Why Islam is a problem for the integration of immigrants

[El_Machinae]

Lex, it's a framing issue for sure. But the original question was about suicide bombers. Just throw in an edit about 'suicide bombings' then. Or even mass murders.

 

[PhroX]

That's not the question that was asked though, the question was about "suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets". Attacks of a specific type (suicide bombings) that have been used specifically against civilian targets for the effect that targeting civilians has.

This question didn't give them some vague framework as you're painting it, the question asked them directly if suicide attacks against civilians are okay, after there have been tons of terror attacks by people who claim to have done it to defend Islam.

I feel you're focusing on the wrong part of the question. I look much more at "to defend Islam". Considering it acceptable to go to any lengths to defend one's community/nation/ideology etc. is hardly unique to Islam.

 

[warpus]

You're still missing some of the tension. Most Amish stay with their communities. Smaller percentages leave now than in the 1950s. The culture gap is vast.

I actually went to university in a town that was close to a decently sized Amish (Mennonite?) community. It was common to see Amish horse and buggy things riding down the street and parking by the grocery store. You're right, they keep to themselves for the most part, but I saw them in stores, walking down the street, partaking in modern conveniences of life, etc. Yeah, it's a lot different from say your average moderate Muslim who integrates with western society a lot more than that.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yet they're still worthy additions as countrymen, for sure, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree! If anything, they have some measure of unique value that would be destroyed if they integrated more fully.

 

[warpus]

Yet they're still worthy additions as countrymen, for sure, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree! If anything, they have some measure of unique value that would be destroyed if they integrated more fully.

My position is.. Let people do as they wish, as long as they respect the traditions and customs of any place they have recently moved to.

The Amish have been here a lot longer than most of us I think (or at least for quite a while), so I don't think they really have any obligation to integrate with anything. As long as they're not breaking any actual laws, it is not up to me to say whether they are worthy additions to our society or not. They do probably have some cool knowledge about farming and all sorts of other things that "modern" society does differently. This knowledge could come handy in certain situations. So I think that yes, they probably are worthy additions to our society in that sense. IMO it's important to have variety. Each group of people will be better at different things, so that when there's a crisis like a zombie outbreak or alien invasion, we could turn to the Dutch to help us build dykes and the Amish to help us farm better. Totally random examples that I just pulled out of some orifice, but you get the point. From that sense, yes, I think the Amish are "worthy" additions. But like I said I don't think it's my place to really say which group is worthy and which isn't.

I say that as an immigrant and recent arrival to these lands, though. From my point of view the Amish are the locals and I am the outsider, who has to integrate here and there, in order to become a functioning member of Canadian society. The Amish are sort of living in a parallel society, but as an outsider I don't think it's my place to tell them to do anything about that (as long as they're not breaking any laws and so on).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Tim if you consider the Amish to be comparable to Islam with regards to subjugating the world under Allah, then I'm stumped as to how to have a discussion with you on the subject at hand. I do agree with your statement on Europe and immigration, it's what I was trying to convey.

The point was that if you just look through their texts they do in fact have the same "stated goal." Now, I live a heck of a long way from Amish country so I really can't speak to how energetically they pursue the stated goal in their texts, but I have met many Muslims and can say that none of them ever tried to convert me at gunpoint. In fact the only one who ever invited me to their mosque only did so after I asked. So your assertion that they have different "stated goals" was incorrect, and the implication that they are vastly different in how they put the stated goals into action appears to be incorrect as well.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This question didn't give them some vague framework as you're painting it, the question asked them directly if suicide attacks against civilians are okay, after there have been tons of terror attacks by people who claim to have done it to defend Islam.

The question there was "do you think that the only tactic available to us that has shown to have any real effect on the nation that uses its overwhelming military advantage to bully our nation is acceptable?" Not surprisingly, a lot of people faced with no alternative but to submit say "why, yes, it is."

 

[Ryika]

The question there was "do you think that the only tactic available to us that has shown to have any real effect on the nation that uses its overwhelming military advantage to bully our nation is acceptable?" Not surprisingly, a lot of people faced with no alternative but to submit say "why, yes, it is."

There has been no militaristic bullying against countries like Nigeria (a nation that looks very favorably on the USA), Turkey (Who have worked closely with the West before Erdogan), and Jordan (who have been a MNNA of the USA for ages), yet they polled among the top countries in support on terror attack acceptance to defend Islam.

It seems to me that your argument is nonsensical.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you want to understand Nigerians, Jordanians, and Turkish people: don't start by asking what people in the USA do, start by observing the environment that Nigerians, Jordanians, and Turkish people experience. The first question may, or may not, become relevant to the second, which is the only one that actually matters.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There has been no militaristic bullying against countries like Nigeria (a nation that looks very favorably on the USA), Turkey (Who have worked closely with the West before Erdogan), and Jordan (who have been a MNNA of the USA for ages), yet they polled among the top countries in support on terror attack acceptance to defend Islam.

It seems to me that your argument is nonsensical.

It seems to me that your argument is that only the USA is in a position to use overwhelming military advantage to bully other countries, which is a pretty nonsensical argument.

It also seems to me that you are suggesting that all these countries should have a "well, since the bully isn't bullying us right now their bullying is just a perfectly fine thing to do" perspective. Since this mirrors what you routinely post in regards to many other issues, where you condemn no action that doesn't directly impact you no matter how disgusting it might be, I am not surprised.

 

[El_Machinae]

The Ummah is a powerful thing. It's what caused All Lives Matter to spring up aftet BLM. It's why Sikhs were beaten on 9/11

That German-muslims respond while thinking of Iraqi muslims is kinda scary when the topic is violence.

 

[Ryika]

If you want to understand Nigerians, Jordanians, and Turkish people: don't start by asking what people in the USA do, start by observing the environment that Nigerians, Jordanians, and Turkish people experience. The first question may, or may not, become relevant to the second, which is the only one that actually matters.

That may work for Jordan, but Nigeria polls 76% favorable views of the USA (with 12% unfavorable).
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/

It simply doesn't make sense that people would think favorably of the USA, while at the same time seeing them as a threat to their well-being so much that it makes them think that terror-attacks are justified to "defend Islam".

It seems to me that your argument is that only the USA is in a position to use overwhelming military advantage to bully other countries, which is a pretty nonsensical argument.

It also seems to me that you are suggesting that all these countries should have a "well, since the bully isn't bullying us right now their bullying is just a perfectly fine thing to do" perspective. Since this mirrors what you routinely post in regards to many other issues, where you condemn no action that doesn't directly impact you no matter how disgusting it might be, I am not surprised.

So now you've moved on from an indirect connection that you have no proof of to an even more indirect connection that you still have no proof of, just to be able to ignore that the direct connection that terrorists frequently say is the reason they do things for.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So now you've moved on from an indirect connection that you have no proof of to an even more indirect connection that you still have no proof of, just to be able to ignore that the direct connection that terrorists frequently say is the reason they do things for.

No, I just pointed out the assumptions in your argument. I didn't "move on" to anything.

Your argument is based on the obviously flawed idea that the only overwhelming military advantage bully available is the USA. You blather about how this country likes the USA, that country has been pals with the USA for so long, etc, as if the statement that there is resentment against militaristic bullying could not apply to anyone else...like Germany for example, which used military bullying as a primary negotiating principle for its entire history until it finally got broken off in their collective butt.

Your argument is also based on the idea that these countries that don't seem to be targets of bullying by the US should have no negative opinion towards bullying by the US. This is also generally seen as incorrect. Most people are capable of seeing bad behavior for bad behavior even when they themselves are not directly targeted. Though once again for someone like you who routinely defends that racism is just fine so long as it not against your race, oppression is just fine as long as it is not against your people, religious intolerance is just fine as long as it isn't against your religion, et cetera there is no surprise in you expecting others to think similarly.

 

[Lexicus]

Your argument is also based on the idea that these countries that don't seem to be targets of bullying by the US should have no negative opinion towards bullying by the US.

Indeed, the funny thing is that if bystanders intervened regularly there would be very little if any bullying on an individual level.

John Donne said something related to this: Therefore send not to see for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee...

So did Martin Luther King Jr, when he said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Indeed, the funny thing is that if bystanders intervened regularly there would be very little if any bullying on an individual level.

John Donne said something related to this: Therefore send not to see for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee...

So did Martin Luther King Jr, when he said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Thanks. I appear to be in good company then.

 

[Ryika]

No, I just pointed out the assumptions in your argument. I didn't "move on" to anything.

But you're the one making the assumption that the idea that terrorist attacks to defend Islam is not actually caused by Islam, but by <other factors that are vague enough that you don't have to defend them>.

You're saying something that is so broad that it's pretty much useless, I narrow it down to something that I can actually argue against, and you move on to "Oh no, I didn't actually mean that, I meant <another thing too nebulous to directly argue against>.

Your argument is based on the obviously flawed idea that the only overwhelming military advantage bully available is the USA. You blather about how this country likes the USA, that country has been pals with the USA for so long, etc, as if the statement that there is resentment against militaristic bullying could not apply to anyone else...like Germany for example, which used military bullying as a primary negotiating principle for its entire history until it finally got broken off in their collective butt.

Let's stick with the example of Nigeria then. They've not been bullied by any major military power recently, their real problems are with Islamic Extremism (Boko Haram), they look favorable on the USA and most western Nations, and yet they still poll heavily in favor of terrorist attacks being justified to defend Islam.

Stop that vague nonsense and give me a concrete reason for how you still think that this has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with resentment of the west.

Your argument is also based on the idea that these countries that don't seem to be targets of bullying by the US should have no negative opinion towards bullying by the US.

No, it's not. My argument is that there are countries like Nigeria that clearly HAVE no negative opinion towards the US in general, so resentment of the US's actions cannot be the reason why they think terror attacks are justified to defend Islam.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Stop that vague nonsense and give me a concrete reason for how you still think that this has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with resentment of the west.

Rather than me giving you reasons why I think things that I don't actually think, how about you just accept the fact that I have no respect for your opinions, your arguments, or the way you express yourself and that only my respect for the rules of the forum keep me from directly telling you what you don't want to hear about what I think of you?

Moderator Action: Telling someone that you have no respect for them, or to be more precise their opinions, arguments, and ways of presenting them, is unnecessarily aggressive and not conducive to civil discussion. - Bootstoots
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[El_Machinae]

There's also a line between understanding why someone has evil morals and accepting that they have evil morals.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's also a line between understanding why someone has evil morals and accepting that they have evil morals.

Agreed. There's also a line between accepting that an action is taken out of abject necessity rather than out of moral preference.

I respect the morality of a PETA member vegan...but I fully expect that if they are given a rifle and put in a cage with a lion they will defend themselves.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I think it's more a matter of Muslim mass migration being more prevalent in the last half of the 20th century and continuing on in the new millennium. Its also exacerbated by the unrest in the middle east and high profile terror attacks.

Its been pointed out earlier in the thread that there are other religious groups that segregate themselves and nearly every mass migration to the US has fostered an us v them type resentment. Most Muslim's I've met are just like anybody else. In fact they fan be less fundamentally regressive than some Christians(not all, just some) can be.

If stability is ever established in the middle east I think Muslims will integrate as well as any other immigrant group has mosques or no. The longer we treat them as the "other" the harder it will be.