The current refugee wave in Europe

[Meshugger]

To think that pedophilia should be legal is a fairly political opinion in my mind.

 

What I'm saying is that it is misleading to confuse cultural and political matters. I bet not all Afghanis think sexually abusing minors should be legal. Catholicism is also a cesspit of pedophilia cover-ups, but we don't see demonstrations against Catholicism because of that - the pedophiles and pedophile enablers are implicitly assumed to be unwanted by the majority of Catholics. For some reason, we give some people that benefit of doubt, but not to others. Somehow we consider Christianity "salvageable" even though a quick read through the Old Testament reveals that it is a text which every moral person must throw onto the refuse pile. But if we learn that Mohammed married a 9-year old girl, that implies that all Muslims are necessarily pedophiles. In reality, civilized people are going to explain away the really stupid **** in their books just like Christians do with theirs. It is just a matter of spin.

 

For any culture, we want to give the benefit of doubt to as many people as possible, which means we want to rule out the people we do not want by their political opinions - we do not want to rule out anyone by their culture alone, since a person might have the exact same political opinions as is accepted here but still consider themselves as belonging to a foreign culture. Let's make this a question about politics, since culture is a too wide concept.

 

There's still a huge gray area. People form a culture, which is an expression of rituals, ethics and morals, which in turn form the laws of the land they are on and later creates the nation with major political movements and finally the civilization. Where does one thing end and the other begin? I am not sure.

 

But atleast by conducting evaluation based on individuals through interviews and what not, a nation or a region has controll on what kind person should be let in. Speaking of which:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34356758

 

I wonder when this wave is going to end and how.

[Malcador]

http://news.yahoo.com/finlands-no-good-disappointed-migrants-turn-back-152042061.html

 

Tornio (Finland) (AFP) - Hundreds of predominantly Iraqi migrants who have travelled through Europe to reach Finland are turning back, saying they don't want to stay in the sparsely-populated country on Europe's northern frontier because it's too cold and boring.

 

...

 

"You can tell the world I hate Finland. It's too cold, there's no tea, no restaurants, no bars, nobody on the streets, only cars," 22-year-old Muhammed told AFP in Tornio, as the mercury struggled to inch above 10 degrees Celsius (50 Fahrenheit) on a recent blustery grey day.

 

Should we be sorry that our country is too boring after escaping war and persecution or something like that?

So much for them being desperate and running for their lives still. Kind of rude.

[Hurlshort]

The whole controversy about Muhammad and his child bride seems to ignore the very clear fact that that is was a political marriage above all else.  She was the child of Abu Bakr, who became the first Caliph.  Muhammad was also married to a woman 15 years his senior.  Putting historical figures under a modern lens is bad academics. 

[Meshugger]

The whole controversy about Muhammad and his child bride seems to ignore the very clear fact that that is was a political marriage above all else.  She was the child of Abu Bakr, who became the first Caliph.  Muhammad was also married to a woman 15 years his senior.  Putting historical figures under a modern lens is bad academics. 

 

Exactly. So my earlier point still stands; abandon these old practicions and start that good sodomy, eat pork and drink your alcohol.

[BruceVC]

 

BruceVC: what does the mayor of the town mean when he speaks of "needs"? Video-games? Access to HBO? I do not speak politically correct

Oh that video make me laugh...I know it was not meant to be funny but do you think these media houses look for the most controversial but presentable person, like the major, and then ask him his view on the refugees knowing full well he is going to come across looking very bigoted and ignorant?

 

Did you see the designated area they were thinking of housing the refugees in....I don't think you could get hell hounds to live there 

 

Oh then his concern about "the needs " ....I'm interested in how European " needs "are different from lets say a Syrian refugee....does he really think that Syrians would be more inclined to acts like rape because they are have had a long and harrowing journey

 

Anyway there are much better spokesmen for the Hungarian view than that major and they make a better case than him around the issues with the Syrians 

[Wrath of Dagon]

The whole controversy about Muhammad and his child bride seems to ignore the very clear fact that that is was a political marriage above all else.  She was the child of Abu Bakr, who became the first Caliph.  Muhammad was also married to a woman 15 years his senior.  Putting historical figures under a modern lens is bad academics.

Yes, he waited until she was 9 or 10. Also this is still common in some Muslim countries.

[Hurlshort]

 

The whole controversy about Muhammad and his child bride seems to ignore the very clear fact that that is was a political marriage above all else.  She was the child of Abu Bakr, who became the first Caliph.  Muhammad was also married to a woman 15 years his senior.  Putting historical figures under a modern lens is bad academics.

Yes, he waited until she was 9 or 10. Also this is still common in some Muslim countries.

 

 

Which, of course, is inexcusable.  You cannot look at something that was happening 1300 years ago and use it as a justification for abuse in the modern age.  Thankfully Muslims are the only ones trying to keep marriage from changing with the times.

 

Oh wait...     

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, totally the same thing.

[Drowsy Emperor]

That's totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that Muhammad is much closer to Lenin, Stalin or Pol Pot than he is to Jesus or Buddha. Worshiping a merciless military/religious leader is not going to lead to the same conclusions and attitudes as worshiping a pacifist. Even when the christian states of the middle ages and onward were warring among themselves, they knew it was wrong and unjustifiable according to the teachings of Christianity. So much so, that the catholic church had to develop entire doctrines on what constitutes a just war, bending religion over backwards to support the politics of the day.

 

In Islam however, war and violence is justified against everyone who is not a muslim, which is openly stated in the Quran many times (referencing in particular the pagans of that time, but also explicitly Jews and Christians - in other words everyone else who existed at the time). A person may or may not ignore these instructions, but they're there nonetheless, repeated enough times until there can be no debate about their meaning. 

 

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"  Islam is not about treating everyone equally.  This verse tells Muslims that there are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.  Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..

 

 

 

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

 

 

Tabari 9:69  "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"  The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

 

How is this even open to debate?

[Zoraptor]

Even when the christian states of the middle ages and onward were warring among themselves, they knew it was wrong and unjustifiable according to the teachings of Christianity. So much so, that the catholic church had to develop entire doctrines on what constitutes a just war, bending religion over backwards to support the politics of the day.

Ah yes, we are so morally superior because we... subvert our supposed core beliefs to justify whatever temporal needs we may have at a given time.

 

Hmm.

[Volourn]

"The whole controversy about Muhammad and his child bride seems to ignore the very clear fact that that is was a political marriage above all else.  She was the child of Abu Bakr, who became the first Caliph.  Muhammad was also married to a woman 15 years his senior.  Putting historical figures under a modern lens is bad academics. "

 

He married a child. No matter how you spin it that is evil to the core. And, people worship this piece of crap. DISGUSTING.

 

P.S. And, don't get me started on the Christian/Catholic God. He enjoys mass murdering children so he is scum too. People worship him. That is DISGUSTING.

 

The difference of course that in 2015 I don't have to worry about Christian religion nuts cutting off my head.  Sadly,  Islam extremists still live in the Dark Ages and others espicially the West make way too many excuses for them.

 

People aren't afraid to call out the Catholic Chruch for their failings but low and behold one criticizes Islam. OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!

Edited September 27, 2015 by Volourn

[Namutree]

"The whole controversy about Muhammad and his child bride seems to ignore the very clear fact that that is was a political marriage above all else.  She was the child of Abu Bakr, who became the first Caliph.  Muhammad was also married to a woman 15 years his senior.  Putting historical figures under a modern lens is bad academics. "

 

He married a child. No matter how you spin it that is evil to the core. And, people worship this piece of crap. DISGUSTING.

 

To be fair, they don't actually worship Muhammad; they worship God. Muhammad was supposedly a prophet of God, but he is still considered a man (and NOT a perfect one) by Muslims.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Even when the christian states of the middle ages and onward were warring among themselves, they knew it was wrong and unjustifiable according to the teachings of Christianity. So much so, that the catholic church had to develop entire doctrines on what constitutes a just war, bending religion over backwards to support the politics of the day.

Ah yes, we are so morally superior because we... subvert our supposed core beliefs to justify whatever temporal needs we may have at a given time.

 

Hmm.

 

 

Personally, I'm Orthodox Christian and we've never had anything of the kind. Or a history of colonialism and such. But that's entirely besides the point I'm making.

 

Ideas tend to shape society even if day to day interests are its primary drivers. The idea behind Islam is a combative one and one of exclusivity, seeing as how it was created as tool for a particular time and place, with conquest of all its opponents in mind. That's the mindset it promotes. Christianity doesn't. Anyone who does so is essentially abandoning the tenets of their religion.

 

Five times per day, every single day of the year, Imams speak in front of full mosques and their words are carried by radio and many TV channels. What they say is usually mundane, but they do preach Jihad, killing of unbelievers, and cement the differences between muslims and non muslims merely by reading their holy book. Muhammad did it, therefore its morally just.

You'd have to be entirely stupid to think that this daily reinforcement of these ideas would be without effect and that it would lead to the same conclusions as Christianity. 

 

Ultimately, you just have to look at the geographic realities. In central africa, Islam is in a semi permanent war with animists and christian blacks. It waxes and wanes but its there. In SE asia, Buddhists have trouble with them - like in Thailand. The Chinese are taking serious measures to combat muslim Uyghurs, including wholesale transfers of Han chinese to Uyghur lands to dilute their influence. Russians fought a long war with the Chechens before bringing them to a tenuous peace. What the Hindu think of muslims you don't even have to ask, if Pakistan wasn't given nukes to keep India in check they'd have already obliterated it from the planet. Everywhere where there is a sizeable muslim minority there is trouble, war and terror particularly if its (the religion) tied to a separate ethnic identity.

 

Mind you, this is almost exclusively sunni muslims supported by SA and the gulf states. Iran is much more moderate by comparison and seemingly proves that its possible to reign in Islam if that's the state policy. But its a very lonely example and Iran is in a precarious position, surrounded by very powerful states, that would probably not tolerate KSA style support of terrorism.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Meshugger]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/nothing-but-opportunism-criminals-isil-sympathizers-and-pretenders-are-entering-europe-posing-as-syrian-refugees

 

...all while Soros wishes for the EU to take 1 million per year perpetually and pay with borrowed money:

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-27/george-soros-demands-eu-accept-1-million-refugees-costing-%E2%82%AC15-billion-year-foreseeab

 

I hope for a long, cold winter.

[Varana]

Personally, I'm Orthodox Christian and we've never had anything of the kind. Or a history of colonialism and such.

*grin* Sure.

 

In central africa, Islam is in a semi permanent war with animists and christian blacks. It waxes and wanes but its there. In SE asia, Buddhists have trouble with them - like in Thailand. The Chinese are taking serious measures to combat muslim Uyghurs, including wholesale transfers of Han chinese to Uyghur lands to dilute their influence. Russians fought a long war with the Chechens before bringing them to a tenuous peace. What the Hindu think of muslims you don't even have to ask, if Pakistan wasn't given nukes to keep India in check they'd have already obliterated it from the planet. Everywhere where there is a sizeable muslim minority there is trouble, war and terror particularly if its (the religion) tied to a separate ethnic identity.ts possible to reign in Islam if that's the state policy. But its a very lonely example and Iran is in a precarious position, surrounded by very powerful states, that would probably not tolerate KSA style support of terrorism.

This is absolutely beautiful. Breathtakingly bold. And utterly hilarious.

One of the more brutal civil wars of our times, led by an authoritarian regime, in Chechnya - Islam is to blame. A dictatorship deliberately turning a culture into a minority in their own land in order to suppress dissent in north-western China - it's because of Islam. That they're doing the same elsewhere in non-Muslim Tibet is of absolutely no importance, I assume. Pakistan and India aren't two regional powers with a difficult history with unresolved disputes locked in mutual enmity - India would have gloriously nuked 180 million people off the face of the earth because they're Muslim, if sinister forces hadn't supplied Pakistan with their own nuclear weapons.

I suspect that whoever concocted that spin was quite disappointed that there are almost no Muslims in South Korea so he couldn't paint Kim Jong-Un as valiantly keeping Islam's influence in check.

[Malcador]

Hm, not sure Pakistan being crushed by India would be that all a bad thing, really.

[Varana]

*sigh* Whatever the politics (and Pakistan has really serious problems): This is not Risk or Civilization. We're not moving token "armies" in neat stacks to get a continent bonus. Dropping a nuke doesn't just reduce a number from 22 to 9.

[Hurlshort]

*sigh* Whatever the politics (and Pakistan has really serious problems): This is not Risk or Civilization. We're not moving token "armies" in neat stacks to get a continent bonus. Dropping a nuke doesn't just reduce a number from 22 to 9.

 

Wait...your version of Risk has nukes in it?

[Rosbjerg]

Hm, not sure Pakistan being crushed by India would be that all a bad thing, really.

 

If Civilization has taught me anything, it's that India must never taste real power.

[Malcador]

*sigh* Whatever the politics (and Pakistan has really serious problems): This is not Risk or Civilization. We're not moving token "armies" in neat stacks to get a continent bonus. Dropping a nuke doesn't just reduce a number from 22 to 9.

You don't say, but was just thinking on that hypothetical.

 

Wait...your version of Risk has nukes in it?

They need to add that in, spice things up.

[Sarex]

 

Personally, I'm Orthodox Christian and we've never had anything of the kind. Or a history of colonialism and such.

*grin* Sure.

 

 

What's that supposed to mean?

[Namutree]

 

 

Personally, I'm Orthodox Christian and we've never had anything of the kind. Or a history of colonialism and such.

*grin* Sure.

 

 

What's that supposed to mean?

 

Obviously it means he's happy and agrees.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Personally, I'm Orthodox Christian and we've never had anything of the kind. Or a history of colonialism and such.

*grin* Sure.

 

 

What's that supposed to mean?

 

 

If Boo was referring to Orthodox Christianity in general as not having a history of colonialism then a certain amount of eye rolling is certainly in order- Russia was a major colonial power, just not a New World colonial power (Alaska excluded). They conquered and colonised the Kazan, Sibiryan and Crimean Khanates* and more those they were the most colonised ones plus most of unclaimed (except by the natives, of course) Siberia proper. Excluding some of Ivan Grozny's actions in Kazan they were probably 'nicer' colonisers than most because the areas were huge and sparsely populated even when colonised, but that is still only nicer compared to the countries that worked millions to death or starved them while exporting drugs to China.

 

*Who had nicked it off the previous Cuman/ Volga Bulgarian/ Uralic/ Sibiryak inhabitants via the Mongols anyway

Edited September 28, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Meshugger]

A local paper mentioned that Finland has recieved 16000 asylumseekers this year, where 70% were from Iraq. Only about 400-500 are from Syria.

 

This is getting embarresing.

[Hurlshort]

Why would that be embarrassing?