Europe submits voluntarily

[Bar-Jesus]

And of course the main cause of our current problems. An attack by a president who said he did it because his Christian god told him to.

It seems to me Christianity has been a much bigger problem in this world than Islam.

You blaming the West here on something that doesn't even exist!

Who gives a rats what happened 2000 yrs ago, the fact is , the people of Europe do not want all these islamic refugees - let them find shelter with their arab bros in ME

 

[untermensche]

And of course the main cause of our current problems. An attack by a president who said he did it because his Christian god told him to.

It seems to me Christianity has been a much bigger problem in this world than Islam.

You blaming the West here on something that doesn't even exist!

Who gives a rats what happened 2000 yrs ago, the fact is , the people of Europe do not want all these islamic refugees - let them find shelter with their arab bros in ME

The invasion that occurred because some Christian president believed his god wanted it only occurred 12 years ago.

And many people in Europe have no problem with these people.

 

[bigfield]

Who gives a rats what happened 2000 yrs ago, the fact is , the people of Europe do not want all these islamic refugees

That is not a fact. Public opinion regarding the influx of Syrian refugees is divided in Europe.

http://www.rcssmideast.org/En/Artic...-on-the-refugee-crisis-in-Europe#.VlazSiClwW0

Germany:

An opinion poll conducted in Germany by pollster Infratest dimap for public broadcaster ARD on 7-9 September, 2015, and published on 11 September, showed that 61 per cent of those polled are not concerned about an influx of refugees, while 38 per cent were frightened. Another poll on 9 September by Emnid for private German news channel N24 showed that 36 per cent of those polled believe the German government is not doing enough to help refugees, while 27 per cent felt Berlin is doing too much.

France:

Unlike German public and government support for Syrian refugees – many of whom chant ‘We love you, Germany’ upon arriving there –, the French are reluctant to take them in. A poll by Elabe polling agency for BFMTV published on 3 September showed that 56 per cent of French citizens do not support the idea of France receiving Syrian refugees, while 44 per cent agreed that France should receive its share of refugees and immigrants. The poll also showed a disparity in positions depending on political beliefs; 68 per cent of left-wingers support the idea of welcoming refugees, while only 38 per cent in the right-wing agree. Meanwhile, 91 per cent of supporters of the extreme right-wing National Front Party strongly objected to receiving Syrian refugees.

UK:

In Britain, a poll by YouGov published in the Independent newspaper in a feature on Syrian refugees in Britain, showed that 42 per cent of Britons do not support the entry of refugees fleeing from war zones in general. Another YouGov poll showed that 47 per cent of Britons do not welcome Syrian refugees in their country, while only 29 per cent only support the idea. Meanwhile, rejection of refugees in general came at 31 per cent of those polled. Thus, it is apparent there is special reservation against Syrian refugees, which the British Relief Agencies viewed as fanaticism by Britons related to the image of Islam in Britain.

let them find shelter with their arab bros in ME

Arab nations are host to far more refugees than Europe. Jordan, Pakistan, Lebanon and Turkey all have staggering numbers of refugees in their territory, well beyond their ability to shelter. Europe's contribution is piddling in comparison.

 

[repoman]

Has there been any relief to the drought conditions in Syria yet?

 

[DrZoidberg]

And of course the main cause of our current problems. An attack by a president who said he did it because his Christian god told him to.

It seems to me Christianity has been a much bigger problem in this world than Islam.

You blaming the West here on something that doesn't even exist!

Who gives a rats what happened 2000 yrs ago, the fact is , the people of Europe do not want all these islamic refugees - let them find shelter with their arab bros in ME

I for one welcome our new Islamic overlords.

1. They're not Islamic refugees. They're just refugees.

"Muslim 87% (official; includes Sunni 74% and Alawi, Ismaili, and Shia 13%), Christian (includes Orthodox, Uniate, and Nestorian) 10% (includes Orthodox, Uniate, and Nestorian), Druze 3%, Jewish (few remaining in Damascus and Aleppo)"

2. They're just refugees. It sucks being a refugee and I want to help.

3. I welcome the refugees with open arms. I'd do it even if it would be a huge cost to Sweden. Some things just are more important than money.

4. Historically almost all immigration is only a net benefit to the recipient country. This is true for all migration. So I don't think we'll lose any money on it. I have argued for it in this thread.

5. I like the mixing of cultures. Yes, I'm a fan of multi-culturalism. I see it only as a positive. I have also argued for this in this thread.

6. I think you're wrong that a majority don't want the refugees. Europe is democratic. Politicians everywhere pander. Here's the facts. Europe has a minority that don't want the refugees. They're very vocal and loud. But they're not the majority. Europe is very split on this. Since the majority, who want refugees are very extreme on one end. It's just love and open arms. The others are all fear and hysteria.

 

[angelo]

Do xtian laws specify that women wear tents with just a slit for their eyes as well?

Well.. having burkhas is actually a Christian tradition that Muslims started with after the fall of Constantinople. Because Constantinipolites/Byzantinians were well educated they got prominent positions in the Ottoman administration. So having a wife in a burkha became associated with having influence and power (in spite of their carriers being Christian). So it caught on (among the affluent). When they converted to Islam they kept their Christian tradition of having burkhas. The practice spread further, and even out into the provinces. No, it's not in the Bible either. It came to Christianity from Paganism. It was a Roman pagan tradition among upper class women, who were too fancy for the eyes of mere lowly commoners. That's where the tradition comes from. When they converted to Christianity they kept this tradition, as it signalled that they were upper-class, affluent, fancy and all that.

It wasn't all that wide-spread in Islamic countries prior to 1830. It was mostly a Muslim upper- and middle-class thing. It wasn't until the Muslim brotherhood got going in Egypt that full "Islamic" covering became an Islamic thing. It became about pride. It was essentially a competition of who's women was the most honourable, and the more skin that was covered the more honour. This was a wholly novel and new concept. But they modelled their dress on the Ottoman tradition, which I explained above was inherited from Christianity.

This is actually a pretty common theme with both Christianity and Islam. When a region converts they mostly just convert superficially. Almost all the rituals and traditions are kept from whatever they had before. There's hilarious descriptions of Mansa Musa the Malinese king who went on a Hajj to Mecka. He had apparently "misunderstood" Islam fundamentally which caused much consternation. He was the world's richest man at that point so they were in no hurry to set him straight or turn him away. He went home to Mali none the wiser. But all his lavish gifts of gold completely crashed the market for gold radically devaluing it. Lol.

Not to be confused with Islamic desert-dwelling nomads who are covered from head to toe in black robes for purely practical reasons. Also a tradition that goes way to before recorded history. Nor to be confused with the Zoroastrian tradition (today's Iran) who also had this practice for... reasons I've forgotten. But when they converted to Islam they kept the tradition of having Burkhas as well. This explains all the different varieties of Muslim coverings and head-scarves. One note though. The religious demand for women to cover their heads is pretty universal for any religion. Historically, extremely common. Was the norm in the west up until just a hundred years ago.

So basically... if there's an Islamic tradition somewhere to do something it probably was a tradition there to do it, way before Islam came to the village.

Was stoning gays and adulterers to death also a xtian custom?

 

[angelo]

So you're blaming Jesus? Wtf, no, it's the liberals fault for being to soft and scared of being called racist

That was the cause of Christian slavery, the Christian Crusades, Christian imperialism and colonialism?

And of course the main cause of our current problems. An attack by a president who said he did it because his Christian god told him to.

It seems to me Christianity has been a much bigger problem in this world than Islam.

American idea that all the world's people would prefer to live in a democracy is more to blame than xtianity for W Bush and Co invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. So much so, that soldiers who took part in the invasion were told that the people of Iraq would welcome them as liberators, and shower them with flowers showing their appreciation. Colin Powel isn't a fundie, and he was all for the invasion, as were congress and the senate.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Well.. having burkhas is actually a Christian tradition that Muslims started with after the fall of Constantinople. Because Constantinipolites/Byzantinians were well educated they got prominent positions in the Ottoman administration. So having a wife in a burkha became associated with having influence and power (in spite of their carriers being Christian). So it caught on (among the affluent). When they converted to Islam they kept their Christian tradition of having burkhas. The practice spread further, and even out into the provinces. No, it's not in the Bible either. It came to Christianity from Paganism. It was a Roman pagan tradition among upper class women, who were too fancy for the eyes of mere lowly commoners. That's where the tradition comes from. When they converted to Christianity they kept this tradition, as it signalled that they were upper-class, affluent, fancy and all that.

It wasn't all that wide-spread in Islamic countries prior to 1830. It was mostly a Muslim upper- and middle-class thing. It wasn't until the Muslim brotherhood got going in Egypt that full "Islamic" covering became an Islamic thing. It became about pride. It was essentially a competition of who's women was the most honourable, and the more skin that was covered the more honour. This was a wholly novel and new concept. But they modelled their dress on the Ottoman tradition, which I explained above was inherited from Christianity.

This is actually a pretty common theme with both Christianity and Islam. When a region converts they mostly just convert superficially. Almost all the rituals and traditions are kept from whatever they had before. There's hilarious descriptions of Mansa Musa the Malinese king who went on a Hajj to Mecka. He had apparently "misunderstood" Islam fundamentally which caused much consternation. He was the world's richest man at that point so they were in no hurry to set him straight or turn him away. He went home to Mali none the wiser. But all his lavish gifts of gold completely crashed the market for gold radically devaluing it. Lol.

Not to be confused with Islamic desert-dwelling nomads who are covered from head to toe in black robes for purely practical reasons. Also a tradition that goes way to before recorded history. Nor to be confused with the Zoroastrian tradition (today's Iran) who also had this practice for... reasons I've forgotten. But when they converted to Islam they kept the tradition of having Burkhas as well. This explains all the different varieties of Muslim coverings and head-scarves. One note though. The religious demand for women to cover their heads is pretty universal for any religion. Historically, extremely common. Was the norm in the west up until just a hundred years ago.

So basically... if there's an Islamic tradition somewhere to do something it probably was a tradition there to do it, way before Islam came to the village.

Was stoning gays and adulterers to death also a xtian custom?

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

The Jewish religion has moved on since biblical times. There is no stoning for adultery nowadays. Further,a Husband cannot divorce his wife against her will, and the penalty in the Jewish courts for Bigamy is two mother in laws.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well.. having burkhas is actually a Christian tradition that Muslims started with after the fall of Constantinople. Because Constantinipolites/Byzantinians were well educated they got prominent positions in the Ottoman administration. So having a wife in a burkha became associated with having influence and power (in spite of their carriers being Christian). So it caught on (among the affluent). When they converted to Islam they kept their Christian tradition of having burkhas. The practice spread further, and even out into the provinces. No, it's not in the Bible either. It came to Christianity from Paganism. It was a Roman pagan tradition among upper class women, who were too fancy for the eyes of mere lowly commoners. That's where the tradition comes from. When they converted to Christianity they kept this tradition, as it signalled that they were upper-class, affluent, fancy and all that.

It wasn't all that wide-spread in Islamic countries prior to 1830. It was mostly a Muslim upper- and middle-class thing. It wasn't until the Muslim brotherhood got going in Egypt that full "Islamic" covering became an Islamic thing. It became about pride. It was essentially a competition of who's women was the most honourable, and the more skin that was covered the more honour. This was a wholly novel and new concept. But they modelled their dress on the Ottoman tradition, which I explained above was inherited from Christianity.

This is actually a pretty common theme with both Christianity and Islam. When a region converts they mostly just convert superficially. Almost all the rituals and traditions are kept from whatever they had before. There's hilarious descriptions of Mansa Musa the Malinese king who went on a Hajj to Mecka. He had apparently "misunderstood" Islam fundamentally which caused much consternation. He was the world's richest man at that point so they were in no hurry to set him straight or turn him away. He went home to Mali none the wiser. But all his lavish gifts of gold completely crashed the market for gold radically devaluing it. Lol.

Not to be confused with Islamic desert-dwelling nomads who are covered from head to toe in black robes for purely practical reasons. Also a tradition that goes way to before recorded history. Nor to be confused with the Zoroastrian tradition (today's Iran) who also had this practice for... reasons I've forgotten. But when they converted to Islam they kept the tradition of having Burkhas as well. This explains all the different varieties of Muslim coverings and head-scarves. One note though. The religious demand for women to cover their heads is pretty universal for any religion. Historically, extremely common. Was the norm in the west up until just a hundred years ago.

So basically... if there's an Islamic tradition somewhere to do something it probably was a tradition there to do it, way before Islam came to the village.

Was stoning gays and adulterers to death also a xtian custom?

Yes. This is actually in the Bible.

The only reason Christians have historically/traditionally used other modes of execution is simply because of the Colosseum, Circus Maximus and such. The Romans had made executions a form of public entertainment and nobody likes their entertainment removed. So when the Roman empire Christianized they just conveniently ignored the bits about stoning and kept having lions and/or gladiator ripping people to shreds on a stage. And all the infrastructure was in place already. There's was little incentive to change the system.

But some parts of the Christian world did in fact stone people. It was used as a form of execution well into modern times. For an assortment of crimes.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

The invasion that occurred because some Christian president believed his god wanted it only occurred 12 years ago.

And many people in Europe have no problem with these people.

'some' people is what you mean, ie: the more vocal and younger lib-left, who are basically living in idealism

But as for Bush invading Iraq, so what? doesn't give the right for a bunch of illegal freeloaders to descend on Europe

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Arab nations are host to far more refugees than Europe. Jordan, Pakistan, Lebanon and Turkey all have staggering numbers of refugees in their territory, well beyond their ability to shelter. Europe's contribution is piddling in comparison.

All your polls are from September, back in the day when the refugee issue was still new - now people are tired of it, esp after Paris, and I see that the Brit poll was fairly negative against taking in these illegals

Piddling? NO, it's because we do not want them! Zero would be about right

 

[Bar-Jesus]

4. Historically almost all immigration is only a net benefit to the recipient country. This is true for all migration. So I don't think we'll lose any money on it. I have argued for it in this thread.

You mean like the ones who slipped into France, yeah right, real fucking benefit they were - think you'll find at least 130 people would disagree with you there!

 

[Juma]

4. Historically almost all immigration is only a net benefit to the recipient country. This is true for all migration. So I don't think we'll lose any money on it. I have argued for it in this thread.

You mean like the ones who slipped into France, yeah right, real fucking benefit they were - think you'll find at least 130 people would disagree with you there!

Bullshit. Most of them where french and egyptian citicens.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Most but not all - some slipped in with the refugees, sent by Isis to do this - easy for them to carry on with this infiltration, and the lib-left doesn't seem to care

 

[dystopian]

Most but not all - some slipped in with the refugees, sent by Isis to do this - easy for them to carry on with this infiltration, and the lib-left doesn't seem to care

Do you have any evidence whatsofuckingever for this claim? Because *all* of the suspects were in fact European Union nationals.

 

[untermensche]

The invasion that occurred because some Christian president believed his god wanted it only occurred 12 years ago.

And many people in Europe have no problem with these people.

'some' people is what you mean, ie: the more vocal and younger lib-left, who are basically living in idealism

But as for Bush invading Iraq, so what? doesn't give the right for a bunch of illegal freeloaders to descend on Europe

Why does an image of a yammering terrier come to mind when I read your posts?

The invasion of Iraq, so what?

To say that reduces you to the level of a child, not worthy of argument.

Why do many dogs bark?

Because they are afraid.

 

[Jokodo]

Most but not all - some slipped in with the refugees, sent by Isis to do this - easy for them to carry on with this infiltration, and the lib-left doesn't seem to care

Do you have any evidence whatsofuckingever for this claim? Because *all* of the suspects were in fact European Union nationals.

To be fair, all of those that have been identified. There's a residual chance that some of the as yet unidentified suspects were non-EU nationals.

But even so its clear that the attack was not contingent upon the contribution of non-EU nationals. Indeed, if ISIS indeed sent some of the attackers to slip in with the refugees, chances are their real motivation was not to contribute to the attack but to push Europeans to become more hostile to refugees. The "infidel" being welcoming to Muslim immigrants is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to them. They need their narrative about how Islam (as a whole) and the West are inherently, perpetually, at war with each other as much as our domestic Nazis do.

I may have posted this before, dunno if in this thread or a different one: Washington Post: The Islamic State wants you to hate refugees.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Most but not all - some slipped in with the refugees, sent by Isis to do this - easy for them to carry on with this infiltration, and the lib-left doesn't seem to care

One person of the Paris attackers allegedly did. But then when the press dug a little it was bollocks. Just ISIS propaganda. Same about that guy who came to Sweden. That guy was just 100% innocent. But ISIS had managed to get him on a terrorist-list.

Basically ISIS is trying to spread the idea that ISIS warriors are being dispatched around Europe through the immigration so Europe will stop it. It's not in ISIS interest that people leave Syria. This is one method by which they hope to stop it.

Bottom line, you've just bought into ISIS propaganda. How does it feel to be an Islamic stooge?

 

[Jayjay]

You mean like the ones who slipped into France, yeah right, real fucking benefit they were - think you'll find at least 130 people would disagree with you there!

Bullshit. Most of them where french and egyptian citicens.

I thought the Egyptian passport was found to belong to one of the victims?

 

[TSwizzle]

Bottom line, you've just bought into ISIS propaganda. How does it feel to be an Islamic stooge?

The only "islamic stooge" on here is you.