Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

So it's not moslems carrying on terrorists attacks almost every day in Europe! Silly me, of course, it's the those damn Jews again isn't it!

How many of the terrorists came into Europe disguised as refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War?

Extremely small and some are 2nd or 3rd generation while some are asylum seeker status, or in one case a failed asylum seeker. Nonetheless we do have a security risk given that just a few people can cause such a lot of havoc. ISIS claimed large numbers but it does not have mass support. One cannot rule out the possibility of ISIS trying to use migration as a means of setting up cells which may also radicalize a few individuals.

 

[Trausti]

All cultures are equally good!

 

[Bomb#20]

Can the TFT fascists stop frothing and wailing for a moment and provide evidence for the causal link between:

1. Granting asylum to Middle-Eastern refugees and
2. Terrorist attacks

That's an odd thing to ask for -- the TFT fascists are insisting there's no causal link.

Oh, wait, you weren't talking about the TFT posters who are trying to get Europe to import hundreds of thousands of additional Middle-Eastern Nazis, were you? Sorry, my bad.

Since by "fascists" you apparently mean posters who express disagreement with your religious convictions, you go first. You claimed hiring the French to build submarines in Adelaide will be good for the local economy. Can you stop frothing and wailing for a moment and provide evidence for the causal link between building Barracudas and benefiting the SA economy?

First exhibit your standards of evidence, for all to see. Then I'm confident someone will produce evidence of similar quality for the causal link between granting asylum to Middle-Eastern refugees and terrorist attacks.

 

[thebeave]

All cultures are equally good!

I bet I know what each is thinking:

 

[whichphilosophy]

All cultures are equally good!

I bet I know what each is thinking:

View attachment 7610

Few Moslem women wear the veil which has declined in places like the UAE (though many wear black and the headscarf) but imposed firmly in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. More common is the headscarf. This however started appearing recently in Western countries and is being adopted by new converts. Nothing in the Koran mentions or implies the veil.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We need to wake from our thralldom like King Théoden:



Someone needs to make Théoden a European leader and the orcs muslims.

Or, alternatively, you and all the other bigots who say fucking ignorant shit like this can go form your own little xenophobic fiefdom and allow the rest of us to handle these issues intelligently and without blind hysteria.

How would a sensible solution be attained. I don't think integration is necessarily ideal as Europeans also pride themselves on non conformity. Further the early Chinese and Jews did fine without integrating but did interact well. The vast majority of Muslims have no problem in the West and are not violent of problematic. There is just a handful only. One solution would be to stem the volume of immigration to just asylum seekers who are deported if rejected, and to stop instigating wars which have caused the current FUBAR (British Army slang for F****d UP BEYOND ALL REPAIR) but possible. to repair in the future. Now that Britain is leaving the EU it will be easier to impose its own laws on deporting radicals like 'The Hook.' which the EU prevented. In this case Teresa May circumvented such rulings by striking a deal with Jordan. Meanwhile his family live off the taxpayer in the UK.

 

[whichphilosophy]

All cultures are equally good!

I'm sure this is Hyde Park London.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

All cultures are equally good!

I bet I know what each is thinking:

View attachment 7610

Funny, but to be precise, the eyes of the women in bikinis in the picture are not covered, in all of the cases we can tell.
We can't tell see the eyes of the women who are almost fully covered. But maybe someone in their vicinity could; it's hard (or maybe not possible) to tell.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This however started appearing recently in Western countries and is being adopted by new converts.

Do you have sources?

Nothing in the Koran mentions or implies the veil.

Do you base your assessment on a preferred translation that avoids any mention to the veil, in verses such as 24:30-31, and 33:59?
If so, other translations disagree.
I concede I don't speak Arabic, and I would need more time researching the subject to tell who's right (if I can at all; maybe I would just have to learn Arabic, which would take a too long).
But how do you know who's right?

That aside, let's assume that you're correct and the Quran doesn't mention or imply (impose?) the veil.
Even then, there is the hadith, and there are plenty of opinions/rulings by Muslim scholars/imams based on both the Quran and the hadith.
Some examples (including quotations from the Quran and hadith, as well as rulings):

http://www.livingislam.org/n/vii_e.html

http://www.ahlus-sunna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=146

https://islamqa.info/en/13998

http://ibnfarooq.tripod.com/niqaab.htm

http://www.sunnah.org/msaec/articles/veil_in_islam.htm

Granted, there are those who disagree with all of those interpretations.
As before, I have insufficient information to be certain at this point. I'd like to ask how you reach the conclusion that covering the face is not a demand of Islam (on women, of course).

 

[thebeave]

Funny, but to be precise, the eyes of the women in bikinis in the picture are not covered, in all of the cases we can tell.
We can't tell see the eyes of the women who are almost fully covered. But maybe someone in their vicinity could; it's hard (or maybe not possible) to tell.

Yeah, the photo and cartoon are not a perfect matchup, but the message still stands.

I do wonder though, if the two ladies in the beekeeper suits complain to local authorities that the bikini girls are disrespecting Islam, will they have to cover up?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Do you have sources?

Nothing in the Koran mentions or implies the veil.

Do you base your assessment on a preferred translation that avoids any mention to the veil, in verses such as 24:30-31, and 33:59?
If so, other translations disagree.
I concede I don't speak Arabic, and I would need more time researching the subject to tell who's right (if I can at all; maybe I would just have to learn Arabic, which would take a too long).
But how do you know who's right?

That aside, let's assume that you're correct and the Quran doesn't mention or imply (impose?) the veil.
Even then, there is the hadith, and there are plenty of opinions/rulings by Muslim scholars/imams based on both the Quran and the hadith.
Some examples (including quotations from the Quran and hadith, as well as rulings):

http://www.livingislam.org/n/vii_e.html

http://www.ahlus-sunna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=146

https://islamqa.info/en/13998

http://ibnfarooq.tripod.com/niqaab.htm

http://www.sunnah.org/msaec/articles/veil_in_islam.htm

Granted, there are those who disagree with all of those interpretations.
As before, I have insufficient information to be certain at this point. I'd like to ask how you reach the conclusion that covering the face is not a demand of Islam (on women, of course).

I was talking about the Koran. The verses you mentioned state they should cover their breasts and dress modestly which is what our society generally expects during everyday life with exceptions.
There are plenty of opinionated re inventions in the Hadiths (which are not Koranic and so forth but nothing specific. The veil itself existed long before Islam and is likely to have been imported from regions in Persia.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I was talking about the Koran.

But you were saying that "This however started appearing recently in Western countries and is being adopted by new converts."
It's not clear what you meant by "This" (context is insufficient to tell), but in any case, I was pointing out (among other things) that the Quran is not the only source considered authoritative by most (nearly all) Muslims, and that some of important sources (important according to the beliefs of most Muslims) either mandate or recommend the veil, according also to prevalent interpretations.

The verses you mentioned state they should cover their breasts and dress modestly which is what our society generally expects during everyday life with exceptions.

I don't know that. I'd like to ask how you do (i.e., what's your evidence in s upport of that claim).
As far as I know, that's one interpretation of the verses. Different interpretations (and different translations into English) disagree.
The links I provided show some of the other versions. For example:

http://www.sunnah.org/msaec/articles/veil_in_islam.htm

"O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (jalabib) close round them (when they go abroad)..." (33:59). Ibn Rushd in Bidaya al-Mujtahid (1:83) said that this verse has been adduced as proof that all of woman's body constitutes nakedness. Al-Qurtubi in his commentary on the verse said that the jilbab is the cloak that conceals all of the body including the head.

"... And when you ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a veil. . ." (33:53) Al-Qurtubi said in commentary of this verse: "The Consensus of Muslims is that the genitals and backside constitute nakedness for men and women, as well as all of woman except her face and hands, but some disagreed about the latter two" meaning they included them into the definition of her nakedness due to verse 33:59 and the hadith cited below.

You can find more sources who claim it's a command to cover the whole body including the head in the other links I provided, or through a Google search.
As I said, I don't know whether those sources are correct, or whether those claiming otherwise are correct.

There are plenty of opinionated re inventions in the Hadiths (which are not Koranic and so forth but nothing specific.

The hadith are considered an authoritative source by the vast majority of Muslims. I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing specific", but if you follow the links I provided in the previous post, you'll find very specific claims based on both the Quran and the hadith.

The veil itself existed long before Islam and is likely to have been imported from regions in Persia.

Even so, that does not imply it's not mandated by either the Quran or the hadith or both.
For example, some of the hadith mandate the death penalty for adultery, even if the practice of killing people for adultery existed long before Islam.
The same goes for the Quran and some of the things it mandates, like cutting people's off for theft (according to most interpretations of 5:33), or flogging adults for some consensual sexual acts (24:2).
Some behaviors existed before Islam, but they're still mandated by the Quran.

 

[repoman]

Europe needs this:

 

[angelo]

So it's not moslems carrying on terrorists attacks almost every day in Europe! Silly me, of course, it's the those damn Jews again isn't it!

How many of the terrorists came into Europe disguised as refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War?

They practically all follow the barbaric death cult of islam!

 

[bigfield]

How many of the terrorists came into Europe disguised as refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War?

They practically all follow the barbaric death cult of islam!

How many of the terrorists came into Europe disguised as refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War?

 

[whichphilosophy]

They practically all follow the barbaric death cult of islam!

How many of the terrorists came into Europe disguised as refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War?

I would think very few and while we cannot in fairness lable a suspected terrorist as a terrorist, there are supposed to be around 2,000 in the UK. Not all are from Syria


It's not known how many people are on the terrorism watch list in the UK. But it has been said to be around 2,000 but in reality (and judging by the number of incidents) active ones will be very few. However with modern technology and the collapse of border controls even just 2 or 3 can cause havoc. In Nice it took one lunatic (with help in obtaining weapons and dummy weapons) to kill several people, or one person to detonate a bomb.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22718000

To keep a constant watch on just one of those people, you would need a team of at least six surveillance operatives, Dame Stella says. But of course they couldn't work 24 hours a day, so you would need three teams of six.

And those operatives couldn't just sit outside a suspect's house. So, you'd need an additional person to, say, sit in a nearby house, and alert the team of six when the suspect left the house.

Then there's the control centre, where staff receive information from the mobile operatives and give them directions. And finally, there's a desk officer in charge of the case.

Doing that 24 hours a day, seven days a week - well, you do the sums, it's an awful lot of people," Dame Stella says.

And if 2,000 people were to be followed like that, we'd be talking about 50,000 full-time spies doing nothing but following suspected terrorists.

Further immigration polices could prove to be a Trojan Horse in allowing some fanatics in. At least this should not be discounted for the time being.

 

[angelo]

How many of the terrorists came into Europe disguised as refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War?

Extremely small and some are 2nd or 3rd generation while some are asylum seeker status, or in one case a failed asylum seeker. Nonetheless we do have a security risk given that just a few people can cause such a lot of havoc. ISIS claimed large numbers but it does not have mass support. One cannot rule out the possibility of ISIS trying to use migration as a means of setting up cells which may also radicalize a few individuals.

So I'm right all along! The problemo is islam!

 

[SimpleDon]

The problem with this discussion growing to more than 4500 comments and clever meme pictures is that it will never come to a resolution here because of one simple truth, everyone is right.

• Yes, Islam is a barbaric religion preaching violence toward and intolerance for other religions and cultures.
• Yes, 99.9% of Muslims don't commit terrorist acts because Islam preaches peace and tolerance of other religions.
• Yes, moderate Muslims must do more to reduce the number of terrorist attacks committed by Muslim extremists.
• Yes, the vast majority of terror attacks in Europe and North America are committed by Muslims.
• Yes, the problem is with radical Islam.
• Yes, the problem is with fundamentalism in the Muslim religion because fundamentalism in any religion or belief system creates problems.
• Yes, the FBI and European security agencies include some bank robberies and crimes against property as terrorism.
• Yes, murder is a much more serious matter than bank robberies and vandalism.
• Yes, moderate Muslims are responsible for the majority of the tips to the police that have prevented radical Islamic terrorist attacks.
• Yes, the right amps up the threat of terrorism because fear generates more conservatives.
• Yes, the left minimizes the role of Islam as the motivation for the terrorism because of an undying, disproportionate and frankly tiresome dedication to multiculturalism.
• Yes, Europe and North America have never been safer from crime and violence than they are now.
• Yes, border control and airport security are there to make the public feel more secure, they are largely incapable of stopping attacks from dedicated terrorists.
• Yes, allowing for more migration of Muslims increases the odds of admitting Muslim terrorists.
• Yes, refusing to accept Muslim refugees, especially women, children and the elderly, because of the actions of the few is inhumane.
• Yes, the US suffers more from its dedication to gun rights in a year than it does in a decade from terrorist attacks.
• Yes, both sides are mired in self-righteousness and hypocrisy.

The bottom line is we have this problem of radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorism and that we must deal with it.

We must surrender some of our freedoms and rights to allow the police to root out the terrorists.

But more than anything else we must prevent the terrorists from getting what they want. They want us to be afraid and they want us to overreact to the terrorism. As this thread amply proves, so far the terrorists are getting exactly what they want.

And I don't want to be accused of false equivalence or saying that both sides do it equally. The right is much more guilty of giving the terrorists what they want. Refer to the orange clown for proof of this. Trump is reducing the impact of the right's inbred racism by ramping up their xenophobia.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Extremely small and some are 2nd or 3rd generation while some are asylum seeker status, or in one case a failed asylum seeker. Nonetheless we do have a security risk given that just a few people can cause such a lot of havoc. ISIS claimed large numbers but it does not have mass support. One cannot rule out the possibility of ISIS trying to use migration as a means of setting up cells which may also radicalize a few individuals.

So I'm right all along! The problemo is islam!

This is true as far as the action of fanatics are concerned. They are a minority but it is in the name of Islam.

 

[repoman]

now Europe needs to worry about Islamic roots...