Europe submits voluntarily

[Jokodo]

I'm failing to parse the meaning of your would-be contribution.

But let's try.

40% of British Muslims (even if true - as of now, this remains an unsourced claim) means 1.2% of the populace of Britain.

I'm pretty sure there is a similar number of people in Britain who think it's it would have been better if Britain had lost WWII, because Hitler was right. There might even be a larger number of active Maoists in Britain.

So, even if your numbers are correct (and you've presented no reason to believe they are - talking about facts), that's not really a reason for concern.

British Hitler supporters are not well organized and self-perpetuating bunch of people like muslims<snip>

First, we are talking about Islamists, not Muslims as such. Islamists aren't necessarily self-perpetuating in any sense Nazis aren't. And neither Islamists nor Muslims are well-organised. So, fail.

 

[barbos]

British Hitler supporters are not well organized and self-perpetuating bunch of people like muslims<snip>

First, we are talking about Islamists, not Muslims as such. Islamists aren't necessarily self-perpetuating in any sense Nazis aren't. And neither Islamists nor Muslims are well-organised. So, fail.

Islamists ARE muslims. You can't have islamists without muslims. Islamists don't go and recruit among christians or atheists, they recruit among muslims, and muslims is a remarkably good source for terrorists. So, fail is all yours.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Interesting times indeed. After 1,200 years or so of battling islamic aggression, christendom has surrendered in the most unimaginable way. Well played to mullahs, they have played a blinder.

I'm in Europe and I have another analysis. The Syrians now leaving Syria are the ones who think ISIS are cunts. These are the Syrians we want in Europe.

Syria has always had a happy mixture of religions and ethnicities. So the assumption that they're all conservative Muslims is dumb-ass. Under Assad Syria was liberal.

It's not submitting. It's skimming the cream.

 

[Jokodo]

First, we are talking about Islamists, not Muslims as such. Islamists aren't necessarily self-perpetuating in any sense Nazis aren't. And neither Islamists nor Muslims are well-organised. So, fail.

Islamists ARE muslims. You can't have islamists without muslims. Islamists don't go and recruit among christians or atheists, they recruit among muslims, and muslims is a remarkably good source for terrorists. So, fail is all yours.

Wrong. Islamists do go and recruit among Christians or atheists. As many as 1/4 ISIS fighters out of France are converts, often people who converted more or less directly to join ISIS and who had no intermediate stage as mainstream Muslims.http://www.ibtimes.com/islamic-stat...nverts-joining-isis-militant-fighters-1912252

The badass image of ISIS seems to be strangely attractive to a certain type of person, not only Muslims, even if you and I don't understand that attraction - and neither do the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Islamists ARE muslims. You can't have islamists without muslims. Islamists don't go and recruit among christians or atheists, they recruit among muslims, and muslims is a remarkably good source for terrorists. So, fail is all yours.

Wrong. Islamists do go and recruit among Christians or atheists. As many as 1/4 ISIS fighters out of France are converts, often people who converted more or less directly to join ISIS and who had no intermediate stage as mainstream Muslims.http://www.ibtimes.com/islamic-stat...nverts-joining-isis-militant-fighters-1912252

The badass image of ISIS seems to be strangely attractive to a certain type of person, not only Muslims, even if you and I don't understand that attraction - and neither do the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

It's the same in any war generation. Almost always young men in any culture can't get enlisted fast enough. Seemingly no matter the cause. Yes, it's a mystery.

 

[barbos]

Islamists ARE muslims. You can't have islamists without muslims. Islamists don't go and recruit among christians or atheists, they recruit among muslims, and muslims is a remarkably good source for terrorists. So, fail is all yours.

Wrong. Islamists do go and recruit among Christians or atheists. As many as 1/4 ISIS fighters out of France are converts, often people who converted more or less directly to join ISIS and who had no intermediate stage as mainstream Muslims.http://www.ibtimes.com/islamic-stat...nverts-joining-isis-militant-fighters-1912252

The badass image of ISIS seems to be strangely attractive to a certain type of person, not only Muslims, even if you and I don't understand that attraction - and neither do the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

Wrong, most European ISIS members are ethnic muslims, not ethnic European converts.
And in these rare cases where "whites" were recruited you still need large ethnic muslim support in place, I mean if there were no muslims to begin with then you would have had hard time converting any significant numbers whites if any.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Where not talking just about refugees and asylum but the hoards of others who come in
See
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06077/SN06077.pdf
If you look at the known migrants that alone adds up to around 641,000 and excludes unknowns coming in on trucks That the size of a city. You can reduce this by approximately one half for those leaving the UK but is still a huge figure which is the size of one or two towns every year.
Adding up the figures over a period of years runs into millions.

First, these are two separate issues. One can not conflate refugees with regular immigrants.

Secondly, the numbers you post STILL do not justify this type of language nor this type of dramaqueen antics you keep pushing. These numbers do not represent "hoards". Or even hordes. Or floods, or swarms, or whatever other hyperbole you want to use.

Third, according to the document you linked, 14% of immigrants are actually already British nationals (ie; they were British people living abroad and returning home)

Fourth, 38% (excluding that 14% from the UK) are from EU countries; given that the whole 'we don't want islam here!' argument is inextricably linked to this whole debate, that's an important fact to consider. Though I'm sure the self-awareless xenophobes will find just as much reason to complain about Poles and other Eastern Europeans; but even they would have to accept the argument that European immigrants are much easier to integrate: it's their own argument, pretty much, after all.

Fifth, looking at the reasons for immigration, we see work as the primary motivation to migrate. Immigrants make the move either because they get a job that requires them to move, or because they're hoping to get one in the UK. Contrary to what many want to believe, these immigrants are NOT a threat to the jobs of anyone else (studies have found no correlation between immigration and the unemployment rate), are NOT a threat to UK wages (studies have found no correlation between wage levels and immigration), and are in fact LESS likely to be unemployed than native britons. - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nt-or-reduced-wages-study-finds-10075047.html

Sixth, the second most popular reason (almost as popular as work) for immigration, is formal study. In other words, university/college students are counted as immigrants. Surely you can't think of these as a bad influence on your country.

Seventh, a large and significant percentage of those immigrants are only temporary residents, as in the case of those seeking formal education, or whose jobs are only temporary assignments; whereas you're just blindly adding everything up and expecting them to stay forever.

Eight, even if we were talking about millions, (and this has been explained to you before) that is well within the UK's capacity to deal with (especially given that net migrations have historically fluctuated between positive and negative, and will certainly keep doing so).

Ninth, harkening back to point five; immigrants are a *net positive* to the UK economy. They tend to be employed, they pay taxes, and are less likely than native britons to call upon services that cost you money. These people are *not* a drain on your resources, they *add* to them.

The report you quoted and as I mentioned before stated that the net cost of migration was £95 billion pounds. This data which the Independent and others missed was stuck in the back of the report.

 

[barbos]

Interesting times indeed. After 1,200 years or so of battling islamic aggression, christendom has surrendered in the most unimaginable way. Well played to mullahs, they have played a blinder.

I'm in Europe and I have another analysis. The Syrians now leaving Syria are the ones who think ISIS are cunts. These are the Syrians we want in Europe.

I think you are setting your immigration requirements too low.

Syria has always had a happy mixture of religions and ethnicities. So the assumption that they're all conservative Muslims is dumb-ass. Under Assad Syria was liberal.

US administration disagree with you.

It's not submitting. It's skimming the cream.

Again, your bar is way too low.

 

[dystopian]

The report you quoted and as I mentioned before stated that the net cost of migration was £95 billion pounds.

No, it doesn't; why are you just making shit up? Neither the report I linked, nor the report you linked, makes any such claim. You really need to stop making claims about this topic altogether, because everytime you do you end up being horribly wrong.

The report you linked doesn't even talk about the financial side at all. And the study in the article I linked (found here: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea019.pdf ); does not claim there's a net cost of migration and certainly doesn't claim it's 95 billion pounds (an absurd figure to begin with).

While I expect you will just ignore this again or try to wriggle your way out of it, reason and propriety demands that you acknowledge your mistakes and adjust your views accordingly.

 

[untermensche]

But these people SAY they became radicalized by watching US and British violence against Muslims, by seeing things like Abu Ghraib.

And of course this violence was massive and real and incredibly immoral.

Why should we dismiss their claims?

No, they become radicalized by watching what the Imams present as what the west did, not what they actually did.

That isn't what they are saying.

They say they have become radicalized after seeing things like Abu Graib.

It isn't hard to understand how some Muslims will become radicalized after seeing fellow Muslims attacked for no reason, killed and tortured indiscriminately for over 10 years without stop.

 

[barbos]

No, they become radicalized by watching what the Imams present as what the west did, not what they actually did.

That isn't what they are saying.

I am sure they have perfectly rational reasoning for being piece of shit they are.
Does not mean we should accept it

 

[untermensche]

That isn't what they are saying.

I am sure they have perfectly rational reasoning for being piece of shit they are.
Does not mean we should give a fuck though.

Yes I know.

It isn't as if Muslims have been attacked killed and tortured non-stop for over 10 years by so-called Christian nations.

 

[barbos]

I am sure they have perfectly rational reasoning for being piece of shit they are.
Does not mean we should give a fuck though.

Yes I know.

It isn't as if Muslims have been attacked killed and tortured non-stop for over 10 years by so-called Christian nations.

Well, so-called Christian nations are responsible for tiny minority of torture and killings. I think ISIS has surpassed christian by few orders of magnitude already.

 

[untermensche]

Yes I know.

It isn't as if Muslims have been attacked killed and tortured non-stop for over 10 years by so-called Christian nations.

Well, so-called Christian nations are responsible for tiny minority of torture and killings. I think ISIS has surpassed christian by few orders of magnitude already.

More torture than Abu Graib and Guantanamo?

I doubt it, and those are just 2 of hundreds of torture sites employed by the so-called Christian nations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, they become radicalized by watching what the Imams present as what the west did, not what they actually did.

That isn't what they are saying.

They say they have become radicalized after seeing things like Abu Graib.

It isn't hard to understand how some Muslims will become radicalized after seeing fellow Muslims attacked for no reason, killed and tortured indiscriminately for over 10 years without stop.

You're not rebutting me.

What you are missing is that the events that radicalized them may not have existed in the first place and may not have happened as originally described.

Consider the flap over the cartoons--the Islamists tried it once and got nowhere. They tried it again using their own versions of the cartoons, not the real ones. The outrage over the cartoons was really an outrage over cartoons drawn by the Islamists, not by what was in that newspaper.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Interesting times indeed. After 1,200 years or so of battling islamic aggression, christendom has surrendered in the most unimaginable way. Well played to mullahs, they have played a blinder.

I'm in Europe and I have another analysis. The Syrians now leaving Syria are the ones who think ISIS are cunts. These are the Syrians we want in Europe.

Syria has always had a happy mixture of religions and ethnicities. So the assumption that they're all conservative Muslims is dumb-ass. Under Assad Syria was liberal.

It's not submitting. It's skimming the cream.

For an Arab country he's Liberal. Despite his human right violations he is a lot better than those the West effectively let in

 

[untermensche]

That isn't what they are saying.

They say they have become radicalized after seeing things like Abu Graib.

It isn't hard to understand how some Muslims will become radicalized after seeing fellow Muslims attacked for no reason, killed and tortured indiscriminately for over 10 years without stop.

You're not rebutting me.

What you are missing is that the events that radicalized them may not have existed in the first place and may not have happened as originally described.

Consider the flap over the cartoons--the Islamists tried it once and got nowhere. They tried it again using their own versions of the cartoons, not the real ones. The outrage over the cartoons was really an outrage over cartoons drawn by the Islamists, not by what was in that newspaper.

When you have things like Abu Graib you don't really need anything else to see some become radicalized.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When you have things like Abu Graib you don't really need anything else to see some become radicalized.

But that doesn't mean that the protests over cartoons are somehow less funny.

 

[crispy]

Interesting times indeed. After 1,200 years or so of battling islamic aggression, christendom has surrendered in the most unimaginable way. Well played to mullahs, they have played a blinder.

I'm in Europe and I have another analysis. The Syrians now leaving Syria are the ones who think ISIS are cunts. These are the Syrians we want in Europe.

Syria has always had a happy mixture of religions and ethnicities. So the assumption that they're all conservative Muslims is dumb-ass. Under Assad Syria was liberal.

It's not submitting. It's skimming the cream.

My thoughts exactly, but this is actually the reason I think we should be doing what we can to help them resettle, or stay close to home, because this is probably the backbone of Syria we are recieving here, who is gonna help rebuild the country when the time comes? In one way Im happy its these Syrians we get, but on the other, I think is really bad that they arent fighting for their country :>

 

[untermensche]

When you have things like Abu Graib you don't really need anything else to see some become radicalized.

But that doesn't mean that the protests over cartoons are somehow less funny.

When you attack and kill and torture people you pacify most and radicalize some.

It does no good to cry that some people have been radicalized when it is entirely expected.

And in people not directly attacked you find people who become radicalized as well.

Again only a fool is surprised by any of it.