U.S. Politics

[Chindie]

34 minutes ago, Arj Guy said:

 

Islamic countries / those with considerable Islamic contigents would quite like Islamic law as a thing... Shocker.

What do you know about Sharia? I'm going to guess not a great deal. It's not something I particularly like, it's archaic and daft, but I'm curious what you think this chart proves.

[Keyblade]

23 minutes ago, Arj Guy said:

 

Muslims in favour of Islamic law for Muslim majority countries shocker. I know Sharia is this scary buzzword, but there's nothing surprising about that. 

For contrast, 57% of American Christians (and 32% of all Americans and 44% of Republicans) are in favour of uprooting the constitution and making Christianity the official religion which is essentially turning the country into a theocracy. But since they're not brown I guess it's not that big of a deal.

[Chindie]

To bring this pointless aside on Islam back round again, I'm curious how anyone thinks we're going to help the problem with Islam in the Islamic world by isolating it and disparaging it. 

I think the common sense would be to break the insularity by bringing it into the West. Expose it ever more to Western ideals, and let it start to rub off ever more.

Isolating it, being suspicious of it, antagonistic to it, will do nothing but drive it further into itself and play into the hands of the words removed that want to see violence.

Congratulations Trump.

[momo]

 

Again, the papers wont call it a terrorist attack, only attack. Even if 6 people were executed. And it goes on to explain that the prime minister calls it an act of terror, not the media. Why is that? Then they call the shooter a gunman, instead of a terrorist. This Islamophobia is a direct consequence of the media and politicians treating Muslims as second rate citizens. shit paper that was supposed to be good

 

Quote

'Islamophobia killed Canadians': anti-Muslim rhetoric blamed in Québec attack

Thousands of Canadians from coast to coast have sought to show their support for victims of a shooting spree on a Québec City mosque, as the country struggled to comprehend how one of Canada’s safest cities had become the setting for an attack described by the country’s prime minister as an act of terror.

...

The gunman unleashed a scene of “unspeakable brutality”

 

[Arj Guy]

48 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It seems incongruous to say you aren't criticising Muslims and follow that comment with one that speculates that 'if even 1% are potential jihadists...'. Those comments don't seem to sit well together. One betrays a suspicion.

I'm quite familiar with Islamism. I more or less have a degree on the study of it and terrorism, as it was one of my specialisms.

You mention Muhammad as a paedophile warlord. A couple of things. It's difficult to bring modern sensibilities to historical figures. A great deal of historical names will have done things we'd find objectional today. In the past, nobody cared. An enormous number of lauded figures in world history would be considered warlords by today's standards. 

Secondly... There's a common logical fallacy that states that the art can be derided for the artist. Hitler loved dogs and home movies, therefore home movies and dogs are bad. If you can't ignore the nature of Muhammad's life, it doesn't mean that Islam is 'bad' too because he started it. It's a logical phallacy. Now I don't like Islam, at all, but not because of Muhammad. I dislike it on the same grounds I dislike the rest of the mumbo jumbo peddlers.

There's no argument that the Bible contains some horrific stuff. It's all still there, someone in the wrong frame of mind can use it to justify quite unpleasant things. It's in the Torah too. And the Quran has all the same rubbish in it. And all of these books are interpreted in different ways and you get the madness that leads to Islamists and the Westboro Baptist church and other cults and hardcore Judaism. Islam isn't unique in that respect. Christianity had the Reformation 500 years ago (I'm listening to a podcast at the moment that deals with a small element of the fall out of that that sees Christianity justifying some horrific stuff - it's interestingly familiar considering this debate). Islam is a younger religion and it does have some difficulties in that it hasn't been overhauled much due to its supposed nature as the absolute word of God... But it's interesting to note that even in the Middle East Islam has mostly rejected the truly hardcore interpretations of itself (obvious exceptions apply). And that'll only improve as the world gets smaller and more entwined and Islam is forced to adapt to a world that doesn't entirely accommodate religion. It's started already.

Preaching martyrdom? Christianity deifies martyrs. It's poster boy is a martyr. An awful lot of saints are martyrs. Sacrifice for your faith is still admired in many quarters. Christianity isn't seeing itself fighting a war. It's easy to spin a yarn of martyrdom to willing ears if you can chuck the idea you're at war. Jihad itself is interpreted numerous ways and usually is considered as an internal struggle (doesn't make the headlines that), rather similar to the hackneyed internal struggle of Catholicism and the guilt it breeds in adherents.

I've no argument at all that Islam requires is own Reformation. It'll get there eventually. The real nutjobs are already a minority. And anyone who justifies slaughter because of a book wouldn't get my piss if they were on fire. And I'd happily chuck every copy of the Quran on a fire, alongside the Bible and the Torah and all the other claptrap, consigning religion to the scrap heap of humanity were it belongs.

But with that considered, I'm not going to condemn all Muslims, damning then all as terrorists in waiting. You say you have Muslim friends - but everything you've written seems to suggest you are quietly judging and suspicious of them. 

So many blatant lies in one post 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Arj Guy said:

So many blatant lies in one post 

I think that it's sad that Chindie clearly took the time to engage you with polite and thorough debate and all you can muster is that one pathetic sentence.

Oh well.

 

[Arj Guy]

28 minutes ago, Chindie said:

To bring this pointless aside on Islam back round again, I'm curious how anyone thinks we're going to help the problem with Islam in the Islamic world by isolating it and disparaging it. 

I think the common sense would be to break the insularity by bringing it into the West. Expose it ever more to Western ideals, and let it start to rub off ever more.

Isolating it, being suspicious of it, antagonistic to it, will do nothing but drive it further into itself and play into the hands of the words removed that want to see violence.

Congratulations Trump.

Are you insane? Common sense? It didn't work it so well in Europe did it. Islam doesn't want western ideals. 

 

[villakram]

32 minutes ago, Chindie said:

To bring this pointless aside on Islam back round again, I'm curious how anyone thinks we're going to help the problem with Islam in the Islamic world by isolating it and disparaging it. 

I think the common sense would be to break the insularity by bringing it into the West. Expose it ever more to Western ideals, and let it start to rub off ever more.

Isolating it, being suspicious of it, antagonistic to it, will do nothing but drive it further into itself and play into the hands of the words removed that want to see violence.

Congratulations Trump.

Trump has had little to do with past 100 years of our interference in these states. Obama bombed muslim countries with impunity, e.g, they're bombing 5/7 of these temporarily banned countries, and Trump started none of this. If anything, he will simply continue a long and glorious recent history of superiority from us in the West. 

So much of the modern conservative Islamic movement is a direct result of our invasion/control of their countries since we started picking the Ottoman empire apart. If we are no longer directly interfering in how they run their countries, I suspect the extremists will be marginalized, or maybe they need to take control and really educate the locals in how much they don't want to live like that. Their best chance of that happening is the impending renewable fuels revolution, though the rapidly shrinking world is making a huge difference. The snapchat etc. videos emanating form the Hadj for example are truly eye opening (in a good educational way!).

[Chindie]

9 minutes ago, villakram said:

Trump has had little to do with past 100 years of our interference in these states. Obama bombed muslim countries with impunity, e.g, they're bombing 5/7 of these temporarily banned countries, and Trump started none of this. If anything, he will simply continue a long and glorious recent history of superiority from us in the West. 

So much of the modern conservative Islamic movement is a direct result of our invasion/control of their countries since we started picking the Ottoman empire apart. If we are no longer directly interfering in how they run their countries, I suspect the extremists will be marginalized, or maybe they need to take control and really educate the locals in how much they don't want to live like that. Their best chance of that happening is the impending renewable fuels revolution, though the rapidly shrinking world is making a huge difference. The snapchat etc. videos emanating form the Hadj for example are truly eye opening (in a good educational way!).

I know. My point is rather that Trump isn't helping.

[StefanAVFC]

Criticise the ideas behind a religion - Okay.

Ban ALL people from 7 countries, based on belief (as much as Trump wants to say it isn't, it is) - Not okay.

Making up an arbitrary figure (1% of all Muslims could be martyrs) to then attack the religion - Not okay.

Call Muslims coming into Europe 'an invasion' - Not okay.

You can be critical without being a racist. I'm critical of Israel and I'm not an anti-semite.

Unfortunately, you and RV have not been able to do that.

Lets face it. With the amount of Muslims in the world, if they really wanted to take over and radicalise the planet, it would have happened already. The fact of the matter is, most (And I'm talking 99.999%) of Muslims just want a quiet life where they won't be discriminated against by total plonkers based on their beliefs.

[villakram]

Ban? Is is not that entry from these nations is temporarily halted? Language is such an interesting tool. There's so much hyperXYZ related to this discussion.

As long as they hold to the timeline (~90 days), then pretty much no one should have that much of a problem (yes, non-inconsequential qualifier). The roll out was a mess, sure. Yes certain refugees will be in trouble, but the US has a shameful record taking in refugees as it is, using it as more of a bribery tool to local populations than a true humanitarian principle. All others are simply being inconvenienced. I mean if you are moving permanently, what's 3 months in the bigger scheme of things.

 

 

[Arj Guy]

11 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Criticise the ideas behind a religion - Okay.

Ban ALL people from 7 countries, based on belief (as much as Trump wants to say it isn't, it is) - Not okay.

Making up an arbitrary figure (1% of all Muslims could be martyrs) to then attack the religion - Not okay.

Call Muslims coming into Europe 'an invasion' - Not okay.

You can be critical without being a racist. I'm critical of Israel and I'm not an anti-semite.

Unfortunately, you and RV have not been able to do that.

Lets face it. With the amount of Muslims in the world, if they really wanted to take over and radicalise the planet, it would have happened already. The fact of the matter is, most (And I'm talking 99.999%) of Muslims just want a quiet life where they won't be discriminated against by total plonkers based on their beliefs.

Neither or I Ruge are racist. Just because we have different opinions to you that are based on facts and aren't naive or 'morally superior'. Enjoy your liberal bubble of self righteousness.Peace 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Arj Guy

[Chindie]

Those would be alternative facts.

Which is suitable really.

[Arj Guy]

4 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Those would be alternative facts.

Which is suitable really.

Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old. Fact

[villakram]

5 minutes ago, Arj Guy said:

Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old. Fact

About 1400 years ago. Relevance to 2017?

Edited January 31, 2017 by villakram
I did ask about relevance, dear leader ;)

[limpid]

Please move the religious debate to the appropriate thread.

[snowychap]

23 minutes ago, villakram said:

Ban? Is is not that entry from these nations is temporarily halted? Language is such an interesting tool. There's so much hyperXYZ related to this discussion.

As long as they hold to the timeline (~90 days), then pretty much no one should have that much of a problem (yes, non-inconsequential qualifier). The roll out was a mess, sure. Yes certain refugees will be in trouble, but the US has a shameful record taking in refugees as it is, using it as more of a bribery tool to local populations than a true humanitarian principle. All others are simply being inconvenienced. I mean if you are moving permanently, what's 3 months in the bigger scheme of things.

I don't think you've got that right. It's not just something temporary which expires in 90 days. There are a number of differenct timelines within the order.

The the entry of those nationals is suspended for 90 days whilst reports are made about the information received from all countries (not just the seven) prior to being given a visa or admitted in to the US. The 90 days comes from a report to be made in 30 days and then 60 days for the countries from whom more information is demanded to satisfy those demands.

After those 60 days are up, as per the order:

Quote

the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

Now call me a cynic but, given the comments made by the Homeland Security secretary referring to information that it is possible to get from the countries already on the list and the comments from Spicer and Priebus, I'll be amazed if the list in just under 90 days' time isn't longer than it is now.

Edit: Oh and the order also says that they can add any country willy-nilly after that date.

Edited January 31, 2017 by snowychap

[villakram]

Just now, snowychap said:

I don't think you've got that right. It's not just something temporary which expires in 90 days. There are a number of differenct timelines within the order.

The the entry of those nationals is suspended for 90 days whilst reports are made about the information received from all countries (not just the seven) prior to being given a visa or admitted in to the US. The 90 days comes from a report to be made in 30 days and then 60 days for the countries from whom more information is demanded to satisfy those demands.

After those 60 days are up:

Now call me a cynic but, given the comments made by the Homeland Security secretary referring to information that it is possible to get from the countries already on the list and the comments from Spicer and Priebus, I'll be amazed if the list in just under 90 days' time isn't longer than it is now.

Yup, hence my insertion of the qualification. But remember the US has threatened many countries with exclusion from their immigration program when enforcing new travel regs since 9/11.

If the list is longer, so what. The plan as announced is to draw up more stringent "vetting" requirements, e.g., full biometrics and I suspect access to more info. from specific countries. Note, that they don't need this from the UK as they already have it or can trivially get it. Is this fair, no. But, what is fair in an immigration landscape where the wealthy can purchase passports from many many countries. 

[StefanAVFC]

30 minutes ago, villakram said:

Ban? Is is not that entry from these nations is temporarily halted? Language is such an interesting tool. There's so much hyperXYZ related to this discussion.

As long as they hold to the timeline (~90 days), then pretty much no one should have that much of a problem (yes, non-inconsequential qualifier). The roll out was a mess, sure. Yes certain refugees will be in trouble, but the US has a shameful record taking in refugees as it is, using it as more of a bribery tool to local populations than a true humanitarian principle. All others are simply being inconvenienced. I mean if you are moving permanently, what's 3 months in the bigger scheme of things.

 

 

I think that's naive.

3 minutes onwards.

This is Guiliani saying "When he first announced it, he said Muslim ban. Show me the right commission and the right way to do it legally"

This isn't somebody who is out to undermine Trump. He was on TV with him today.

This isn't just a 90 day suspension for 7 countries. This was them testing the waters.

[villakram]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I think that's naive.

3 minutes onwards.

This is Guiliani saying "When he first announced it, he said Muslim ban. Show me the right commission and the right way to do it legally"

This isn't somebody who is out to undermine Trump. He was on TV with him today.

This isn't just a 90 day suspension for 7 countries. This was them testing the waters.

Maybe, but there are significant legal/political hurdles. The fact that these are the same 7 countries that last terms congress and the last president designated as naughty should clue you into that. Also, re-read what I wrote and ask if those countries will provide that data? We didn't ban them, but they won't tell us XYZ about the very bad people, think of the children. Some countries will trivially provide this info., e.g., SA as the Princes couldn't give a rats arse about their people. Will poorer countries be able to? Will Iran be willing to... hmmm

Oh, and Rudy has been spouting this type of stuff for well over 10 years.

If it makes you feel good to call me naive, ok,

I only wish the Trump team was.

Edited January 31, 2017 by villakram