?

if you can show me ...in the last 30 years..that white Christians pose an equal risk to air safety as young arab males than you win.
I showed two examples where "white Christians pose[d] an equal risk to air safety as young arab males".

Thats what I was asked to do. Thats what I did.

I realise that racial profiling would solve some concerns (a la DK's example of El Al), but at the same time it would leave dangerous and lethal gaps to be exploited by purely relying on "Male, Arab, beard.... get him" mentality.

It wouldn't work alone.

no i'm not surprised.

Don't ask me why?

no i'm not surprised.

Don't ask me why?

Because even y doethaff or Brytanheit ( sorry if my spelling of Breiz is a bit rusty and out-of-date for I've only had 11th century Breiz back in 1988 ) can figure out that more love for the Koran than love for Country equates Clear and Present Danger?

I realise that racial profiling would solve some concerns (a la DK's example of El Al), but at the same time it would leave dangerous and lethal gaps to be exploited by purely relying on "Male, Arab, beard.... get him" mentality.

It wouldn't work alone.
From this statement , I take it that you recognize the threat from militant muslims and you do support going after that profile, but you also think we should go after white Christian males.

The problem with that is that if you go after white Christian males, it's a distraction of scarce resources. What it comes down to is like I said before-would you rather get 99 terrorists and let one get through, or would you rather get the one terrorist and let the 99 get past.

From this statement , I take it that you recognize the threat from militant muslims and you do support going after that profile, but you also think we should go after white Christian males.
I think we should go after everyone.
Like I said before:

Fuck it. Profile everyone.


The problem with that is that if you go after white Christian males, it's a distraction of scarce resources. What it comes down to is like I said before-would you rather get 99 terrorists and let one get through, or would you rather get the one terrorist and let the 99 get past.
Distraction of what scarce resources? Time in the queue?

"Sorry folks. Flights been delayed for 25mins due to increased security checks. Don't like? Fuck off and take the bus. Thank you for your cooperation."

snip

I showed two examples where "white Christians pose[d] an equal risk to air safety as young arab males".

Thats what I was asked to do. Thats what I did.

I realise that racial profiling would solve some concerns (a la DK's example of El Al), but at the same time it would leave dangerous and lethal gaps to be exploited by purely relying on "Male, Arab, beard.... get him" mentality.

It wouldn't work alone.

Your reasoning would be less suspect if you showed more zeal for National Security on other occasions.
Sic rebus stantibus, it rather sounds like a case of sophistry.

Because even y doethaff or Brytanheit ( sorry if my spelling of Breiz is a bit rusty and out-of-date for I've only had 11th century Breiz back in 1988 ) can figure out that more love for the Koran than love for Country equates Clear and Present Danger?
i don't care about it,;)
i'm no "ism"

I think we should go after everyone.
Like I said before:

Fuck it. Profile everyone.


Distraction of what scarce resources? Time in the queue?

"Sorry folks. Flights been delayed for 25mins due to increased security checks. Don't like? Fuck off and take the bus. Thank you for your cooperation."
This is highly unrealistic. First of all, let's agree on what it means to profile.

To me, it means to completely search all the baggage of the profilee. Now, consider, that there are hundreds of thousands of airline travelers all over the West. It would take hours, maybe even days to get through everyone, and it would cause delays on such a massive scale that it would render air travel too burdensome for most people. We simply can't have this.

Surely you don't think that we should "profile" old grannies and little kids, at least? Or are you gonna give me an example of a bunch of christian white senior females highjacking an airplane and flying it to Libya? Or a bunch of little preschoolers highjacking an airplane and flying it to Syria?

Your reasoning would be less suspect if you showed more zeal for National Security on other occasions.

Such as.....?

Explain then how El Al managed to only have one plane hijacked, in 1968. They profile and interrogate.

They do not profile. They interview EVERY passenger as far as I am aware.

Also they make it known that that there are 6 armed security staff on each flight...all ex Isreali Airforce pilots and all the flight crew/cabin staff are trained in hand to hand combat.

El Al is a hard target and therefore not really a first choice for terrorists...

This is highly unrealistic. First of all, let's agree on what it means to profile.

To me, it means to completely search all the baggage of the profilee. Now, consider, that there are hundreds of thousands of airline travelers all over the West. It would take hours, maybe even days to get through everyone, and it would cause delays on such a massive scale that it would render air travel too burdensome for most people. We simply can't have this.
Fuck that.

You want security or not? You want the gaps in racial profiling to be plugged or not?

If you don't like it, take a boat, the train or the bus.


Surely you don't think that we should "profile" old grannies and little kids, at least? Or are you gonna give me an example of a bunch of christian white senior females highjacking an airplane and flying it to Libya? Or a bunch of little preschoolers highjacking an airplane and flying it to Syria?

You mean you would have system where some people are allowed through unchecked, purely because they look cutesy wutesy or look like your gran? Pfft. Gap in the security there. Search everyone for everything. Apply the law with an iron fist and take nothin' from nobody.

i don't care about it,;)
i'm no "ism"
:p

I think we should go after everyone.
Like I said before:

Fuck it. Profile everyone.


Distraction of what scarce resources? Time in the queue?

"Sorry folks. Flights been delayed for 25mins due to increased security checks. Don't like? Fuck off and take the bus. Thank you for your cooperation."

Concentrate on males under thirty-five. And women all bundled up and shit.

Just after 9-11 the nascent TSA thoroughly searched Sen. John Glenn because they were just 'doing their job'. Asspuppets. If John Glenn is going to hijack or blow up a plane we are all so fucked anyway it's not worth bothering.

And like DK says, we should start to copy el-al. We should also stop getting pissy is a particular ethnic group is searched more than another for any given flight. It's not worth sweating about in the long run.

Such as.....?

Each and everyone? You don't exactly excude patriotic zeal, you know?

Each and everyone? You don't exactly excude patriotic zeal, you know?
Why should I exude "patriotic zeal" for the United States or the United Kingdom? You don't know where I'm from.

Each and everyone? You don't exactly excude patriotic zeal, you know?
the same way you don't exclude,propaganda

Fuck that.

You want security or not? You want the gaps in racial profiling to be plugged or not?

If you don't like it, take a boat, the train or the bus.



You mean you would have system where some people are allowed through unchecked, purely because they look cutesy wutesy or look like your gran? Pfft. Gap in the security there. Search everyone for everything. Apply the law with an iron fist and take nothin' from nobody.
This has descended to the point of absudity. In fact, what you just said is so ridiculous, I couldn't help but laugh.

One of the problems with your, um, method, is that we don't have enough security guards at all the airports to do it in a timely fasion. People have business to attend you know, places to go. And how long do you think it would take to cross the Atlantic in a ship, nay, how long would it take to simply book a reservation?

This has descended to the point of absudity. In fact, what you just said is so ridiculous, I couldn't help but laugh.
Almost as ridiculous as implenting a system that has glaring gaps waiting to be exploited. ;)

the same way you don't exclude,propaganda
What is really propaganda, though? Could it by the doublethink that the media feeds you when they degrade a liberal democracry for defending itself from vicious terrorists while ignoring said terrorists barbarism?

Simply writing off all forms of patriotism is in itself a form of propaganda.

Almost as ridiculous as implenting a system that has glaring gaps waiting to be exploited. ;)
Would you rather have glaring gaps, glaringer gaps, or no system at all?

No system at all is not a valid option, by the way.

You know, I think we're actually making progress. If you said anything bad about muslims after 911 you'd immediately be called a racist and a bigot. We couldn't even have this discussion back then.

I hate to patronize you like this, but the fact that you realize that militant muslims are a real threat is a tribute to the fact that people are beginning to wake up, you're just against profiling them specifically because you don't want to feel racist. A few more terrorist attacks oughta fix that, though.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23533

Would you rather have glaring gaps, glaringer gaps, or no system at all?

No system at all is not a valid option, by the way.
I rather none of the above. I'd rather secret option number 4: A soild system.


You know, I think we're actually making progress. If you said anything bad about muslims after 911 you'd immediately be called a racist and a bigot. We couldn't even have this discussion back then.
I don't see why. Muslims are fine. Arabs are fine. Evangelical Christians are fine. Its the minute but vocal number of extremists that people should pay attention to. Not the average citizen.

I hate to patronize you like this,
Don't worry, I don't see you as patronising.

but the fact that you realize that militant muslims are a real threat is a tribute to the fact that people are beginning to wake up, you're just against profiling them specifically because you don't want to feel racist. A few more terrorist attacks oughta fix that, though.
Listen, I live in a country that has dealt with and had experience with terrorism for nearly a hundred years. It nothing new. I don't mean to sound patronising when I say this (I really don't), "Welcome to the party America. A little late, but you made it in the end."

RockTheCasbah, can you tell me how do you manage to find the religion of a specific individual on a plane just by looking at him?

If, as I suppose, you can't; then there's no point in talking about white christian male or young muslim male. Profiling cannot work on religion.

no i'm not surprise
i think the all thing is to get them a bite.

RockTheCasbah, can you tell me how do you manage to find the religion of a specific individual on a plane just by looking at him?

If, as I suppose, you can't; then there's no point in talking about white christian male or young muslim male. Profiling cannot work on religion.
If someone is wearing a skullcap, a cross, or a burkah, I can tell their religion.

I rather none of the above. I'd rather secret option number 4: A soild system.


I don't see why. Muslims are fine. Arabs are fine. Evangelical Christians are fine. Its the minute but vocal number of extremists that people should pay attention to. Not the average citizen.


Don't worry, I don't see you as patronising.


Listen, I live in a country that has dealt with and had experience with terrorism for nearly a hundred years. It nothing new. I don't mean to sound patronising when I say this (I really don't), "Welcome to the party America. A little late, but you made it in the end."
The only solid system is to profile Arabs.

I think you are seriously underestimating the prevalance of militancy in Islam. A recent poll indictated that 57% muslims though attacks on jews were a-ok.

But you've had to deal with things like the IRA, which is pretty much over by now, islamic terrorism is a new phenomenon.

The only solid system is to profile Arabs.

I think you are seriously underestimating the prevalance of militancy in Islam. A recent poll indictated that 57% muslims though attacks on jews were a-ok.

But you've had to deal with things like the IRA, which is pretty much over by now, islamic terrorism is a new phenomenon.
not new,
only fool who use it know it

But you've had to deal with things like the IRA, which is pretty much over by now, islamic terrorism is a new phenomenon.

Maybe. Maybe it's just taken a pause tho. There were some firebombings by a splinter group this week.

The only solid system is to profile Arabs.
We've just seen examples of gaps in that very reasoning. Profiling "Arabs" doesn't work.


I think you are seriously underestimating the prevalance of militancy in Islam. A recent poll indictated that 57% muslims though attacks on jews were a-ok.
No, I'm not underestimating it. I'm realistically looking at a population of one billion people and the population who actually carry out attacks. Minute.

Source for that 57%?


But you've had to deal with things like the IRA, which is pretty much over by now, islamic terrorism is a new phenomenon.
It doesn't matter who plants the bomb. Terrorism is same at its roots. Spread fear, panic, confusion. Force people to change their way of life, their way of living. To the person on the ground in an explosion, it is irrelevant who planted it. The goal is the same- death, fear, panic and a change. You deal with it the same way.

If someone is wearing a skullcap, a cross, or a burkah, I can tell their religion.
so, in essence, no.

The only solid system is to profile Arabs.
Amongst other higher-threat groups. Like young british men wearing packsacks in the tube.

I think you are seriously underestimating the prevalance of militancy in Islam. A recent poll indictated that 57% muslims though attacks on jews were a-ok.
Thinking jews had it coming and actually strapping a bomb to one's chest are two different degrees of militancy.

Although, for the record, equalling jew with Israel is wrong, so is rooting for the destruction of Israel, so is rooting for the destruction of Islam, so is the mentality that it's okay to attack someone for the actions of others. Like say, profiling all arabs for the actions of a few brainwashed people.


But you've had to deal with things like the IRA, which is pretty much over by now, islamic terrorism is a new phenomenon.
hardly. You just have been made more aware of it.

If someone is wearing a skullcap, a cross, or a burkah, I can tell their religion.

Nobody outside of afghanistan wears a full-fledged burka
you'll see Hijabs though and an occaisional Niqab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Muslim_societies
scroll down and look at pics

1. It's bad for the economy because it hampers technological progress. Why invest in new technology or try to find solutions to get the job done more efficiently when you've got some dumb poor immigrants willing to do the job for less than the minimum wage?
Doesn't quite work that way, but this isn't a macroeconomics thread, so that's all I'll say about that.
And besides, we'll have plenty of money to increase the capital stock and replace workers as our populations grow older and older.

2. You're talking about these people as if they were property, slaves. They are human too, they are more than just cheap labor.
Obviously. Which is why I am against any form of discrimination against them.

If there is a specific group that actively seeks to undermine law and order, I don't want them in my country.

I think we all know what that group is.
Yes, radical, politicised Muslims these days. And you have a point, the police and services have to be on their toes sometimes, like with this plot.
What that has to do with the millions and millions of other people (Muslim or not) who have nothing to do with that sort of thing, I don't know.

I've read all the suspects are british citizens. I'm sure many thought they are nice folks too, like the ones here saying "oh I know a muslim, he's nice...so muslims are nice" when they dare to give anectodal evidences while discussing a revelant subject.

I've read all the suspects are british citizens. I'm sure many thought they are nice folks too, like the ones here saying "oh I know a muslim, he's nice...so muslims are nice" when they dare to give anectodal evidences while discussing a revelant subject.:confused: :confused:
Whats so taboo about anecdotal evidence?

Racist. Honestly so what if France were to become an Islamic nation? If thats what the people want, then its what they get.. And whats with the "THEY" breed like rabbids(or do you mean like rabbits?)?

Oh shut up, who cares if he's racist? What are you going to do, you politically correct idiot?

And they do, they breed like rabbits (hence the fact that Pakistan doubles its population every 33 years).

Oh shut up, who cares if he's racist? What are you going to do, you politically correct idiot?

And they do, they breed like rabbits (hence the fact that Pakistan doubles its population every 33 years).Not another one...

Not another one...


When will it end?

seems like everyone who isn't a budding neo-nazi is labelled "politically correct" these days

...hence the fact that Pakistan doubles its population every 33 years.

Of course it does. It's only been around for 39 years.

When will it end?

seems like everyone who isn't a budding neo-nazi is labelled "politically correct" these days
that is what a label is
:p

if it stands for abything,that is

idiots and kooks abound, but their religion condones killing heathen, exhorts them to do it, and promises virgins in afterlife

now that is foemented by their [some] religious leaders - so yes there is a problem, yes it will continue, won't stop till the non involved muslims exert their weight to stop the propaganda, denounce the people calling for martyrs, embrace freedom instead of the 4th or 7th centuary theoracy

won't happen

idiots and kooks abound, but their religion condones killing heathen, exhorts them to do it, and promises virgins in afterlife

now that is foemented by their [some] religious leaders - so yes there is a problem, yes it will continue, won't stop till the non involved muslims exert their weight to stop the propaganda, denounce the people calling for martyrs, embrace freedom instead of the 4th or 7th centuary theoracy

won't happen

i'm curious .
what is your idea of "freedom"?

If we look at terrorism over the last 100 years. And we look at it from a world , rather than a US perspective. Just how many 'terrorist acts' have been carried out by non-muslims?

I would guess the answer is a lot.

Yes, we could profile anyone who is male and who looks like they might be a muslim at an airport but I wouldn't feel safe until we also profiled, or indeed detained without charge, trial or rights, everyone who is Irish, Irish-American or that lives on the east coast of the US and might have 'supported the Cause' during 'the troubles'. In fact, lets just say anyone who is Catholic, afterall the Catholic religion has been responsible for inciting or executing some of the worst atrocities in recorded history.

Bearing in mind that children have little freedom from their parents and that OAPs are often even more set in their ways than those younger than them, I would absolutely not exclude children or the elderly from any security measures... especially if they are in a wheel chair. I could fit a lot of explosive into a wheel chair.

i'm curious .
what is your idea of "freedom"?

I'm guessing this:
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/assimilation

I'm guessing this:
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/assimilation
1 a : an act, process, or instance of assimilating b : the state of being assimilated
2 : the incorporation or conversion of nutrients into protoplasm that in animals follows digestion and absorption and in higher plants involves both photosynthesis and root absorption
3 : change of a sound in speech so that it becomes identical with or similar to a neighboring sound <the usual assimilation of \z\ to \sh\ in the phrase his shoe>
4 : the process of receiving new facts or of responding to new situations in conformity with what is already available to consciousness

See physician-reviewed articles on assimilation on Healthline.
1. Assimilation (Trust Mark: Doctor-Reviewed)
Assimilation is the process by which individuals from one...

ah! i just was afraid you meant sarcasm
So i offer you symbiose

It's not "over-run".

But it is a significant problem.
No, Kimchi... Islam is not a problem, it's a blessing. Multi-culturism is one of the best things about Britain, it's a shame you're so ignorant that you can't understand that.

And to whoever said that Islam basically brings terrorism with it - no. Just no.

I'm not being "politically correct", you're just an idiot.

If you could possibly remind me, what members of the IRA have been Muslims?

Because the total number of victims of terrorism in the UK commited by Muslims is something like 57, which is a hell of a lot lower than the amount commited by Catholics.

So why aren't we invading the Vatican?

Terrorism, which, basically being a concept, is something which cannot ever be ended.

Having a "war on terror". Next week - a "war on ennui".

Think that's ludicrous?

It's only as ludicrous as a war on any concept.