Europe submits voluntarily

[Jokodo]

Over 30.000 Islamic terrorist attacks just since 9/11 says Islam and it's adherents more than any other ideology on earth can be blamed. For most of the turmoil and violance everywhere.

Is that so?

You may want to have a look at this  List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate. The ten top ranked countries and territories are: El Salvador, Honduras, Venezuela, United States Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Lesotho, Belize, South Africa, St. Kitts and Nevis, Guatemala. None of them has a significant Muslim population (South Africa comes closest with 1-1.5%). Place 11 we get Trinidad and Tobago with around 5% Muslims (and a murder rate much lower than many of its Caribbean neighbours), on places 28, 30 and 38 we get the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and the Russian Federation with about 10-15% Muslims each. The first Muslim majority country on that list is Mali at the 42nd place and a murder rate almost exactly 1/10 of El Salvador's.

Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt and the whole Middle East and Sub Sahara Africa that have muzzie majority countries makes the death toll in countries you mention look like kindergarten skirmishes.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

There are non-Muslim countries with armed internal conflicts too, and the casualties of those conflicts are not counted in those countries' homicide rates, but, yeah, let's play your game and do so for Muslim countries and Muslim countries only. Even then few if any come close to the level of violence in much of Central America.

Afghanistan has a population of 34.6 million (as of 2016) and suffered 3,500 civilian casualties due to the insurgency in 2016. In deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, that's 10.0. Adding that figure to Afghanistan's homicide rate as per the list I gave you gives us 16.55 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, or no more than 15.2% of El Salvador's murder rate of 108.54 per 100,000 - and that's assuming that none of the terrorism victims are already counted as murder victims.

Iraq comes closest on your list, but even in Iraq, including the victims of armed conflict will not raise the murder rate above El Salvador's. The total deaths, January 2014 - December 2017, are estimated 90,583–128,489 (including combatants). At a population of 37 million and dividing by four for an average annual rate, that comes out as as between 61 and 87 annual deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. Adding the murder rate of 8.0 from my list (and again, probably wrongly, excluding the very real possibility that at least some of the victims are thus counted twice), that's between 64 and 87% of El Salvador's rate.

ETA: tl;dr: Crime in El Salvador, with no Muslims in sight to blame, is so rampant that the country in peacetime is literally less safe than Iraq in a time of civil war, averaging over the risk to civilians and combatants.

 

[angelo]

Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt and the whole Middle East and Sub Sahara Africa that have muzzie majority countries makes the death toll in countries you mention look like kindergarten skirmishes.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

There are non-Muslim countries with armed internal conflicts too, and the casualties of those conflicts are not counted in those countries' homicide rates, but, yeah, let's play your game and do so for Muslim countries and Muslim countries only. Even then few if any come close to the level of violence in much of Central America.

Afghanistan has a population of 34.6 million (as of 2016) and suffered 3,500 civilian casualties due to the insurgency in 2016. In deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, that's 10.0. Adding that figure to Afghanistan's homicide rate as per the list I gave you gives us 16.55 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, or no more than 15.2% of El Salvador's murder rate of 108.54 per 100,000 - and that's assuming that none of the terrorism victims are already counted as murder victims.

Iraq comes closest on your list, but even in Iraq, including the victims of armed conflict will not raise the murder rate above El Salvador's. The total deaths, January 2014 - December 2017, are estimated 90,583–128,489 (including combatants). At a population of 37 million and dividing by four for an average annual rate, that comes out as as between 61 and 87 annual deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. Adding the murder rate of 8.0 from my list (and again, probably wrongly, excluding the very real possibility that at least some of the victims are thus counted twice), that's between 64 and 87% of El Salvador's rate.

ETA: tl;dr: Crime in El Salvador, with no Muslims in sight to blame, is so rampant that the country in peacetime is literally less safe than Iraq in a time of civil war, averaging over the risk to civilians and combatants.

As I said. It's like a schoolyard skirmish as compared to the death toll of Islam since it was founded by the terrorist Mohammed. Some estimates put the figure at around 270 million deaths of infidels.

 

[Jokodo]

Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt and the whole Middle East and Sub Sahara Africa that have muzzie majority countries makes the death toll in countries you mention look like kindergarten skirmishes.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

There are non-Muslim countries with armed internal conflicts too, and the casualties of those conflicts are not counted in those countries' homicide rates, but, yeah, let's play your game and do so for Muslim countries and Muslim countries only. Even then few if any come close to the level of violence in much of Central America.

Afghanistan has a population of 34.6 million (as of 2016) and suffered 3,500 civilian casualties due to the insurgency in 2016. In deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, that's 10.0. Adding that figure to Afghanistan's homicide rate as per the list I gave you gives us 16.55 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, or no more than 15.2% of El Salvador's murder rate of 108.54 per 100,000 - and that's assuming that none of the terrorism victims are already counted as murder victims.

Iraq comes closest on your list, but even in Iraq, including the victims of armed conflict will not raise the murder rate above El Salvador's. The total deaths, January 2014 - December 2017, are estimated 90,583–128,489 (including combatants). At a population of 37 million and dividing by four for an average annual rate, that comes out as as between 61 and 87 annual deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. Adding the murder rate of 8.0 from my list (and again, probably wrongly, excluding the very real possibility that at least some of the victims are thus counted twice), that's between 64 and 87% of El Salvador's rate.

ETA: tl;dr: Crime in El Salvador, with no Muslims in sight to blame, is so rampant that the country in peacetime is literally less safe than Iraq in a time of civil war, averaging over the risk to civilians and combatants.

As I said.<snips>

That's a rather peculiar misspelling of "oops, I was wrong, glad to learn something new".

 

[LordKiran]

As I said.<snips>

That's a rather peculiar misspelling of "oops, I was wrong, glad to learn something new".

If angelo ever actually said those words in that order his head would pop like a corn kernel in a microwave oven.

 

[angelo]

Methinks the Stockholm syndrome has affected your feeble brains regarding " the religion of peace!"

 

[Vork]

I doubt that people could even agree what to do if Muslim populations, on average, have different values to Western society.

I think it's reasonable to ban whole groups of immigrants, on the grounds that (1) no one has any right to enter your country in the first place, so there is no injustice in a group ban, (2) it's reasonable to discriminate against whole groups when you can't practically filter them to separate "good" from "bad". To ban in practice 98% of good people, if it's the only way to keep out another 2% bad, is reasonable policy in an immigration context.

However, it's probably pointless to argue with a liberal over what the Islamic religion has historically been like, or what percentages in modern Muslim nations support killing apostates etc, because the liberal will just *never* support a block ban on whole groups of people. In their mind it would be some terrible "discrimination" to do it. They simply don't care if they are letting in sharia supporters or not. Hey, a lot of them would let in *returning Islamic State fighters* so mere support for sharia isn't going to get them to restrict immigration.

 

[Jokodo]

Methinks the Stockholm syndrome has affected your feeble brains regarding " the religion of peace!"

I gave you hard data. I did not talk about any "religion of peace", I just demonstrated that you claim that Islam is responsible for "most of the turmoil and violance (sic!) everywhere" is contradicted by hard data showing that many of the most violent places on earth are places with no or insignificant numbers of Muslims. You could have made a different claim, say that most of the religiously motivated violence is due to Islam, or most of the violence that's not down to ordinary economic interests, i.e. gang crime, is due to Islam and I would have had a much harder time disproving you, but that's not the claim you made.

Are you mature enough to admit that you made a wrong claim? Is your brain capable of accepting new information?

 

[angelo]

Methinks the Stockholm syndrome has affected your feeble brains regarding " the religion of peace!"

I gave you hard data. I did not talk about any "religion of peace", I just demonstrated that you claim that Islam is responsible for "most of the turmoil and violance (sic!) everywhere" is contradicted by hard data showing that many of the most violent places on earth are places with no or insignificant numbers of Muslims. You could have made a different claim, say that most of the religiously motivated violence is due to Islam, or most of the violence that's not down to ordinary economic interests, i.e. gang crime, is due to Islam and I would have had a much harder time disproving you, but that's not the claim you made.

Are you mature enough to admit that you made a wrong claim? Is your brain capable of accepting new information?

Islam is retrograde, violent ideology masquerading as a religion therefore comparisons with gang and tinpot regimes warfare everywhere is valid.

 

[Jokodo]

Methinks the Stockholm syndrome has affected your feeble brains regarding " the religion of peace!"

I gave you hard data. I did not talk about any "religion of peace", I just demonstrated that you claim that Islam is responsible for "most of the turmoil and violance (sic!) everywhere" is contradicted by hard data showing that many of the most violent places on earth are places with no or insignificant numbers of Muslims. You could have made a different claim, say that most of the religiously motivated violence is due to Islam, or most of the violence that's not down to ordinary economic interests, i.e. gang crime, is due to Islam and I would have had a much harder time disproving you, but that's not the claim you made.

Are you mature enough to admit that you made a wrong claim? Is your brain capable of accepting new information?

Islam is retrograde, violent ideology masquerading as a religion therefore comparisons with gang and tinpot regimes warfare everywhere is valid.

You're evading the question.

Do you accept that your earlier claim that "most of the violence everywhere" is attributable to Islam is baseless hyperbole?

Do you accept that your follow-up claim that the death toll in every single Middle Eastern country (listing explicitly as examples even ones with no ongoing armed conflicts like Iran) makes the death toll of high-crime countries like El Salvador or Guatemala pale in comparison is almost the exact opposite of the truth, as those countries' peacetime death tolls are in the same order as war-time Iraq's?

Yes or no, no flying goalposts!

 

[angelo]

Hopefully the fightback against Europe becoming an Islamist shithole will grow as more people become aware of the supremacists and savage nature of islam.

https://gellerreport.com/2018/02/migrant-merkel-protests.html/

 

[Jokodo]

Hopefully the fightback against Europe becoming an Islamist shithole will grow as more people become aware of the supremacists and savage nature of islam.

https://gellerreport.com/2018/02/migrant-merkel-protests.html/

Is that a "yes"?

 

[angelo]

Islam is retrograde, violent ideology masquerading as a religion therefore comparisons with gang and tinpot regimes warfare everywhere is valid.

You're evading the question.

Do you accept that your earlier claim that "most of the violence everywhere" is attributable to Islam is baseless hyperbole?

Do you accept that your follow-up claim that the death toll in every single Middle Eastern country (listing explicitly as examples even ones with no ongoing armed conflicts like Iran) makes the death toll of high-crime countries like El Salvador or Guatemala pale in comparison is almost the exact opposite of the truth, as those countries' peacetime death tolls are in the same order as war-time Iraq's?

Yes or no, no flying goalposts!

What a load of Islamic apologist balderdash. The victims of crime in any part of the world, including Central America is a fraction, in fact as compared to the victims of the savage, supremacist ideology of islam is as I've said before, is in comparison a schoolyard skirmish.

 

[Jokodo]

Islam is retrograde, violent ideology masquerading as a religion therefore comparisons with gang and tinpot regimes warfare everywhere is valid.

You're evading the question.

Do you accept that your earlier claim that "most of the violence everywhere" is attributable to Islam is baseless hyperbole?

Do you accept that your follow-up claim that the death toll in every single Middle Eastern country (listing explicitly as examples even ones with no ongoing armed conflicts like Iran) makes the death toll of high-crime countries like El Salvador or Guatemala pale in comparison is almost the exact opposite of the truth, as those countries' peacetime death tolls are in the same order as war-time Iraq's?

Yes or no, no flying goalposts!

What a load of Islamic apologist balderdash. The victims of crime in any part of the world, including Central America is a fraction, in fact as compared to the victims of the savage, supremacist ideology of islam is as I've said before, is in comparison a schoolyard skirmish.

Indeed, you said it before. It was as wrong then as it is now. The difference being, in the meantime you've seen actual data to show it's wrong. So when you said it before you may have been in error. No-one can blame you for that. Now you're lying.

Are you congenitally incapable of letting evidence change your mind? Or are you choosing to remain dumb?

 

[angelo]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Recent atrocities!

 

[Jokodo]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Recent atrocities!

That, once again, wasn't in question.

You made a specific that has been shown to be wrong. support it with better and more complete data than the ones I provided, or retract it.

Or be seen as a liar. Your choice.

 

[Jokodo]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Recent atrocities!

That's a very incomplete list only containing incidents which received some level of press coverage. Its total deaths at the bottom are correspondingly at least an order of magnitude too low (it gives 1,413+ deaths in 2016 globally, which is actually, in absolute terms, about the number of murders in Guatemala per quarter of the same year:  Crime_in_Guatemala gives 101 murders in an average week!). With that as your source, you're making my point look stronger than it is, certainly not refuting it.

A more complete figure, though one that includes not only Islamist attacks but all kinds of terrorist attacks, can be found at  Number_of_terrorist_incidents_by_country. This one gives 34,676 deaths worldwide in 2016, of which more than a third in Iraq. But even that number does not produce a higher terrorism victimisation rate for Iraq than Guatemala's murder victimisation rate.

 

[metacristi]

The extreme violence which comes from the Islamic world is only the tip of the iceberg (anyways strange how can some play down so easily the fact that it raised an ISIS in the 21st century). Unfortunately even without it [violence] the islamic ideology remains a threat for the West, no cries of 'bigotry!' can hide the fact that this worry has quite a solid rational foundation (well presented by Michael Ley among others). In reality the ideas that all religions are equally problematic and that anyways religious motives for violence and discrimination are secondary to pragmatic ones are the main problems in the way of progress.

Advocating self-censorship in the case of islam, vilifying Dawkins and Harris just because they criticize islam*, calling for 'more time', denying the existence of a distinct enough Islamic worldview, conjecturing that the muslims are the 'new Jews' of Europe**, hoping that 'educating' muslims without criticism will make the problem disappear automatically etc solves in fact nothing. The basis for a real solution to the problem is simply to become rational and allow criticism of islam, albeit radical, only in this way we can develop the absolutely necessary self-criticism in the Islamic communities. Europe forgot that not that long ago Islam was its nemesis, I would say that we have to be much more cautious...


* I am always surprised to see people who criticize the new atheists for their exaggerate attacks on Christianity taking automatically the part of islam, as if Christianity and Islam are more or less the same. I can agree that Dawkins et altri exaggerate in some problems when they criticize Christianity but overall they are spot on, in fact [rational] radical criticism of Christianity was one of the engines which forced Christians to accept important change. Their rational criticism is in fact even more desirable in the case of Islam given that it, unlike Christianity, has never given importance to unaided Human Reason in religious matters and the Islamic civilization is to this day 'saturated' with religion (this again due to islam's particularities)


** without taking in account the marked differences between Judaism and Islam (the same is valid for the case when some remember us that Catholicism in England was once considered as dangerous and nothing happened)


Islam needs a counterpart of the radical Enlightenment in the Christian dominated world

 

[Jokodo]

The extreme violence which comes from the Islamic world is only the tip of the iceberg (anyways strange how can some play down so easily the fact that it raised an ISIS in the 21st century). Unfortunately even without it [violence] the islamic ideology remains a threat for the West, no cries of 'bigotry!' can hide the fact that this worry has quite a solid rational foundation (well presented by Michael Ley among others). In reality the ideas that all religions are equally problematic and that anyways religious motives for violence and discrimination are always secondary to pragmatic ones are the main problems in the way of progress. Advocating self-censorship in the case of islam, vilifying Dawkins and Harris just because they criticize islam* etc solves in fact nothing. The basis for the solution to the problem is to simply become rational and allow rational criticism of islam, only in this way we can develop the absolutely necessary self-criticism in the Islamic communities.


* I am always surprised to see people who criticize the new atheists for their exaggerate attacks on Christianity taking automatically the part of islam, as if Christianity and Islam are more or less the same. I can agree that Dawkins et altri exaggerate in some problems when they criticize Christianity but overall they are spot on, in fact radical criticism of Christianity was one of the forces which forced Christians to accept important change. Their rational criticism is in fact even more desirable in the case of Islam given that it, unlike Christianity, has never given importance to unaided Human Reason in religious matters and the Islamic civilization is to this day 'saturated' with religion (this again due to islam's particularities)

Whether or not Islam is in any meaningful sense fundamentally different from other religions is irrelevant to the question of whether people should be treated as People even if some of them might be Muslims.

It's also irrelevant to whether or not Islam is responsible for Most of the violence in the World today. It's perfectly weithin the realm of possibility that it's responsible for 100% straight of religiously motivated violence and less than 0.1% of the total.

 

[metacristi]

I'm afraid we cannot create a much better world with 'tails' like Islam (as it is today) attached. Valid even in the hypothetical case when the Islamic violence is only 0.1 % of the total (not the case I'm afraid). Of course humans are rather irrational at the moment and they can destroy themselves in many ways. Happily there are good reasons to hope that we can remedy that, indeed in most of the cases we do not have the strong 'brakes' put by Islam against radical change (be it because unaided Human Reason is considered much more important than in Islam). But the subject of the thread was that Europe destroys itself, I'm afraid this is indeed the case given that it ceased to defend its own culture...

 

[Vork]

"People should be treated as people"


So "Islamic State" fighters should be allowed to return home? We can't strip them of citizenship? That's the kind of thing where the liberal side would demand that we treat people "humanely", whereas I would just say that they have become enemies in war and they have given up citizenship by their own actions.

Or we can't have surveillance on many mosques specifically, (and not other religions), when the Islamic religion appears to be generating more of a terrorism problem? Because that's the kind of thing where the liberal side will say that "rights" are being violated.

Or we can't decide who we do or don't let in as immigrants? Because that's also the kind of thing where liberals will say that "rights" are being violated.

Or we can't expect that immigrants should be under a duty to integrate? We should just put up with--at the hard end--just blatantly traitorous actions from inside the Muslim population? (Going to fight for an enemy entity, or openly saying that they want to replace the system of government with a foreign religious system.)