Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Migration Megathread

1…4142444647…75

Comments

  • #1292
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Ultros wrote: »
    78% say Islam tries to impose it's way of life on others. Argue that.

    40% of Americans think that God created the Earth 10,000 years ago. Hey, there must be some truth to it if lots of people believe it, right?


  • #1293
    Ultros
    Closed Accounts Posts: 188 ✭✭Ultros


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    40% of Americans think that God created the Earth 10,000 years ago. Hey, there must be some truth to it if lots of people believe it, right?

    Using your logic - 95% of people believe the earth is round, doesn't mean it's true right?

    Your attempt at dismissing those poll numbers by invoking God into the equation is laughable. Honestly, I expected much better.


  • #1294
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Ultros wrote: »
    100% of people die, doesn't mean it's true right?
    I have no idea what that means.
    Your attempt at dismissing those poll numbers is laughable.
    You wanted a serious attempt to dismiss an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy?

    OK: it's a logical fallacy.

    How's that?


  • #1295
    Ultros
    Closed Accounts Posts: 188 ✭✭Ultros


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I have no idea what that means. You wanted a serious attempt to dismiss an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy?

    OK: it's a logical fallacy.

    How's that?

    I've edited another example for you although I wish I haden't indulged because you're not stupid enough to believe you point holds any credence, it's trolling.

    The "logic" you're using renders any poll or any opinion given by anyone in the history the world meaningless. 5 out of 6 people tell you there's a fire in your apartment, doesn't matter - 40% of believe in god.

    Your logic is idiotic and you used such idiotic logic because you cannot argue with the facts, I get it. It's similar broken logic that you use to argue the culture of someone coming from the North of Ireland to the south is no different than the culture you'd get coming from Pakistan.

    Here's another poll from Belgium.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-muslim-background-flemish-see-islam-western-values-as-incompatible/

    "Only 18 percent of native Flemish Belgians consider Muslim values to be compatible with their way of life, according a survey on integration released Tuesday."


  • #1296
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Ultros wrote: »
    "Only 18 percent of native Flemish Belgians consider Muslim values to be compatible with their way of life, according a survey on integration released Tuesday."

    He has stated many, many times, that he is not interested in popular opinion. He is not an 'of the people by the people for the people' sort of guy.

    He is saying that just because many/most people believe something is true doesn't mean it is such. He is blithely ignoring the fact, in this instance, that the very belief in this instance makes it true.

    The proposition: there is cultural disharmony between two peoples. The evidence: most people of one side of this equation believe there is disharmony.

    The only way to counter this evidence is to show that the evidence itself is unrepresentative, or otherwise flawed.

    To say that I'm not confident of seeing that quality of posting, is an understatement.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You wanted a serious attempt to dismiss an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy?

    OK: it's a logical fallacy.

    How's that?

    Yeah


  • Advertisement
  • #1297
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    He has stated many, many times, that he is not interested in popular opinion. He is not an 'of the people by the people for the people' sort of guy.
    Mmm, sort of. It's cute that you're trying to portray me as anti-democratic, but someone who pays quite as much attention to my posts as you seem to (I'm not sure whether to be flattered or freaked out, but that's another story) really ought to have noticed that I'm not a fan of the sort of mindless one-dimensional thinking that insists that whatever a majority of people happen to believe at a given moment in time is axiomatically the right thing to do. Case in point: Brexit. Leaving the EU is, notionally, the right thing to do because a referendum just barely said so. It's bugf*ck stupid and has already caused irreparable harm despite not having even happened yet, but shut up because democracy.

    I'm very interested in what people have to say, when what they have to say has been carefully teased out in the process of a rational conversation. As such, I'm not particularly interested in people's knee-jerk response to being asked a simplistic question on a topic they've almost certainly given no detailed thought to.
    He is saying that just because many/most people believe something is true doesn't mean it is such. He is blithely ignoring the fact, in this instance, that the very belief in this instance makes it true.
    Well, no.

    Let's look at what I was replying to: an opinion poll that, per the linked article, has a number of key findings:

    65% of French people believe there are too many foreigners in France. Does this become an objective fact on the basis of people's belief in it? Why do they believe it? What do they want done about it? When they say "foreigners", do they mean Germans and Spaniards, or could it be (whisper it, now) more to do with people who "look" foreign?

    60% say "I no longer feel at home like I did before". This forms the solid foundation for an immigration policy... how?

    61% say that immigrants don't make an effort to integrate. What, none of them?

    78% believe that Islam seeks to impose its way of life on others. Unlike, for argument's sake, the Christian Right in the USA which is successfully denying women's reproductive rights across the board?
    The proposition: there is cultural disharmony between two peoples. The evidence: most people of one side of this equation believe there is disharmony.
    But that's not the proposition, is it? The proposition is that there are too many foreigners; that they don't want to integrate; that they want to impose Sharia law; that it doesn't feel like the 1950s around here anymore, and that's somehow bad.

    These things are either true or they are not. The question of whether or not people feel they are true is a separate one.

    That aside, it's far too convenient to decide a policy based on what one side chooses to believe. For generations, white people chose to believe that black people were better off as slaves. How did black people feel about this? Who cares? We're only asking the whites.


  • #1298
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Ultros wrote: »
    The proof is in the polls. Looking at France specifically, how can anyone deny with a straight face that there isn't a culture clash there?

    78% say Islam tries to impose it's way of life on others. Argue that.

    https://www.thelocal.fr/20170704/sixty-five-percent-of-french-say-there-are-too-many-foreigners-in-france

    "Most French people say there are too many foreigners in France, immigrants do not make an effort to assimilate and Islam is incompatible with the French values...

    ...When it came to the other ever divisive issue of the role of Islam, 60 percent of the people questioned for the survey titled "French Fractures 2017", believe the religion of Islam is incompatible with the values of the French Republic...

    In a separate question some 78 percent of French people are of the view that Islam "seeks to impose its way of life on others".

    Regarding radical Islam, 46% of the French polled said that "even if it is not its main message, Islam still contains within it the seeds of violence and intolerance".

    I can't name one religious or political ideology that isn't trying to impose it's way of life on everybody all the time. And indeed any of these minority views would be felt to be incompatible with the majority. I don't see the 'proof' of anything here.
    Migration is always a hot button issue specifically when people are unhappy economically. Where were the Muslims when the English were complaining about the Irish immigrants or the West Indies, Jamaican immigrants, 'rivers of blood' and such. Do you not see this is more of the same ol' same ol'?


  • #1299
    Ultros
    Closed Accounts Posts: 188 ✭✭Ultros


    Rubbish all round, you'd be laughed off the stage in a political debate using such logic. It's not even an argument.

    The polls are there for all to see, you can choose to ignore them but that just makes you ignorant.


  • #1300
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    but someone who pays quite as much attention to my posts as you seem to (I'm not sure whether to be flattered or freaked out, but that's another story)

    Be freaked out if you like. If you say something on a thread I happen to be reading, I may read your post, and look at the point(s) that you have attempted to make. I may rebut them. This aside could be construed as a defense of the way you slide away from discussions when they become difficult.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    [you] really ought to have noticed that I'm not a fan of the sort of mindless one-dimensional thinking that insists that whatever a majority of people happen to believe at a given moment in time is axiomatically the right thing to do.

    Or ever.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not a great fan of democracy

    Wait is it freakish to quote you? I mean it makes things more difficult for you, sure. It took me 30 seconds to find that quote, for all I know there could be a better example.

    Anyway I think that was a slip for you to say that. Usually you'd say that you were only against direct-democracy, but it's difficult to never be candid.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm very interested in what people have to say, when what they have to say has been carefully teased out in the process of a rational conversation. As such, I'm not particularly interested in people's knee-jerk response to being asked a simplistic question on a topic they've almost certainly given no detailed thought to.

    Teasing it out only in the most legalistic of meanings. You try and trip people up in order to provide a basis for ad-hominem attack.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    65% of French people believe there are too many foreigners in France. Does this become an objective fact on the basis of people's belief in it?

    Yes. If 65% of people feel something, it is a fact that 65% of people feel something. If the question is whether people feel something, then that's all that matters really. If the question is something else, then that's another matter.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why do they believe it? What do they want done about it? When they say "foreigners", do they mean Germans and Spaniards, or could it be (whisper it, now) more to do with people who "look" foreign?

    That would have been the correct way to counter the original argument, albeit without the archness.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Unlike, for argument's sake, the Christian Right in the USA which is successfully denying women's reproductive rights across the board?

    That's not for argument's sake. That's a false dichotomy.

    The proposition was that immigration results in a culture clash in Europe, and you wheel out Evangelical Americans. Unless Evangelical Americans are coming into Europe, and challenging more progressive European laws can be established, then this is a red herring.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But that's not the proposition, is it? The proposition is that there are too many foreigners; that they don't want to integrate; that they want to impose Sharia law; that it doesn't feel like the 1950s around here anymore, and that's somehow bad.

    I don't see where Ultros said that. If you are doing a character assessment, and believe this to be Ultros' or another poster's conviction (but not actually stated by those posters) I'm afraid it still isn't relevant to the conversation. If you are referring to a particular post, you could quote it.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That aside, it's far too convenient to decide a policy based on what one side chooses to believe. For generations, white people chose to believe that black people were better off as slaves. How did black people feel about this? Who cares? We're only asking the whites.

    That is not really relevant to this conversation. For what it's worth, the majority of America for most of its history would have been anti-slavery, but that would be a case of mindless one-dimensional thinking that insists that whatever a majority of people happen to believe at a given moment in time is axiomatically the right thing to do. Alternatively one could argue that the Bible made slavery morally wrong, but that would be giving a platform to the Christian Right in the USA. A far sounder strategy, it could be argued, was to vest the decision in the legislators, who, given the checks and balances established in the United States to ensure that there would be no dictatorship of the majority, were able to decide the matter. Until 1858 these checks and balances ensured the legitimate place of slavery in the united states.

    Now if you are talking about slavery in relation to Islam, which would be a more appropriate subject given the thread title, there is I suppose something to discuss, but like the American Civil War, is quite a bit back in history. As such you'd still have to do some work to establish the relevance to the matter at hand.


  • #1301
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Wait is it freakish to quote you?
    It's certainly deeply disingenuous to selectively quote me out of context.


  • Advertisement
  • #1302
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Ultros wrote: »
    Rubbish all round, you'd be laughed off the stage in a political debate using such logic. It's not even an argument.

    The polls are there for all to see, you can choose to ignore them but that just makes you ignorant.

    You responding to someone else?
    I'm not ignoring any polls.
    The majority aren't open to a minority view. Hardly a new Muslim specific issue.


  • #1303
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's certainly deeply disingenuous to selectively quote me out of context.

    The context that you are opposed to referenda.

    You need to improve, but the first step is to recognize that you need to do so.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not a big fan of democracy, but in the absence of a better system, at least representative democracy limits the damage that can be done by an uninformed and apathetic electorate.

    You are clearly opposed to democracy. Own it. Don't slide away in an undignified manner. If someone thinks less of an argument you make because they believe you to undemocratic, that's on their heads.

    I think the way you approach arguments to be unsound, but that doesn't mean that the positions themselves are wholly morally bankrupt, but the evasiveness, the arch one liners, the name calling, the slipperiness, it all serves to obfuscate. If you have a position, put it out in the open.

    You don't like democracy because you don't trust the public's opinion. You believe it is too easily influenced, it is not skilled enough to make important decisions, its judgement is not often sound. It is okay to say that. I think that's wrong, but noone is ever going to get to second base in the discussion if you simply run away from it.

    Anyway, you were saying something about slavery?


  • #1304
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    You are clearly opposed to democracy.
    No, I'm not. I'm opposed to mob rule, and I'm opposed to the mindless use of "democratic" as a unit of measure, especially when it's a one-dimensional metric.

    Sure, you can quote times when I've criticised democracy. If you think that means you can dismiss me as "undemocratic", you're guilty not only of one-dimensional thinking, but of the much worse fallacy of binary one-dimensional thinking.
    You don't like democracy because you don't trust the public's opinion. You believe it is too easily influenced, it is not skilled enough to make important decisions, its judgement is not often sound.
    Democracy - particularly the form of democracy I fear the most, the referendum - gave us the eighth amendment and Brexit. If you don't consider those reasons to at least be suspicious of direct democracy - if your argument is that the people can't ever be wrong, even when they're obviously wrong - there isn't much scope for common ground.
    Anyway, you were saying something about slavery?
    ...the arch one liners...
    Indeed.


  • #1305
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    All that poll shows is that integration is tricky and has it's problems.

    I wouldn't disagree with anyone that says traditional Muslim values are incompatible with French life. but then traditional Catholic values are incompatible with irish life - that's why we more or less ditched them.

    For me, all that shows is that the country in the Eu with the highest proportion of Muslims has found integration a problem.

    People want to believe it's black and white. Like you're either saying that a quarter of the world's population shouldn't be allowed into a continent or we want massive unrestricted migration with no real effort at integration.

    It's obviously neither of those.


  • #1306
    Walter Bishop
    Registered Users Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Walter Bishop


    Ultros wrote: »
    Using your logic - 95% of people believe the earth is round, doesn't mean it's true right?


    It actually does, because there is proof the Earth is round.


  • #1307
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,913 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I can't name one religious or political ideology that isn't trying to impose it's way of life on everybody all the time.

    You need to look harder.

    Zoroastrianism
    Quakers
    Amish
    Even Judaism traditionally does not seek to convert, unlike Islam and Christianity.


  • #1308
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    markodaly wrote: »
    You need to look harder.

    Zoroastrianism
    Quakers
    Amish
    Even Judaism traditionally does not seek to convert, unlike Islam and Christianity.

    You're talking conversion, I'm not.


  • #1309
    Irish Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    Midlife wrote: »
    All that poll shows is that integration is tricky and has it's problems.

    I wouldn't disagree with anyone that says traditional Muslim values are incompatible with French life. but then traditional Catholic values are incompatible with irish life - that's why we more or less ditched them.

    For me, all that shows is that the country in the Eu with the highest proportion of Muslims has found integration a problem.

    People want to believe it's black and white. Like you're either saying that a quarter of the world's population shouldn't be allowed into a continent or we want massive unrestricted migration with no real effort at integration.

    It's obviously neither of those.

    Now there are a selection of well made and reasonable points that I would struggle to disagree with. If I could go so far as to offer a few amendments though (this Brexit stuff really is starting to leak into other discussions) they might go as follows.

    The clash of cultures you mention is I think what most people have in mind as a big worry, which encompasses everything from fear of terrorist attacks to more mundane cultural clashes on things like gay rights (the Birmingham School LGBT dispute is an ongoing example of this). It's fair to say that Irish people have largely foregone more conservative views, but it might be a bit presumptive to presume everyone else in the world is waiting to jettison those same views.

    The 'black and white' issue is also I think another area of contention, and I think this is what the migrant crisis brought to the fore; its well and good to say that there ought to be a process of assessment and limitation, but if that process cannot be properly articulated, cannot be perceived as reasonable and can be flagrantly ignored apparently by masses of individuals, I think that is the point where a lot of anger starts to build up internally. Funnily enough I think it is a similar process to the one going on in the states atm with the wall.


  • #1310
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Rescued migrants hijack merchant ship 6miles from the coast of Libya.

    The 108 people picked up in good faith by Elhiblu 1, reportedly hijacked it, when they learned they were being returned back to nearby Libya.
    Now on their way to Maltese waters instead within the next couple of hours.

    SNIP. No more quips please.


  • #1311
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,913 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You're talking conversion, I'm not.

    Can you tell me how a Quaker, Amish, a Jew or Zoroastrianism impacted on your way of life, or indeed anyones way of life?


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    Schnitzler Hiyori Geta
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Schnitzler Hiyori Geta


    markodaly wrote: »
    Can you tell me how a Quaker, Amish, a Jew or Zoroastrianism impacted on your way of life, or indeed anyones way of life?
    I also can't tell you how Islam has impacted on my life. Christianity on the other hand...


  • #1313
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    markodaly wrote: »
    Can you tell me how a Quaker, Amish, a Jew or Zoroastrianism impacted on your way of life, or indeed anyones way of life?

    Quaker Oats are a reasonable breakfast. I enjoyed Harrison Ford's 'Witness'. 'Fiddler on the Roof' is a delight.

    You're talking impact, I'm not.
    Religions and political ideologies would prefer we all sang from the same hymn sheet. That's all. Anything you can say about one ideology you can pretty much say about another. I don't have Muslims, Quakers, Jews etc. trying to convert me or badger me to stay Kosher, no.


  • #1314
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,078 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »
    I also can't tell you how Islam has impacted on my life. Christianity on the other hand...

    Ever go through an airport the last couple of decades ?

    All the extra security checks, the banning of bringing liquids on board, the pulling out of your electronic devices for examination, etc, etc are all down to people with a certain extreme view of islam.

    Go to Croke Park or the Aviva and find you can't bring in the backpark that you once could.
    Hell during the worst days of the Troubles in Northern Ireland I don't think that was ever happening.

    Go visit certain major European cities and you will find armed soldiers on the streets.


  • #1315
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    jmayo wrote: »
    Ever go through an airport the last couple of decades ?

    All the extra security checks, the banning of bringing liquids on board, the pulling out of your electronic devices for examination, etc, etc are all down to people with a certain extreme view of islam.

    Go to Croke Park or the Aviva and find you can't bring in the backpark that you once could.
    Hell during the worst days of the Troubles in Northern Ireland I don't think that was ever happening.

    Go visit certain major European cities and you will find armed soldiers on the streets.

    So you're saying this is because of terrorism. It is indeed. I remember getting grilled many a time going to England because of people with a certain extreme view. Army with rifles and dogs at me in Stanstead when it opened. The great Muslim menace wasn't even a glint in anyones eye.

    The inconvenience caused by terrorism, am I right?


  • #1316
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,078 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    So you're saying this is because of terrorism. It is indeed. I remember getting grilled many a time going to England because of people with a certain extreme view. Army with rifles and dogs at me in Stanstead when it opened. The great Muslim menace wasn't even a glint in anyones eye.

    The inconvenience caused by terrorism, am I right?

    Cheer picking as usual and the old whataboutery thrown in.

    Were you grilled and have dogs at you when you flew to France, Italy, US, Spain, etc, etc ?

    Islamist terrorism has led to the degradation of everyone's freedoms unlike any form of terrorism before it.
    I guess it might have something to do with the world wide suicide attacks and the complete disregard for innocents, especially including children.

    It is marvellous how islamist terrorism has never anything to do with islam or muslims in some people's eyes. :rolleyes:


  • #1317
    Irish Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Quaker Oats are a reasonable breakfast. I enjoyed Harrison Ford's 'Witness'. 'Fiddler on the Roof' is a delight.

    You're talking impact, I'm not.
    Religions and political ideologies would prefer we all sang from the same hymn sheet. That's all. Anything you can say about one ideology you can pretty much say about another. I don't have Muslims, Quakers, Jews etc. trying to convert me or badger me to stay Kosher, no.


    I'm offering thanks just on the merits of a Fiddler on the Roof reference alone :D


  • #1318
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,395 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    jmayo wrote: »
    Cheer picking as usual and the old whataboutery thrown in.

    Were you grilled and have dogs at you when you flew to France, Italy, US, Spain, etc, etc ?

    Yes, JFK airport 1995 i was pulled aside and had sniffer dogs check me out, I have also had my bags swabbed many times flying into many European countries. Are you saying they do this because of the Muslims?
    Islamist terrorism has led to the degradation of everyone's freedoms unlike any form of terrorism before it.
    I guess it might have something to do with the world wide suicide attacks and the complete disregard for innocents, especially including children.

    It is marvellous how islamist terrorism has never anything to do with islam or muslims in some people's eyes. :rolleyes:

    Are you trying to say that before islamic terrorist struck there were no innocent people (children included) killed innterrorist attacks? Because the good people of Birmingham and Warrington may disagree with you there!


  • #1319
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    jmayo wrote: »
    Cheer picking as usual and the old whataboutery thrown in.

    Were you grilled and have dogs at you when you flew to France, Italy, US, Spain, etc, etc ?

    Islamist terrorism has led to the degradation of everyone's freedoms unlike any form of terrorism before it.
    I guess it might have something to do with the world wide suicide attacks and the complete disregard for innocents, especially including children.

    It is marvellous how islamist terrorism has never anything to do with islam or muslims in some people's eyes. :rolleyes:

    Showing the obvious that the acts of terrorism caused by a few do no translate to the majority.

    No. That's the point. Terrorism of any kind breeds heightened security. That's not on all Muslims or Roman Catholics, do you get it?

    Islamic terrorists are responsible for all you say above. I completely agree.
    Islamic terrorism has as much to do with Islam as Christianity does with the IRA or one of those American kids who like to shoot children in schools or black people in Church.


  • #1320
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,138 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Showing the obvious that the acts of terrorism caused by a few do no translate to the majority.

    No. That's the point. Terrorism of any kind breeds heightened security. That's not on all Muslims or Roman Catholics, do you get it?

    Islamic terrorists are responsible for all you say above. I completely agree.
    Islamic terrorism has as much to do with Islam as Christianity does with the IRA or one of those American kids who like to shoot children in schools or black people in Church.

    In some cases the bold part may be true but in a lot of cases it isn't. Have you ever spent much time in a majority muslim country? Some people are more religious than others as in any nation but generally religion is a much larger part of daily life and the culture than it would be in any Christian / white / western etc nation. Because of this it can be an effective brain washing tool for certain groups that target disenfrachised young men who feel worthless. Piety can be seen as a way to bring pride to them and their family which is important in their culture.

    I have also never heard of the IRA shouting lines from scripture before they murder people. Neither have I seen them happy to sacrifice themselves due to a steadfast belief in divine reward.

    If Islam or religion didn't exist would they find some other cause to murder in the name of? Maybe they would but that's going to be hard to prove. The evidence we have seen suggests Islam (albeit a very extreme and twisted version) is a part of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    MadYaker wrote: »
    In some cases the bold part may be true but in a lot of cases it isn't. Have you ever spent much time in a majority muslim country? Some people are more religious than others as in any nation but generally religion is a much larger part of daily life and the culture than it would be in any Christian / white / western etc nation. Because of this it can be an effective brain washing tool for certain groups that target disenfrachised young men who feel worthless. Piety can be seen as a way to bring pride to them and their family which is important in their culture.

    I have also never heard of the IRA shouting lines from scripture before they murder people. Neither have I seen them happy to sacrifice themselves due to a steadfast belief in divine reward.

    If Islam or religion didn't exist would they find some other cause to murder in the name of? Maybe they would but that's going to be hard to prove. The evidence we have seen suggests Islam (albeit a very extreme and twisted version) is a part of it.

    Did you ever hear Muslims complain about black people taking their jobs as they shot up a church, or complaining about not being able to pick up women as they ran over pedestrians on the side of a road? You're not making much of a point really other than possibly explaining why religion might play a role over economics or racial hatred in the mindset of someone from a Muslim background. Ultimately, 'not all Muslims' should be' the vast majority of'...don't partake in terrorist activities. Stating all Muslim terrorists are Muslim, is factual.


Advertisement