Terror is the nature of evil and as all humans have the choice to be good or evil. terrorism will never go away the only hope the rest of us have is to build a society that can minimize its existence via Laws, better awareness, and the absolute disillusion of the ideal independence.
now i know saying that last part might catch you off guard, your probably thinking i mean communism, no i mean the ideal that you can self sustain yourself without the involvement of other people. The more people depend on one another the less they are to go against the greater whole as a society.
were dose that leave the whole ideal of self importance, absolutely no were such a thing is the driving force behind all the negative aspects within the human psyche. the less people think of themselves the better off they would be.
anyhow as for Americans vs Muslims. Muslim is a religion and primarily the religion of America is christian. both faiths are not actually against one another, they both if fact preach a very similar message. its the radicals and fanatics in the regions that are causing the problem and those being from the Muslim religion atm. my hope is that it never escalates god if some bloody christian fanatic were to start a holy war it will spill out across the world and we would all get dragged into WW3.
Typical of many working class areas in the U.K. The photo’s are designed to back up a newspaper article so could be seen as biased. I could take photo’s from the internet and produce an article about the oppressed Black man in America, it does not mean that it is true. The press also have a habit of using library footage, I have seen photo’s taken in Dudley used in articles’ about Bradford and Leicester
Why are we not having the same problem with Nepalese (new arrivals) Sikh’s, Hindu’s and Buddhist’s I think the truth of the matter is they do not consider themselves as special where as Muslims do.
I am Jewish so I’m not sure where I’d stand with the people who think only Christians have rights. That being said the Constitution is not a suicide pact and some Muslim-based organizations do need to be infiltrated and probably disrupted. One of the few good things Nixon did was to destroy the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground. That would be the model but we’d have to make sure the covert operators didn’t morph into a modern version of the Plumbers.
Insofar as each of those was destroyed, it was by normal, legal, and constitutional methods. In fact, two senior members of the FBI were convicted of crimes related to the investigation of the WU.
We all have rights but it is a two way street and a great deal of flexibility of attitude the problem arises when certain groups of people believe that their rights are above all others, not just immigrants some U.K. citizens as well are just as guilty.
Going only by what I have read in the papers, there are more than a few so called Christian groups that need sorting out, starting to hear of private orthodox Jewish schools that are only teaching Hebrew scripture and pupils are not being taught any other subjects, This is happening in the U.K. to your knowledge is this happening in America
Aaaahh… now THAT is an interesting question, and not just with regard to Rotherham, nor just with regard to Muslims.
Whenever we discuss what we perceive as religious wars, religious conflicts, religious crimes and religious scandals, it’s worth asking several things:
IS religion truly at the heart of the problem?
Are the devoutly religious more likely to be part of the problem than the tepidly or nominally religious?
IF we say religion is at the heart of the problem, why wasn’t the problem a lot worse, say, a century ago, when people were generally far more devout?
Is religion the whole problem? Most of the problem? Incidental to the problem? Convenient shorthand for some OTHER problem that’s not religious in nature?
This is worth a thread of its own, and I believe I’ll start one a little later.
But these questions are always worth asking, ESPECIALLY when we hear people shaking their heads and saying with sadness and false wisdom,“Those people have hated each other and killed each other for hundreds of years in the name of religion.”
Because a casual glance at real history usually shows that is NOT the case! To take a few examples(including some that are NOT related to Islam):
Many people (Richard Dawkins, for one) like to point to “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland and observe sagely, 'Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other there for centuries."
Uh, well, no. In fact, hell no.
First, remember that England conquered the Irish when BOTH nations were still Catholic, and Catholic Irishmen didn’t love the Catholic English tyrants who ruled them any more than they loved subsequent Protestant tyrants.
Second, if “The Troubles” were truly religious in nature… why weren’t Catholics setting off bombs in Belfast in 1850, when religious fervor was much higher and the Irish were truly suffering under British rule? Why no Catholic terrorist bombing in 1920, or 1940, or 1960? Why did “The Troubles” begin in the 1970s, long after most of Ireland was free, and long after most Irish Catholics AND Protestants had ceased being particularly religious?
Many people think that (Orthodox) Serbs, (Catholic) Croatians and Bosnian Muslims have been cutting each others’ throats since time immemorial.
Again, no. My old neighborhood in Queens was filled with Yugoslavian immigrants (enough to require our parish o offer a Croatian Mass each Sunday). When ethnic cleansing and ethnic warfare began in the Balkans, wanna know how my Croatian neighbors reacted? NOT, surprisingly, with anger, but with confusion! Most told me, “We all had Serbian and Muslim friends and neighbors. Sure, there were religious differences, but we all hung out together, drank together, went to each others’ houses and churches, married each other… I don’t understand what the hell happened over there?”
I’m no expert on the Balkans, but history shows that Serbs, Croatians and Muslims generally got along pretty well until the 1990s, by which point all three groups were pretty secular (PJ O’Rourke used to joke that if you wanted to tell the warring sides in the Balkans apart, here’s the secret: The Croatians are the ones who never go to Mass, the Srbs are the ones who never go to Orthodox services, and the Muslims are the ones who, five times a day, DON’T face Mecca and pray).
TODAY, a huge and disproportionate amount of world terrorism is being committed by Muslims. I myself have been arguing here that it’s foolish and destructive to deny this or to downplay the Islamic nature of much terrorism.
But… anyone who’s tempted to say, “Muslims are animals, they hold all outsiders in contempt, and they’ve always slaughtered non-Muslims, and they’ll never be happy in any society they don’t control” is way off the mark. There are many nations in which Muslims have lived peacefully with non-Muslim neighbors for centuries. TODAY, anti-semitism runs rampant in many Islamic nations, but there have been many periods in history when Jews being oppressed by Christians found safety and acceptance in Islamic nations. TODAY, Muslims commit a huge percentage of the world’s terrorism, but as recently as my childhood in the Sixties, nobody outside Israel worried about Muslim terrorism. Heck, a thousand years ago, did fervently Muslim Arabs stab Jewish passersby on the street for no reason! Of COURSE not!
So, we KNOW that many “religious” conflicts are not ancient but quite recent. We also know that many “religious” conflicts are waged by people who are not particularly observant.
So, despite my many arguments against political correctness, against fudging the truth to spare the feelings of innocent people, against downplaying the role Islam plays in terrorism, I have no trouble seeing and saying that…
There’s nothing organic about Islam that requires violence or terrorism.
Muslims not only CAN get along with infidels, they HAVE and the DO, in most times and places. I’ve worked and socialized with with loads of them, and none has ever tried to convert me, let alone kill me.
The most dangerous Muslims AREN’T necessarily the most religious. They aren’t necessarily religious at all (it’s hilarious how often friends and neighbors will say of a dead Muslim terrorist, "Abdul? But… he wasn’t religious. He NEVER went to the mosque? He was a loser who spent most of his time smoking weed and looking at porn! ").
Something I have been told but cannot prove is that during WW2 a Muslim regiment fort with Germany in the area now known as Croatia and many old scores were settled and it is said that feud’s can go on for ever. Coming forward to modern times I have been told that old scores were settled between Muslims and Christians. As I have said I was told this when I was in Croatia and have no proof
At a guess, far fewer numbers of low-education/low-skill people. Recently, the two highest (non-European) providers of immigrants to Britain were China/Hong Kong and India, with Pakistan being third. The majority of Chinese/Hong Kong immigrants are highly educated and enter the work force at a decent wage. India is a mixed bag, with both better educated, (Southern/Hindu, Sikh) and less educated (Northern/Muslim) people coming for jobs. Nepal doesn’t have or send enough people to even figure in this discussion, even if you know some, personally.
(Nepalis are a special situation as they have a very high percentage of British ex-soldiers including a many elderly retirees.)
Do I know the exact reasons? No. However, it would seem to me that if you were interested in actually understanding the situation, you would be examining those conditions rather than drawing conclusions from your own limited experience without even knowing the realities of population distributions along ethnic, educational, and wage-earning lines.
You’re not guessing, you’re trying to pound a square peg in a round hole.
That would be the pot calling the kettle black. Lets look at your premise that it’s poor uneducated Muslim immigrants and the other religious immigrants are better educated and financially better off.
It should be easy to test that theory. Lets start with Osama Bin Laden. Son of a billionaire with multiple college degrees. Now look at the Ft Hood shooter. Born to Palestinian immigrants and had a Masters degree in Public Health. Next up we have the San Bernardino attacks. Son of Pakistani immigrants with a good job married to a university educated woman.
It would seem it’s the highly educated Muslim in good financial standing involved in terrorism. That would be the exact opposite of your guess. Maybe you should consider that all the other people from different religions represent the same cross section as that of Muslims. The same violence within Islamic majority countries stems from the intolerance built into the religion and carried out by Mohammad.
It’s fucking history, pal. All you have to do is read about the puppet state in Croatia during WWII, and about the various civil wars that occurred during and following the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. “Oh, I just don’t know!” is not an acceptable statement.
We have 700+ Nepalese living on the estate and I do know many of them and have contact through Ghurkha Welfare, many of them are illiterate and are unable to read and write in their own language. English classes have been set up in the local church and the estates community centre and is successful. Younger ones are setting up businesses with Money they received on leaving the army. They are friendly people and mix in willingly and it does help to say hello in Nepalese.
Unemployment of immigrants. Unemployment is not effecting just immigrants it is going across the board. The problem is the number of new jobs becoming available is less then the number of immigrants coming into the U.K. every year. the call to drastically slash immigration is not racist it is to strike a balance so that we can start to get everyone back into work
No, you didn’t. You said, “I was told this when I was in Croatia and have no proof.” You did no research, you read no history, you gained no knowledge. If my pointing that out is evidence in your mind of a lack of manners, too bad.
Well, you can arrive at all sorts of conclusions when you go haring off and responding to statements that have never been made. Burning your straw man looks like a forest fire.
T.M. has been linking terrorist attacks to the immigrant Muslim population of Britain and pointing to his impression that they self segregate and engage in all sorts of nasty behavior that (he infers) is related to the evils of Islam.
I have addressed his errors regarding the general phenomena of immigrants and the various social problems they encounter to show that his claim that the problem is “Islam” is an incorrect interpretation of what he thinks he is seeing in the news.
I have made no references to the sources of terrorism and have not claimed that the poor and the uneducated among the immigrants whom T.M. so fears are the actual terrorists–pretty much the opposite, in fact. (There are links between some acts of terrorism and the uneducated poor, as when a disaffected youth who is not even religious gets lured into joining Daesh as the result of various acts of proselytizing, but that is not a primary source of terrorism and I have made no claim that it is.)
Trying to pretend I have said something that I never have so that you can pretend to shoot down an argument I have never made is silly.