Oh, I couldn’t sell that script no matter how hard I tried. No-one would ever believe me.
If they’ve been there hundreds of years, they’re not really “immigrants” anymore, are they?
In what possible fashion is that kid an immigrant? He was native born to Netherlands.
As neither you nor I are Dutch residents, doubtless neither of us has any knowledge to know if any Jews have killed any Dutch persons of over the past centuries (although I found it interesting in googling to learn that the Sultan of Morocco had a Jewish ambassador to Netherlands. In any case there have been Jewish nutters who have killed / committed terror for their religion, so I fail to see the pont.
I’m not sure, but when you look at opinion polls there is certainly cause for concern.
Pretty much yes. And if there is a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe, that’s also evidence that there may eventually be a large “clash.”
I would guess that being tolerant of intolerance can be counterproductive.
Are you claiming that the King David bombing was in response to criticism of Judaism? If so, I will need a cite.
When BrainGlutton referred to “fucking immigrants,” I assumed he was talking about Muslims in general in Western Europe, including second generation Muslims. If he meant something else, then he was strawmanning.
There are wonderful tools available for learning about what is happening (or has happened) in other countries. That’s how I learned about the murder of Theo Van Gogh even though I am not a Dutch resident.
Name 10 incidents in the last 10 years where Jews have killed anyone for criticizing or offending Judaism.
Are you suggesting we apply some kind of hate-speech like measure where the specific motive of the perpetrator is supposed to be of superior importance relative to the fact that innocent people were slain in cold blood?
It seems to me that you’ve now boxed yourself in, henceforth constrained to argue an awfully narrow case to prove that muslim immigration is a grave threat. You can now only claim one murder caused by one man’s outrage at criticism of Islam as admissible evidence.
How many more, with that motive, in europe, in the last fifty years?
Can you make it to 91?
Can you make it to 76?
I’m suggesting that we address the actual claim on the table, which is this:
One thing we can say bad about Muslim immigrants (broadly defined) is that they have a tendency to react violently to public and prominent criticism of their religion. Of course this doesn’t apply to all Muslim immigrants, but it does apply to a high enough percentage that it really does intimidate people and has a real effect.
For example, a European artist could make a prominent public display which defiled a cross or an image of Christ or a Torah Scroll without worrying about his safety. If he did something similarly offensive to Islam, his life would be in serious danger.
Well what exactly do you think my position is? Please go by what I’ve actually said as opposed to what you wish or imagine I said.
We’re supposed to take your word for it? But restating the point I already made once: I’m pretty sure that support for Takfiri Salafism among muslim immigrants is lower than support among american caucasians for Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck, Pam Geller and the snakeoil they’re selling. Why should we be more concerned about the former than the latter?
Why should we be more concerned about some random muslim immigrant than you and why should we consider him a bigger threat than you? You accuse him - without proof - to sympathize with ideas that have lead to the murder of innocents while we know for a fact that you sympathize with ideas that have lead to the murder of innocents.
And here you are yourself innocently putting your own finger on the scale in support of more “clashing”. Or maybe that’s because you see a predestined race-war down the road - no matter what we do? Nothing to do but stock up on weaponry then, go underground and await Helter Skelter…
And to the extent it’s useful we are already projecting our values of tolerance in our home countries. We’re no more accepting of fathers who kill their daughters over “honor” than we are of anti-government warriors who stash their pickups full of explosives and blow up federal buildings. Those guys go to prison.
An intolerant muslim father who chose to go on tv and argue that their daughters should be kept at home would get to hear that he’s wrong; but he wouldn’t even dare show up because he knows exactly what’s considered the norm in our societies.
We could only dream that Glenn Beck was kept on such a short leach.
But what we’re not doing is sending folks to Death Camps of Tolerance - even if they could use a visit. We’re not prying into peoples homes to see if they’re watching to much Glenn Beck, reading the Turner Diaries online or listening to a Mullah who hates Israel.
Unless we know of a credible threat to our security or an impending crime.
And we’re not sending every last soul in Tennessee to prison on account of two nazis trying to kill Barack Obama. Even if it wasn’t a coincident that the guys were from the old confederacy.
Muslim immigration is a threat because some of those muslim guys are a lot like you - intolerant - and we cant have that? You should have gotten rosy cheeks when you put the very first fingertip to the keyboard.
@brazil, as to your post #68, you failed to meet my challenge (in the post you were replying to) and account for how many european muslim immigrants there actually are who have committed murder on native europeans over perceived slights to Islam.
I’m sorry but I can’t respect you whatsoever if you just cut out that part of my post and opt to pretend it’s raining.
To commit such a ***** copout and at the same time have the balls to assert that “[muslim immigrants have a] tendency to react violently to public and prominent criticism of their religion”, well that’s pretty much declaring you got no intellectual integrity whatsoever.
You’ll have to adress that, and once you have, I’ll get back to the rest of your post.
No, I can try to find you links to the surveys I have seen if you like. For example showing support for Sharia law among European Muslims.
Please stop trying to change the issue. The question on the table is the likelihood of an eventual (big) clash in Europe between Muslims and Christians. I do not reside in Europe. To the extent that there is a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe, it only adds to the likelihood of a clash.
Please show me where I indicate that I support such a clash. Please quote me.
I’m not sure what you mean by “threat” here. And how exactly am I intolerant?
In what possible way are native born citizens of a country "immigrants"I ask again - other than using a definition of citizen based entirely on racism and bigotry.
So you in fact do not know more than some casual internet googling in English about the Dutch situation and your assertion is worth what it was, something you pulled out of your ass.
So if (just for example and I am NOT gonna do it) I were to decide Buchanan is a threat (or just a dumb ass), I can go kill him??? It should be OK with him, given his “philosophy”.
Interesting :dubious:
First let me note that I see you’ve taken to your usual M.O. when under pressure - abusing the QUOTE functionality.
Sharia Law is not the same thing as Takfiri Salafism. Supporting Sharia Law seems to me comparable to supporting e.g. Intelligent Design. IOW it’s something I don’t agree with and doesnt want to see become policy but there’s no problem whatsoever if 1%~ (pulled out of my ass) of the population of a country supports it. In a democracy they’re free to support it, but it wont happen.
So a) as a matter of being a good citizen of a western democracy it’s not a problem supporting Sharia Law, and b) your suggested (but unsourced) data-point couldn’t inform the matter at hand anyway.
That’s some chutzpah right there: moving the goalposts while loudly accusing the counterpart of moving the goalposts.
But the “question on the table” I believe was BrainGlutton describing muslim immigrants (in the aggregate) as wanting “good jobs and someplace to live that isn’t a desert”, and you objecting that some of them wants to slay dutch artists. Starting to come back to you? That’s where this particular exchange originated at least.
If you want to pivot to strictly discuss Huntington as applied to muslim immigration in western europe, well make a try for it. Don’t expect us to not call a retreat cowardly, though.
Well there is no one but you in here that I know of who have suggested that there’s a Huntingtonesque clash underway. So. Your proposition is that there is a clash coming. I say that’s bullshit. Muslim immigrants are a couple of percent of the population in most western democracies (slightly more where the aftermath of colonialism comes to play). They’d be crushed in a clash. And going by actual contemporary history only Al Qaeda’s terrorism strikes are a real cause for concern and they are caused by a small group of extremists - some in europe, some outside of europe - who we are already taking appropriate measures to defeat.
I said you were ipso facto putting your finger on the scale in support of a Huntingtonesque clash. By advocating less tolerance in the face of intolerance. That’s the dynamic that leads to a Huntingtonesque clash: intolerance on both sides of the fence increasing until hell breaks lose. Didn’t you know?
I said that I don’t think that support for Takfiri Salafism (or, simplified: “violent islamism”) among european muslim immigrants is a very big concern and support for what we consider intolerant positions is no bigger problem than support for homegrown intolerant agendas. To this you replied that opinion polls gave you cause for concern (you didnt get more specific than that, but whatever). That’s the threat - the one that causes you “concern”.
In my view your willingness to appeal to the murder of Theo Van Gogh as reflecting on “muslim immigrants”, while refusing to do your homework and find out how many such murders there’s been in the aggregate is enough for me to consider you intolerant.
Sorry, but I do not feel any obligation to back up arguments which I have not actually made. My position is that there are certain aspects of Islamic culture which are very aggressive and intolerant and that Muslim immigrants seem to be bringing these ideas with them to Europe. I am happy to give you examples if you are skeptical of this claim.
The fact that militant Jews once bombed the headquarters of the British military in Palestine does not suggest to me that Jewish culture has the same intolerance.
So yes, motivations matter to me.
If you want to issue a challenge to me, that’s fine. First quote the claim I made which you want me to back up, then tell me that you are seriously skeptical of my claim. But don’t just invent or imagine a claim. That’s strawmanning and I don’t put up with it.
Second-generation Muslims or anything else are not immigrants.
You do understand that, don’t you? That an immigrant’s child is as good a Nationlander as you?
Sorry, but that’s just pathetic. You objected to the proposition that muslim immigrants want good jobs and to get out of the desert by appealing to the Theo Van Gogh murder, and offering the culprit as evidence of someone who wanted something else.
In a related matter you alluded to that very same murder as proof of something that put muslim immigrants apart from (present and historical) Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish or Chinese immigrants. You made it clear that to consider this propensity to kill european artists - unique to muslim immigrants - it was imperative for us to only consider murders that were committed because of slights (or “criticism”) to a religious faith.
In both cases the prima facie implication is that the Theo Van Gogh murder reflects on a substantial subset of muslim immigrants. Without that assumption your objections are nonsensical.
And then it’s bloody well relevant if you’re able to find even one more case of murder with that same motive, committed on European soil.
Obama has killed far more kids than Breivik and people on TV say he may be right all the time. And unless he makes a poor vacation choice I doubt he’ll ever be thrown in jail.
But, but, the Bankers and Arms manufacturers of the Bourgeoisie have enslaved the working masses and killed far more people than the Rote Armee Fraktion, and yet people on TV say that the Rote Armee Fraktion are murderous commie terrorists.
Grow up - you’re sounding like a DFH.
(Or maybe you’re being ironic, and I’m being wooshed? :D)
I have no idea what your point is here.
“Intelligent Design” is not a prescription for how peoples’ relationships should be ordered. Sharia is. If half the population believes in intelligent design and half the population does not, it’s pretty feasible for them to co-exist. On the other hand, if half the population believes that peoples’ relationships should be ordered a certain way (and the other half does not), the likelihood of conflict is a lot greater.
Nonsense, I have not “moved the goalposts”
I have my own rules of debate. One rule is that you cannot strawman me, i.e. you cannot misrepresent my position.
So please show me where I claimed that “there is a clash coming.” Please quote me where I have done so. Failing that, please apologize and admit that I said no such thing.
Your choice.