England headed for A Caliphate

[bilby]

The problem is you refuse to see the danger posed by the extremists.

The problem is that you refuse to offer any evidence that the danger posed is worthy of my deep concern.

They are dangerous, but like lightning strikes or shark attacks, they are not dangerous enough to justify any action at all on my part.

This particular one was nowhere near England but that doesn't mean the next one won't be.

Bet it won't. Islamic extremists tend to act in the Islamic world, for the same reason that sharks tend to bite people in places where there are lots of sharks.

The size of the threat is related to how much effort is being spent on radicalization, not on whatever the targets have supposedly done.

The size of the interest you take in the threat is related to your degree of paranoia and irrational fear of this tiny threat.

 

[bilby]

Calling it "forced labor" doesn't make it not slavery.

Nor does limiting it to convicts.

You think I support what is done in our prisons?!

Well, you appareny think I support what is done in our immigration system, so why not?!

 

[pood]

There's no conspiracy, it's just the base directive of Islam. Anything not under Islamic control should be brought under Islamic control by force.

Oh, gosh, there are an estimated one million Muslims in New York City, where I live, and they have not even attempted to bring the city under Islamaic control by force or otherwise. We do have a Muslim mayor now, which is great, and he also has not tried to convert the city to Islam by force or otherwise.

What it comes down to is you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[bilby]

I would thus expect an automated detection that he was prohibited.

Your expectations are not laws of nature, nor facts about reality.

Why would such a system exist for aircrew? Before this incident, what would have inspired the considerable expense and effort to bring aircrew (who travel internationally daily, often many times a day) into a system designed to manage passengers (who rarely travel internationally even weekly)?

Does that system even exist for passengers travelling to non-US destinations? You assume that everywhere has the same, or at least a very similar, approach to that taken by the US; And that aircrew face the same, or at least a very similar, approach to that taken for passengers. Both assumptions are highly implausible.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's no conspiracy, it's just the base directive of Islam. Anything not under Islamic control should be brought under Islamic control by force.

But that's just not true... in the west. They haven't invaded anything since failing to take Vienna in 1683.

They haven't done so with an army. But look at how many places have had Islamic insurgencies in Africa.

Africa isn't the west. But even so, Islam in Africa typically surges in corrupt failed states. The same happened in Afghanistan.

It seems to provide something to the poorest in countries that don't care about poor people.

I don't think the success of Islam in those countries is because of violence. I think its the other way around. The fact that they have some popular support is how they can afford the violence.

Granted there are some special cases in Africa where these militias lost popular support, but kept going anyway. Like Boko Haram. But its generally true, I think.

So its not like they're spreading agressively. Its more like is a sticky one way membrane.

All the Iranian-backed insurgencies aren't aggressive spread?

They're mainly attacking other Muslims. How does that work in your theory?

The Muslim hatred of Israel seems purely to be that Israel was once Islamic and if Muslims ever called dibs it should Muslim for ever. Or something as inane as that.

 

[bilby]

These are not mariners in distress, these are people that intentionally marooned themselves at sea.

So you keep baselessly asserting.

Which do you see as plausible:

Assylum seekers attempt to cross the Channel with the intent of landing on the English coast, but due to incompetence, lack of preparation, and their use of unseaworthy vessels, they get into trouble and need rescuing; Or

Assylum seekers attempt to cross the Channel with the intent of sinking part-way, hoping to force the RNLI, who they hope will notice their distress and be able to act, to rescue them before they drown?

Do you really think it is reasonable to assume that people deliberately try to kill themselves in the hope that getting rescued will a) happen, and b) save them the effort of rowing the last few miles?

It's an absurd idea that arises only from your crazy belief that these people are evil incarnate.

 

[Elixir]

Assylum seekers attempt to cross the Channel with the intent of sinking part-way

What Loren fails to mention, are the hundreds of thousands who try the same trick and end up feeding the sharks. The few who are “rescued” are just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the vast Islamic extremist horde are famous for offing themselves for Allah (and the virgins they covet).
Amirite, Loren?

 

[scombrid]

Islam is stupid. Christianity is stupid. Christianity has been in charge in England for as long as England has been a country. It is still the established church, and still has its highest officials given seats in government as a matter of right.

If you lived in England 500 years ago, and were the wrong flavour of Christian, or not Christian at all, you might well have been in trouble. But today, you can get away with being an atheist despite England being an explicitly Christian nation, with Anglican Bishops sitting in the House of Lords.

So why would you expect England to go back to a medieval attitude to religion, if the majority belief switched from Chrjstianity to Islam? Most Islamic majority countries don't take a medieval approach - though some do. So what makes England likely to become a fundamentalist theocracy (of any flavour) after a century of declining religiosity?

Why do you think they can't undo what they did?? If you fail to defend freedom you will lose it.

The same thing that protects my right to be an atheist free from government religion protects a Muslim. That’s a freedom trade off and we fight if they go the way of the Baptist. Doesn’t seem to be imminent here in the US though.

Sure. Be a Muslim, no problem. But that doesn't mean we should ignore attempts to impose Islam.

Didn’t realize my language was so vague.

 

[Bomb#20]

There's no conspiracy, it's just the base directive of Islam. Anything not under Islamic control should be brought under Islamic control by force.

But that's just not true... in the west. They haven't invaded anything since failing to take Vienna in 1683.
...
Once a country is Muslim majority, then it can get agressive. Israel is a good example. But nowhere in Europe is this the situation.

So its not like they're spreading agressively. Its more like is a sticky one way membrane.
...

How quickly they forget. After centuries of immigration, demographic growth, and aggression against ethnic Serbs, ethnic Albanian Muslims with NATO help brought Kosovo under their control by force in 1999.

 

[bilby]

All the Iranian-backed insurgencies aren't aggressive spread?

If they are, they are doing a shithouse job of it. How many other Islamic Republics have the Shiites managed to establish?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You know, how you do when you white knight for members of your little faith group.

The "faith group" of... (checks notes)... people who appropriately apply logic and reason.

You mean the group that includes someone who conflates Muslim with Islamist? LMAO.

What portion of Muslims in the world right now would you estimate to be Islamists?

What portion of the Muslims who have entered Europe, Canada, the US, in the last decade would you estimate to be Islamists?

What portion of the unusually high portion of military aged single male Muslims who have entered Europe, Canada, the US, in the last decade would you estimate to be Islamists?

You’ve recycled this same "military-aged male" trope in previous threads regarding Asian immigrants entering the US, and you are doing the exact same thing here via implication.

Let's test the underlying "sleeper cell" hypothesis against basic arithmetic. The insinuation is that because high-visibility border arrivals feature a lot of young men, the delta or gender percent difference must be hostile operatives up to no good. However, hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants have settled in the US, Canada, Europe, and the UK over the past several decades. If any meaningful fraction of these "military-aged males" were actually hostile militant sleeper cell agents, Western nations would be experiencing thousands of major terrorist attacks every single year. We observe nothing of this magnitude. The Invasion of the Sleeper Cell Agents Theory collapses under basic observation, which means the gender skew must be explained by something else.

To be fair, it is understandable why casual observers get spooked. When media coverage consists almost entirely of sensationalized, high-drama photos and videos of dinghies, border fences, and perilous sea crossings, people naturally wonder why they see so many men--especially if they lack basic context about migration history.

The suspicion is easily answered. Extreme physical risk creates a male-heavy entry point. This isn't unique to Muslims, nor is it unique to the UK, Canada, or the modern era. Throughout the history of the US and Canada, European immigration followed this exact template. Families from Italy, Greece, Poland, and other nations overwhelmingly sent young adult males first. They sent the person most physically equipped to endure the brutal journey, work high-risk jobs, survive exploitation, and send money back to sponsor the rest of the family later. (The notable exception was 19th-century Irish migration, where strict land inheritance rules led young single women to emigrate in equal or greater numbers).

The exact same human mechanics apply to modern refugees leaving conflict zones or waiting in overcrowded refugee camps in the Middle East and East Africa. A family with limited funds doesn't send a vulnerable child or an elderly relative on a quasi-illegal, high-risk land-and-sea trek run by human traffickers; they send the healthiest family member least likely to be sex-trafficked en route, with the goal of securing status and rescuing the rest of the family later.

So, yes, the sensationalized, camera-ready versions of dangerous water crossings will always skew heavily toward young men. But if you bother to examine the mundane administrative reality--the tedious, unglamorous, YUCK-SO-BORING mountain of Family Reunification paperwork--you find the exact opposite: around 90% of those legal arrivals are women and children.

It is also the case, that the family reunifications are often denied. In these cases, what can be observed--again, BORING mathematics, is that refugees tend to send more discretionary money back home than do other kinds of migrants in the UK. This means that even when the family cannot arrive due to barriers the father or oldest son etc in the family is supporting the family financially.

I know it’s a tough pill in an alarmist thread to swallow, but Muslim immigrants are human beings who operate under the same survival incentives as European immigrants did a century ago. Sometimes the truth is just stubbornly, un-sensationalistically boring.

 

[Bomb#20]

The RNLI is under no obligation to help anyone - it is a private volunteer organization of humanitarians. No one is asking you to donate effort, time or resources.

You are correct, twice over. No one is asking Loren to donate effort, time or resources, since he's an American and the cost is borne by the British. And no one is asking the British to donate effort, time or resources either -- the effort, time and resources it takes them to earn the 40K to 50K pounds a year British taxpayers pay for their rulers to support an irregular migrant are not asked from them, but commanded.

I didn’t realize that 1) Britain’s rulers are unelected and 2)rescuing someone at sea is equivalent to supporting them on land. Thanks for education!

You're welcome, but it sounds like more of it is needed. In the first place, the Holy Roman Empire's rulers were elected; that doesn't make them chosen by the people. Labour won its parliamentary majority with 34% of the vote. In the second place, you said "No one is asking", not "You don't get a vote". Three thousand tyrants one mile away don't ask permission before drafting their neighbors' effort, time and resources any more than one tyrant three thousand miles away does. And in the third place, "equivalent to" does not exhaust the phenomenon of causation. Sure, British taxpayers are made to support lots of people who weren't rescued at sea too; but the nonequivalence doesn't magically protect taxpayers from their rulers making them support the people who were.

 

[laughing dog]

The RNLI is not the UK government.

It's a volunteer organisation and charity dedicated to saving lives endangered at sea.

Any lives.

If that upsets anyone, they seriously need to recallibrate their moral compass, as it is likely that they are a sick, evil, cruel, fuck.

Your lack of paying attention to what's happening is showing. There should have been no rescue. The thing is they knowingly set out on an impossible mission expecting to be rescued. You knowingly put yourself in the path of certain peril to obligate me to help you? No way.

The RNLI is under no obligation to help anyone - it is a private volunteer organization of humanitarians. No one is asking you to donate effort, time or resources.

But England is being asked to--as in take care of the "refugees". These are not mariners in distress, these are people that intentionally marooned themselves at sea.

I didn’t realize you have such accurate snd intimate knowledge about these people’s minds.

 

[laughing dog]

The RNLI is under no obligation to help anyone - it is a private volunteer organization of humanitarians. No one is asking you to donate effort, time or resources.

You are correct, twice over. No one is asking Loren to donate effort, time or resources, since he's an American and the cost is borne by the British. And no one is asking the British to donate effort, time or resources either -- the effort, time and resources it takes them to earn the 40K to 50K pounds a year British taxpayers pay for their rulers to support an irregular migrant are not asked from them, but commanded.

I didn’t realize that 1) Britain’s rulers are unelected and 2)rescuing someone at sea is equivalent to supporting them on land. Thanks for education!

You're welcome, but it sounds like more of it is needed. In the first place, the Holy Roman Empire's rulers were elected; that doesn't make them chosen by the people. Labour won its parliamentary majority with 34% of the vote. In the second place, you said "No one is asking", not "You don't get a vote". Three thousand tyrants one mile away don't ask permission before drafting their neighbors' effort, time and resources any more than one tyrant three thousand miles away does. And in the third place, "equivalent to" does not exhaust the phenomenon of causation. Sure, British taxpayers are made to support lots of people who weren't rescued at sea too; but the nonequivalence doesn't magically protect taxpayers from their rulers making them support the people who were.

I didn’t realize the a parliamentary majority was unresponsive to the voters or that you can divine what the citizens want. Thanks for the rducation.

 

[laughing dog]

The RNLI is not the UK government.

It's a volunteer organisation and charity dedicated to saving lives endangered at sea.

Any lives.

If that upsets anyone, they seriously need to recallibrate their moral compass, as it is likely that they are a sick, evil, cruel, fuck.

Your lack of paying attention to what's happening is showing. There should have been no rescue. The thing is they knowingly set out on an impossible mission expecting to be rescued. You knowingly put yourself in the path of certain peril to obligate me to help you? No way.

The RNLI is under no obligation to help anyone - it is a private volunteer organization of humanitarians. No one is asking you to donate effort, time or resources.

You are correct, twice over. No one is asking Loren to donate effort, time or resources, since he's an American and the cost is borne by the British. And no one is asking the British to donate effort, time or resources either -- the effort, time and resources it takes them to earn the 40K to 50K pounds a year British taxpayers pay for their rulers to support an irregular migrant are not asked from them, but commanded.

I didn’t realize that 1) Britain’s rulers are unelected and 2)rescuing someone at sea is equivalent to supporting them on land. Thanks for education!

In practice, "rescuing" (I don't consider it rescue as the peril is knowingly self-imposed) ends up having to spend the money because of the way the system works.

Let's look at it from a different direction. They are in effect saying "if you don't do what I want I'm going to kill myself".

As with so much psychological manipulation once you accept the false premise as true the conclusion becomes apparently the moral path. Don't look at the morality of the act, look at the assumptions it's based upon.

What trauma did you endure to induce such twisted thinking?

 

[Emily Lake]

So the second best armed, of the two nuclear powers in the European theatre.

You realize I said one of the best armed nuclear powers, right? I mean, you did actually read for comprehension before responding, didn’t you?

You realise that saying one of the best armed nuclear powers is absurd, when the total number of nuclear powers is two, right? I mean, you did actually read for comprehension before responding, didn’t you?

It's a perfectly rational thing to say when I can't remember off the top of my head which countries in the European theatre have nukes. Also, I thought Turkey was nuclear capable too? Maybe they're not part of that area.

 

[Emily Lake]

Most of SE Asia is Buddhist and Taoist. Unless you count India, which is mostly Hindu.

India isn’t generally considered SE Asia.

Hence my "unless you count".

Yes, I know. I was making it clear that your 'unless' isn't relevant.

Indonesia and Malaysia are Muslim
Dominant, with it being the state religion in Malaysia. Over 40% of the population is Muslim.

Sure. And if those countries were the majority of SE Asia, you would be right. Sadly, China is massively populous, undeniably SE Asia, and not Muslim. So you are wrong.

They're the majority of the population, and China isn't generally considered part of SE asia either.

 

[Emily Lake]

Reallty? Are there doing these horrible things in Indonesia, which has by far the most Muslims in the world?

We need a reaction. Your post doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

Islam has never had the ability to do as widespread damage as the west has.

Damage to who...?

Pretty sure Islam has the ability to widespread damage to females at an enormous scale.

 

[pood]

Reallty? Are there doing these horrible things in Indonesia, which has by far the most Muslims in the world?

We need a reaction. Your post doesn't make sense to me.

The word “there” should be “they.” Typo.