Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

So you've read both of them, then?

What do you see as the substantive differences?

It seems to me the main difference between the the Christian nations and the Muslim nations is that the Christian nations are much more powerful and have been for a long time.

What's made the Western nations so advanced and powerful in comparison to Islamic states? Could it have been the xtian reformation for one reason?

 

[untermensche]

Nothing will justify 911 but the motivations of the people who did it are mainly the presence of the US in their homeland.

US bases in Saudi Arabia

What makes you think that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if there were no American bases in Saudi Arabia?
Moslems are taught from a very young age to hate the West. America is big Satan, and Israel the little Satan.
Many extreme fundie muslins like Osama bin Laden take that to heart. The claim it was because of US bases is pure hogwash. The bases were there when Osama was pro American and he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan!

You should learn a little history.

The bases were the continued presence of US troops after the first Gulf War.

They did not exist when the US was training bin Laden in Afghanistan.

And you have no evidence bin laden was ever pro American. He was anti Soviet Union and that is why the US trained him and supplied him with weapons.

 

[angelo]

https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/demographics_pew.gif?w=435&h=585

So your "support" for the claim "Some EU countries already have up to 20% non westerners" is a graph showing that the maximum Muslim population in any of the countries shown is about 7.5% (France); and that the projected maximum for those countries in 2030 is around 10% - about a HALF of what you claimed for 'non westerners' RIGHT NOW??

Do you even evidence?

https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/demograp_pew2.jpg?w=610

 

[angelo]

Deleted

 

[TSwizzle]

It seems to me the main difference between the the Christian nations and the Muslim nations is that the Christian nations are much more powerful and have been for a long time.

And that's why you're not bumping your head off the floor five times a day. What, you thought it was a coincidence that islamic aggression was at an ebb these past few centuries ? Sorry to inform you but normal service has been restored.

 

[untermensche]

What do you see as the substantive differences?

It seems to me the main difference between the the Christian nations and the Muslim nations is that the Christian nations are much more powerful and have been for a long time.

What's made the Western nations so advanced and powerful in comparison to Islamic states? Could it have been the xtian reformation for one reason?

What does the reformation give us?

Does it end monarchy? Does it cause democracies to start springing up?

Does it give rights to women? Does it end slavery?

 

[untermensche]

It seems to me the main difference between the the Christian nations and the Muslim nations is that the Christian nations are much more powerful and have been for a long time.

And that's why you're not bumping your head off the floor five times a day. What, you thought it was a coincidence that islamic aggression was at an ebb these past few centuries ? Sorry to inform you but normal service has been restored.

So-called Islamic aggression intensifies with the intrusion of Israel into the ME and with the meddling of foreign powers into the affairs of Middle Eastern countries, as when the US and British removed the elected leader of Iran.

 

[angelo]

Yes to all of the above, which is rife today in most moslem nations!

 

[skepticalbip]

What's made the Western nations so advanced and powerful in comparison to Islamic states? Could it have been the xtian reformation for one reason?

What does the reformation give us?

Does it end monarchy? Does it cause democracies to start springing up?

Does it give rights to women? Does it end slavery?

The reformation was the first step that was necessary for all of those to happen. Without it, we would still hold the church as the absolute authority, kings would still rule by divine right sanctioned by the church, questioning authority would still be heresy.

 

[angelo]

Exactly!

 

[Bomb#20]

What's made the Western nations so advanced and powerful in comparison to Islamic states? Could it have been the xtian reformation for one reason?

What does the reformation give us?

Does it end monarchy? Does it cause democracies to start springing up?

Does it give rights to women? Does it end slavery?

Yes, actually, but not in a good way. The Reformation gave us the wars of religion. By the time a third of Germany had been massacred on the altar of making Protestants believe what Catholics wanted them to believe and vice versa, the concept that maybe a person's faith should be a private matter between him and God started gaining currency among the appalled intelligentsia. And once the concept of "Here is a spot where government should not tread." got its nose into the tent, nothing was going to stop that camel until it was all the way in and we had a full-blown Enlightenment on our hands.

 

[untermensche]

What does the reformation give us?

Does it end monarchy? Does it cause democracies to start springing up?

Does it give rights to women? Does it end slavery?

The reformation was the first step that was necessary for all of those to happen. Without it, we would still hold the church as the absolute authority, kings would still rule by divine right sanctioned by the church, questioning authority would still be heresy.

In 1951 Iran was a secular democracy.

The fact that it is not one anymore has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims didn't have a reformation, whatever that means.

 

[angelo]

The reformation was the first step that was necessary for all of those to happen. Without it, we would still hold the church as the absolute authority, kings would still rule by divine right sanctioned by the church, questioning authority would still be heresy.

In 1951 Iran was a secular democracy.

The fact that it is not one anymore has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims didn't have a reformation, whatever that means.

No, it means that Islamics took over the government. It was the ayatollah Khomeni who was responsible for the downfall of the secular government of the Sha of Iran. It's been a theocracy since then.

 

[untermensche]

In 1951 Iran was a secular democracy.

The fact that it is not one anymore has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims didn't have a reformation, whatever that means.

No, it means that Islamics took over the government. It was the ayatollah Khomeni who was responsible for the downfall of the secular government of the Shaw of Iran. It's been a theocracy since then.

No. The "Shaw" was not elected.

He represented the end of the secular democracy in Iran. It was destroyed by the US and Britain.

That gave us the Islamic Revolution.

 

[dystopian]

Hey look, another bullshit figure!

In point of fact, there is no EU country that has a population of 20% non-westerners; either by looking at the percentage of non-western immigrants, or even by looking at ethnic demographics.

Okay, okay... that isn't ENTIRELY true...

...Estonia has 25% Russians.

https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/demographics_pew.gif?w=435&h=585

You do understand that 7-8% is a substantially lower figure than 20%, right?

 

[JonA]

What do you see as the substantive differences?

They're plenty distinct. I'm not going to point out all the differences - mainly 'cause I don't know all of them.

I posted my question to challenge Zoidy Berger, who regularly claims these two books to be essentially the same but so far has shown no indication of having read either.

It seems to me the main difference between the the Christian nations and the Muslim nations is that the Christian nations are much more powerful and have been for a long time.

Well that really has nothing to do with Zoidy's claim that the Bible and Qur'an are "interchangeable".

 

[bilby]

I think it's populistic tripe. It's not like there aren't people who have studied immigration. We have plenty of research. All of it positive. Immigration is always good. Even short term problems are rare and minute. But it's normal to be xenophobic. I think she's just using that to get votes. Cynical and populistic.

Immigration has always benefitted the host country as they generally take the jobs the natives shun. In the case of Moslems, that's completely turned upside down. In my country for example, more than 85% of asylum seekers granted asylum, are still collecting government benefits five years, and in most cases, even longer. A huge burden on any country's budget!

Lets, see; according to the Australian Federal Government:

In 2009, Australia received 6170 asylum applications

So IF your figure is correct, and if EVERY SINGLE application was granted, five years later - last year - of 6,170 asylum seekers who arrived in 2009, 5,244.5 were still claiming benefits last year.

From the same source quoted above:

Refugees have the same entitlements as all other permanent residents

According to the Centrelink website, the benefits a 45 year old asylum seeker without children who is unemployed might be entitled to claim are:

Newstart - $523.40 per fortnight
Income Support Bonus (if eligible) - $110.60 per fortnight

They may also be entitled to a low income health card.

The total cash benefit per Asylum seeker is therefore around $635 per fortnight, or $16,510 per annum; for 5,250 claimants, this would be a total of 86.7 million per annum. You describe this as "A huge burden on any country's budget!"; it represents $4 per annum from every Australian - that's about 1c per person per day; or to look at it another way, it is about 0.02% of the 420 Billion (with a B) Australian Federal budget; or about 0.06% of the total federal Social Security and Welfare budget. You can multiply those numbers by five (or even ten if you feel like it) to account for five years of arrivals - the figures are still insignificant at $40 per annum per capita.

If the price of a cup of coffee a month is "a huge burden" then we have bigger worries than a few asylum seekers.

The cost of supporting these asylum seekers is rather less than the rounding error in our Federal Budget; EVEN IF your 85% figure was correct, the burden this places on our budget is almost too small to even measure.

You really, really need to start checking your information before regurgitating the bullshit you find on anti-immigration fear-mongering websites, or read from such fucking evil scumbags as Andrew Bolt.

We could easily afford to pay 100% of asylum seekers welfare for the rest of their lives; it would hardly impact the budget at all for us to do so - however I am very sceptical indeed of that 85% figure, and would love to know whose arse it was originally pulled from.

 

[bilby]

So your "support" for the claim "Some EU countries already have up to 20% non westerners" is a graph showing that the maximum Muslim population in any of the countries shown is about 7.5% (France); and that the projected maximum for those countries in 2030 is around 10% - about a HALF of what you claimed for 'non westerners' RIGHT NOW??

Do you even evidence?

https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/demograp_pew2.jpg?w=610

OK; I hesitate to ask, but What the Actual Fuck is that shit meant to be?

If you think for even a second that that piece of crap constitutes evidence, then I pity you.

It is so obviously the graph you presented before, with some extra bits added to the bars to make them longer; no new quoted sources, and coming from a site whose URL 'themuslimissue' reeks of bias.

Apparently the answer to my question is 'No, I do not even evidence; I just accept any old crap if it seems to support my preconceptions, and I am so stupid that I expect others to do the same'.

Really. I have no words.

Jesus. Fuck.

Fuck.

You can't argue with someone who doesn't even know that they are being misled by something so blatantly obvious.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it's populistic tripe. It's not like there aren't people who have studied immigration. We have plenty of research. All of it positive. Immigration is always good. Even short term problems are rare and minute. But it's normal to be xenophobic. I think she's just using that to get votes. Cynical and populistic.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to the New World in the 1500s was good for the indigenous people.

ha ha. Well... I'm talking modern immigration. ca 1850 onward. Post industrial immigration.

But well played.

 

[angelo]

No, it means that Islamics took over the government. It was the ayatollah Khomeni who was responsible for the downfall of the secular government of the Shaw of Iran. It's been a theocracy since then.

No. The "Shaw" was not elected.

He represented the end of the secular democracy in Iran. It was destroyed by the US and Britain.

That gave us the Islamic Revolution.

Who was it exactly that brought democracy, or tried at least, to the Middle East after the downfall of the Ottoman empire? Mistakes were made because the allies failed to see the myriads of different tribes all wanting their own little worlds. These were kept in check under the dictators appointed to rule them. It was after the dictators fell, one by one that chaos ensured.