Even in my insignificant country we're not safe anymore

[Guest Farnsbarns]

 

I got so frustrated at this 3 years ago that I declared on a religious forum that... "I no longer care what you believe. I only care about what you do...."

 

I never considered the posibility that anyone in the 1st world ever cared what anyone believed over what they did. I find that genuinely intriguing. I have certainly grown up in what must be one of the the least religious regions of the world. Perhaps it's just my perspective. I tend to asume people are athiest, subconciously, until I learn otherwise. It's just the default setting in my mind. It certainly doesn't bother me when I learn that someone is religious, sometimes it surprises me though.

[Mr. Gibson]

It's really all about envy and jealousy. I think it applies to all problems in the world. It certainly does in my part of the world, if someone in my area says or does something against someone,if you sit and think about it they're envious and jealous of that person. Believe it or not. Or just get envious and jealous then analyze yourself.☠

[Digger]

I never considered the posibility that anyone in the 1st world ever cared what anyone believed over what they did. I find that genuinely intriguing. I have certainly grown up in what must be one of the the least religious regions of the world. Perhaps it's just my perspective. I tend to asume people are athiest, subconciously, until I learn otherwise. It's just the default setting in my mind. It certainly doesn't bother me when I learn that someone is religious, sometimes it surprises me though.

 

 

Australia isn't generally very religious either, and I'm certainly not.

 

I view religion as a very personal thing and never judge others because of their beliefs, unless they give me cause to!

[RevDavidLee]

Awel,

 

We stand with you. We share your angst and disgust. I'll loosely quote Norman Schwarzkopf,...Our duty is not to judge those who are willing to die in order to get to Allah, our duty is simply to arrange the meeting.

 

[stein]

If they continue to grow, to gain power and "land", and gain in numbers, AND continue to think and feel the way they do, AND continue to bomb, kill, and drive out innocent people....

 

Is there really any other option than the obvious one?

 

This isn't a post or opinion of hate, this is one of love. Why assume that going to war and taking of territory has to be a thing of hate?

[Digger]

If they continue to grow, to gain power and "land", and gain in numbers, AND continue to think and feel the way they do, AND continue to bomb, kill, and drive out innocent people....

 

Is there really any other option than the obvious one?

 

This isn't a post or opinion of hate, this is one of love. Why assume that going to war and taking of territory has to be a thing of hate?

 

 

Because it always has been.

 

You look down on them and call them names so as not think they are less than human, otherwise you would be unable to do the things you need to do.

 

Thus it has always been~

[charlie brown]

"Hate" may be a factor, but I've always thought of War as being more about acquiring, and then asserting

Power, as deemed to be required! Hate, can sometimes be an excuse, especially in religious conflicts.

But, I still think it's more about Power, Greed (materials or property), and Psychopathic blood lust=insanity!

 

CB

[Retired]

Watch out Germany! I read in the papers that the terrorists threatened to attack Germany next.

[merciful-evans]

I never considered the posibility that anyone in the 1st world ever cared what anyone believed over what they did. I find that genuinely intriguing. I have certainly grown up in what must be one of the the least religious regions of the world. Perhaps it's just my perspective. I tend to asume people are athiest, subconciously, until I learn otherwise. It's just the default setting in my mind. It certainly doesn't bother me when I learn that someone is religious, sometimes it surprises me though.

 

I am fascinated by religion.

I joined & used religious forums in order to understand religion and the religious better.

It was mostly unsuccessful. Most of the time it felt like pulling teeth.

[LarryUK]

Why don't these migrants go to Muslim countries? You'd think they'd want to be with their own. Why do they not bring their women? Do they want ours?

To me it's the story of the wooden horse and Troy, but it's not hidden. Imagine 50 men with weapons in a city centre. They all meet and start killing. Thousands would be dead before anything could be done.

[IanHenry]

Then, Why doesn't "Good=moderate Islam" eradicate ISIS?! Why do they

turn every country they "escape" to, into the very things they were trying

to be rid of?! Why do they refuse to assimilate, to their adopted surroundings,

and instead, make their new "homes," into crime ridden ghettos, and "no go zones,"

for their adopted country's populations, and even the police?! ISIS itself,

may indeed be the enemy of Islam, but Islam sure hasn't done much to get rid

of them! They seem to task, or count on "The West," to try and do that, for

them! Not all of them, are "bad," obviously. But, way too many seem to have

no interest, at all, in living "in harmony" with their newly, or even not so

newly adopted countries. That too, is nothing new, but typical, throughout

their history. Pfffff!

 

CB

 

Charlie, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that.

Those people arrive and bring there medieval attitudes, particularly towards Woman with them. You only need to Google about the Rotherham sex child abuse scandal:

 

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/rotherham/index.html

 

The authorities are paralysed about acting because they fear being labelled racist. I have seen this myself during my teaching career. This sort of practice has been going on in many towns, Rotherham is just the tip of the iceberg, but the authority's are trying there best to keep a lid on it, they really don't want the extent of this abuse getting out. Of course if you read the Quran, it's not a sin if you do anything to an Infidel particularly an Infidel Woman. The Local Muslim community leaders have complained that the reporters are saying that they are a Muslim Paedophile gang because it shows their community in a bad light.

 

In this Mornings news we have Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner telling our Government that we shouldn't be calling people who enter the U.K illegally "Illegal Immigrants" we should call them "irregular migrants" so we don't upset their Human rights! That right, this unelected Eurocrat is telling our Government off!

I think I've decided which way I'm going to vote in the upcoming EU referendum!

 

Ian

[kidblast]

here's part of the problem....

 

Islam is not a race, it's a religion. To call some one racist due to some negative opinion of Islam is ignorance,

 

not a race.

 

We're so intent on being politically correct and trying to avoid the "R" word which has lost all meaning these days, that we've lost our common sense when it comes to protecting people and the borders of our very own countries and provinces.

 

And while all Muslims are not terrorist, most of the terrorist are Muslims. Moderates have offered no voice because deep down, many (no not all, but many) don't have a problem with what their more radical counter parts are doing.

 

many Muslims have never read or studied the Quran, just like MANY Catholics have never read the Bible, they only know what they are told, and if a vast majority if those spreading "The word" are radical, it's all easily twisted to serve the purpose intended. There are passages in the old testimate that talk about similar things that you hear in the Quran. There's been a lot of blood shed in "The Name Of God", no matter who he may be to each of us.

 

You can rest assured, this will not get any better any time soon, there is a plan, and it's not to coexist.

 

These plans to extend hospitality to the "Syrian Refugees" in the US is a huge, massive, mistake. Leave it be, we can't save the world, we can barely manage our own affairs.

[Guest Farnsbarns]

I see/hear a lot our, ours, their, theirs, we, us, them, they from all parties and points of view whenever this issue is discussed (I don't mean on here, I mean in general) and I think it betrays the real feelings beneath very often. All the while there is percieved 'groups' of people there is no "US" (in capitals).

 

While there is no "US" there is always the oportunity to believe the press, the hype and the BS but more importantly, all the doors to mutual respect amd understanding are locked.

 

We are human beings, responsible as a whole for ourselves. If everyone who thinks they are blameless (that's everyone, ever noticed) as an individual, group, nation, race or religion just did everthing they could to foster harmony we would have half a chance.

[stein]

It's a difficult subject, for sure it is.

 

When our current culture of human rights and discrimination were defined, (a good thing), it didn't take into account a religion that existed, or would be created that described what would create this sort of thing.

 

So, what's hard is there IS something that needs to be, or should be eradicated, but it's hard to do so while conforming to our current ideal of human rights and freedom of religion. But yet it's obvious that what is happening now kinda proves on many levels the opposite of our ideal is taking place.

 

I might add that the long held idea of not taking territory or land as part of plunder may not be serving us as well anymore either.

[btoth76]

Hello.

 

The thing is, when a few naïve people began to put the concept of European union into practice, they forgot about the very basic concepts and functions of a state: border security, intelligence services and the army. These are not existing on European level (in most cases they are missing even on national level).

 

As the union is now unstoppably falling apart, those countries will survive who can organize these in time.

 

Bence.

[btoth76]

...

 

When our current culture of human rights and discrimination were defined, (a good thing), it didn't take into account a religion that existed, or would be created that described what would create this sort of thing.

 

...

 

They didn't consider that people might cross our open borders, coming from civilizations that don't even know what these ideals are about.

 

Bence.

[zigzag]

I'm not sure anyone who has posted in this thread has a firm grasp on what ISIS is. Muslims are as diverse in their thinking as Christians. ISIS is a very radical group of Islam, and they have an apocalyptic jihad that is not shared in all of Islam or even many other radical jihadists bent on destroying the West.

 

This board cannot solve the problem of ISIS. Our presidential candidates cannot solve the problem of ISIS. The best we can hope to do is aggressively fight them and do our best to protect ourselves from the terror they inflict. It is impossible to eradicate an ideology, and there is no doubt we need Islam to rise up against these people because it is more their fight than ours.

 

As Islam goes, most Muslims are peaceful, even though there are strict and oppressive punishments for deviating from orthodoxy, much of Islam wants to separate itself from fundamentalists and strict Sharia law. You see this struggle in Iran, today. A Pew research study was recently released showing the attitudes of Muslims toward their religion, and though, according to that study, most Muslims around the world support the oppressive and fundamental aspects of Islam, IMO, it is a cultural thing, because that is the way things have been forever. The internet is a powerful tool that has served to, not only educate the world and improve communication, but also to spread evil and radical ideologies.

 

The world, including the US, is experiencing a great schism between conservatives and liberals, fundamentalism and progressivism in many cultures, and the polarities are extreme. We should be united in our common humanity, but we focus on our differences, and inflict our judgments on each other.

[jdgm]

In this Mornings news we have Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner telling our Government that we shouldn't be calling people who enter the U.K illegally "Illegal Immigrants" we should call them "irregular migrants" so we don't upset their Human rights! That right, this unelected Eurocrat is telling our Government off!

I think I've decided which way I'm going to vote in the upcoming EU referendum!

 

Ian

 

Here is the link to the story.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12202522/Dont-call-them-illegal-immigrants-says-Europe-human-rights-commissioner.html

 

Please note this is reported in the Daily Telegraph, Britain's mainstream conservative/right-wing newspaper which seems to support a British exit from the EU.

Oddly, I can find no other reports about this anywhere at the moment.

 

The gentleman making the statement quite obviously does not understand the English language and correct meaning of the phrase "illegal immigrant" which denotes someone who has immigrated to a country - any country - by illegal means or via non-legal channels.

The statement is just plain wrong, ill-advised (more likely not advised at all) and carries no legal weight either.

 

The thread was started by Awel and was about a terrorist attack in his country. Not the pros or cons of Britain staying or leaving the EU.

[IanHenry]

Here is the link to the story.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12202522/Dont-call-them-illegal-immigrants-says-Europe-human-rights-commissioner.html

 

Please note this is reported in the Daily Telegraph, Britain's mainstream conservative/right-wing newspaper which seems to support a British exit from the EU.

Oddly, I can find no other reports about this anywhere at the moment.

 

The gentleman making the statement quite obviously does not understand the English language and correct meaning of the phrase "illegal immigrant" which denotes someone who has immigrated to a country - any country - by illegal means or via non-legal channels.

The statement is just plain wrong, ill-advised (more likely not advised at all) and carries no legal weight either.

 

The thread was started by Awel and was about a terrorist attack in his country. Not the pros or cons of Britain staying or leaving the EU.

Here's a report into the enquiry of the Rotherham incident if your after another source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-35873469

As the Council of Europe's human rights Commissioner I would expect him to be quite well advised.

I never said it carried any legal weight.

[jaxson50]

Zigzag is correct, Islam has many sub groups, radicalized Islam may account for a small percentage of the overall global population of Islamic people.Then the question is always, "why don't the other Islamist take back the religion"?ISIS and other terro group practice a very effective war of fear and intimidation within the Islamic community, much like the Nazi party did within Germany in the 1930s and in occupied Europe later.One or two members of a terror group join a neighborhood of other Islamic people and spy on them, they join mosque's they infiltrate and report to their group. People who may speak out against the groups may get roughed up or worse their families do. If they own a shop, people are threatened if they do business there, if they are workers they can't find jobs. This is how ISIS take over a village, into each building they place several of their fighters who live with the civilian population and report on them, so when the battle begins to rid a village of ISIS, every dwelling has to be cleared out, people fear talking to authorities and pointing out the terrorist.This is what is happening in Europe, the terrorist move in and intimidation soon follows.

[milod]

The difference among religions becomes difficult to describe when most do not have as a tenet that there not only is but one true religion, but also that it is mandatory that that one true religion control all aspects of life and politics; and the modes of achieving that are force if that religion has more power, and politics and actions to increase that power if that religious culture is not the predominant power structure.

 

That emphasis on might making right has not been shown as a basis of Islamic culture regardless of sectarian division. In no "school" of Islamic jurisprudence is there division on that point. It's as if all "Christian heritage" cultures agreed that when in political power, it's fine to offer the choice of joining the local church, being a political and social outsider or if not willing to recognize inferior status, to be enslaved or executed.

 

Note that historically peaceful Muslim states internally held all power with courts and administration operating under a variation of sharia.

 

Don't believe me, study. Again, ask folks whose cultures came under Islamic rule.

[milod]

The difference among religions becomes difficult to describe when most do not have as a tenet that there not only is but one true religion, but also that it is mandatory that that one true religion control all aspects of life and politics; and the modes of achieving that are force if that religion has more power, and politics and actions to increase that power if that religious culture is not the predominant power structure.

 

That emphasis on might making right has not been shown to be incorrect as a basis of Islamic culture regardless of sectarian division. In no "school" of Islamic jurisprudence is there division on that point. It's as if all "Christian heritage" cultures agreed that when in political power, it's fine to offer the choice of joining the local church, being a political and social outsider or if not willing to recognize inferior status, to be enslaved or executed.

 

Note that historically peaceful Muslim states internally held all power with courts and administration operating under a variation of sharia.

 

Don't believe me, study. Again, ask folks whose cultures came under Islamic rule.

[kidblast]

one of the differences is Christianity and most of the other organized religions have a seat of authority,, (for Catholics, it's the Pope right)

 

no such central point of authority exists for the Muslim faith,, at least if it does, they don't make it clear they are there.

 

so it's all left to "translation" the more of a nut you are,, the more of a nut you'll be allowed to behave like.

[merciful-evans]

the most effective critics of radical islam are former muslims. Several have dedicated their lives to educating the blinkered (Education is the only way forward IMO). They are also courageous. Apostasy carries the death penalty in some states as you no doubt know.

 

They seem to be outspoken individuals. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/23/reform-muslims-stand-up-to-take-on-the-ideology-of-islam.html

 

 

 

Groups exist also but dont get much publicity http://ex-muslim.org.uk/

 

[Mr. Gibson]

🙄🤔😴💤