Why Islam is a problem for the integration of immigrants

Yes and don't care.
Why do you believe the leader of a nationalist liberation group (Palestine Liberation Organization) was a Muslim radical - in any sense that it is worth ascribing value to Arafat being Muslim? Would it be fair of me to call Martin McGuiness a Christian radical?

I don't know enough about him to make that determination.
Khashoggi is radical in that he is opposed to much of the Saudi establishment and the influence of religious law in Saudi Arabia. Given that Khashoggi is a) Muslim and b) radical; I am curious about your opinion on him.

Yes - they're all 3rd world countries.
Is South Africa then a third world country? Jordan has a higher HDI than South Africa and approximately the same GDP per capita (by PPP). Jordan and Kosovo are also approximately equal in GDP per capita by PPP and HDI rankings. Would you consider Kosovo a third world country?

Or, are you just going to tell me what you consider a third world country to be so we can stop with this ridiculous exercise where I try and guess your definition of third world by seeing what responses you give to different scenarios.

They can stay in Africa with their own people where they belong.
Why shouldn't a person from the Kivus be able to move to the United States?
Put another way, you mentioned in a previous thread that either you or your parents emigrated from Chile to Canada. Why shouldn't the Canadian government have said "Sorry, you can stay in Chile with your own people where you belong"?

And "regions of conflict" isn't the determining factor in whether they are fit to be allowed into Western societies or not.
What is then the determining factor?
 
No sympathy for the cardinal rule of Intelligence KNOW YOUR ENEMY?
It is okay if Intelligence is not your strong suit, it is a complex area. No shame in admitting an unfamiliarity with it.

You didn't answer my questions regarding non-muslim radicals which I am curious about your answer:

Yes - they're all 3rd world countries.
Is South Africa then a third world country? Jordan has a higher HDI than South Africa and approximately the same GDP per capita (by PPP). Jordan and Kosovo are also approximately equal in GDP per capita by PPP and HDI rankings. Would you consider Kosovo a third world country?

Or, are you just going to tell me what you consider a third world country to be so we can stop with this ridiculous exercise where I try and guess your definition of third world by seeing what responses you give to different scenarios.

They can stay in Africa with their own people where they belong.
Why shouldn't a person from the Kivus be able to move to the United States?
Put another way, you mentioned in a previous thread that either you or your parents emigrated from Chile to Canada. Why shouldn't the Canadian government have said "Sorry, you can stay in Chile with your own people where you belong"?
 
No sympathy for the cardinal rule of Intelligence KNOW YOUR ENEMY?
It is okay if Intelligence is not your strong suit, it is a complex area. No shame in admitting an unfamiliarity with it.

I know my enemies very well. Religious zealots aren't very difficult to understand.

It's the left who clearly doesn't have the intellect to know the nature of their enemies.

Why shouldn't a person from the Kivus be able to move to the United States?

Kivus belong in Africa with their own culture and people.

Put another way, you mentioned in a previous thread that either you or your parents emigrated from Chile to Canada. Why shouldn't the Canadian government have said "Sorry, you can stay in Chile with your own people where you belong"?

Chile was founded by European settlers and is of Western Culture, as is Canada.
 
I know my enemy very well. It's the left who doesn't know the nature of their enemies.
Really? So actually reading the speeches given by people like bin Laden and listening to interviews with Hezbollah militants doesn't assist me in understanding "the enemy"?
How then should I learn about "the enemy"?



Kivus belong in Africa with their own culture and people.
(FWIW Kivu refers to a region, not people from that region.)
When you or your parents moved to Canada, why shouldn't the Canadian government have said "Chileans belong in Chile/South America with their own culture and people"?
 
Really? So actually reading the speeches given by people like bin Laden and listening to interviews with Hezbollah militants doesn't assist me in understanding "the enemy"?
How then should I learn about "the enemy"?

Religious zealots aren't difficult to understand, they're not interesting, and their specific motives really don't matter.

You have to kill them. The solution is simple.
 
Religious zealots aren't difficult to understand, they're not interesting, and their specific motives really don't matter.

You have to kill them. The solution is simple.
How do I identify if someone is a religious zealot without reading what they wrote and learning about their motives?

Jerry Falwell would be considered a religious zealot, but I think it would be hard generating support for the "kill Jerry Falwell" position were he still alive.
 
Do you need to improve your English comprehension skills? People who are against immigrants are obviously a problem for the integration of immigrants... Unless, of course, you're saying that anti-immigration types are a tiny, insignificant minority, which would make you as delusional as the worst of them.

What you are perhaps getting at is that anti-immigration types have not really had much influence on the numbers of immigrants being accepted into countries like Germany. But that's not an issue of integration. You can accept immigrants without integrating them, which seems to be what you're complaining about - but then again, in reality, those who are anti-immigration are very unlikely to advocate or support measures that will actually help to integrate immigrants, so maybe your complaint is better directed at them?

Aelf, there are hundreds of million of people in the middle East and North Africa, living in countries that were already brought to collapse (by NATO members playing the imperial game...) or are very likely to collapse in the near future (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Europe cannot and will not accommodate these hundreds of millions if they ever try to flee there. And they will try because the alternative will be famine and death. It would mean doubling the population of Europe with foreigners. It is politically impossible, and for a number of reasons.
To be brutally honest, if that ever comes to pass european countries will simply kill enough of those in transit until they deter the others. The military are already busy with the planning, and their working assumptions is that the collapses of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are inevitable, and Turkey is in doubt weather it will be an ally or enemy. This will not be called a genocide, but in terms of human suffering can become a disaster as great as ww2. And it has nothing to do with Islam but that the religion is those countries near Europe is Islam. Were they buddhists the problems would be the same. Is is about poverty, cultural differences, and numbers.

There is only one way to avert such a disgrace. That is to avoid the collapse of these countries in the first place. All the ink spent on how we should be helping immigrants and refugees now is a distraction for bleeding hearth liberals to congratulate themselves while cheering the bombing of foreign countries. And hiring some cheap labour as a bonus. If you are concerned about the welfare of people the focus must be, now, on preventing people from becoming refugees. Though in that we are very limited because the people of those countries have agency and even if they do get help things can go wrong. But prevent wars and the deliberate fomenting of instability there (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc) is fundamental to have any chance of preventing this catastrophe. I have some hope in that even some of the usual warmongers recoiled from trying to destroy Egypt, fearful of the consequences. But still those countries seriously need help: access to technology, and investment not only meant to extract more profit in the end. With one nonnegotiable condition: an immediate end to population growth. China did it, so can these do.

Talk about human rights is cheap. The reality is hard. But this can end well, provided that we have an honest public discussion about the issues and take rational actions now to prevent the nightmare scenarios in the future. The big problem is that this public discussion is lacking because the media refuses to handle the hard facts, or they handle them selectively. The "right-wing" media refuses discussions that western governments have been fomenting wars and ruining people's lives, crating millions of refugees. The "liberal" and "left" media refuses to admit the fact that there are limits to the number of immigrants any country will take without social breakdown. What remains of the old school "materialist/marxist left" talks about this as it always did, but has been shut down to a niche position. One of the things I liked in them is that they eventually gave a lot of though to the difficulties of internationalism in a world comprised of nations - had their fair share of failures with it, but do argue over these issues.
 
How do I identify if someone is a religious zealot without reading what they wrote and learning about their motives?
islamists have made it perfectly clear for decades that their motives are religious based and if you want to play the willfully ignorant liberal "how can we know for sure," the solution is still the same - You kill them.

Moderator Action: Advocating killing people because of their ideology or religious belief (or both combined, in this case) is very much against the rules here. Normally this would result in a 3-7 day ban, but since you are new I will make it only a warning this time. In the future this sort of post will result in a ban. - Bootstoots
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think most people would consider Kosovo a third world country. I got the impression parts of South Africa are first world and parts third world
 
I think most people would consider Kosovo a third world country. I got the impression parts of South Africa are first world and parts third world

At one time South Africa was considered a 1st world country, but not anymore. Kosovo is surely considered 3rd world.
 
islamists have made it perfectly clear for decades that their motives are religious based and if you want to play the willfully ignorant liberal "how can we know for sure," the solution is still the same - You kill them.
You know, I'm normally not a fan of the horseshoe theory, but this murderous approach to people you disagree with seems remarkably like the approach employed by ISIS toward people they don't like.

At one time South Africa was considered a 1st world country, but not anymore. Kosovo is surely considered 3rd word.
What made South Africa a first world country but no longer? While I'm pretty sure what your response will be, I want to make sure you don't consider the split to be in 1948 with the election of the National Party or in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster.

I think most people would consider Kosovo a third world country. I got the impression parts of South Africa are first world and parts third world
FWIW I would consider Kosovo Second World as it fits in broadly with post-Soviet and other developing states. I tend to reserve Third World for places like the Central African Republic.
 
You know, I'm normally not a fan of the horseshoe theory, but this murderous approach to people you disagree with seems remarkably like the approach employed by ISIS toward people they don't like.

If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and European civilians being killed in their own countries by terrorists then you must be a liberal.
 
I have no inherent opposition to security services taking steps to prevent terrorist attacks and arrest terrorists; but safeguards must be in place to prevent abuses like we saw MI5 and British Army Intelligence doing during the Troubles.
 
I have no inherent opposition to security services taking steps to prevent terrorist attacks and arrest terrorists; but safeguards must be in place to prevent abuses like we saw MI5 and British Army Intelligence doing during the Troubles.

Close the borders, throw out the barbarians, execute the terrorists, destroy ISIS and we have the means to do it. Problem solved.

Any other proposition is a half measure and will not work.
 
Religious zealots aren't difficult to understand, they're not interesting, and their specific motives really don't matter.

You have to kill them. The solution is simple.
Doesn't this fall under hate speech or something? Is this legal under the forum rules?
 
Doesn't this fall under hate speech or something? Is this legal under the forum rules?

Killing terrorists?

Of course not. Only a fool would not want to protect innocent civilians from terrorists.
 
Close the borders, throw out the barbarians, execute the terrorists, destroy ISIS and we have the means to do it. Problem solved.
Who is a barbarian? I for one consider Nazis, white supremacists, and their fellow travelers to be "barbarians" to use your terminology; yet somehow I get the impression you would disagree with that definition of barbarian.
How do you identify if someone is a terrorist? Going through a trial requires the state to prove motive if the person hasn't actually done anything. If we don't go through trials, we are not very far removed from the wandering kill squads that you claim were so rampant in Chile there was no other option than for Pinochet to take power and treat dissenters to free helicopter rides.
How does one destroy ISIS? As the British, French, Belgian, Portuguese, South Africans, Rhodesians, and the Soviets have learned; bullets do not resolve political problems.
 
Name-calling is not allowed
Close the borders, throw out the barbarians, execute the terrorists, destroy ISIS and we have the means to do it. Problem solved.

Any other proposition is a half measure and will not work.
I don't think you understand what war is, and what killing means. Sitting on your ass, typing out this filth... You believe you are powerful now, don't you? That you are right. It feels right to you to kill and to destroy. Wait until war comes to your doorstep. Let's see how you feel about killing then.

Idiot.

Moderator Action: No name-calling. - Bootstoots
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom