General / Off-Topic World refugee crisis

If you have been "rootkitted" by a proselytising religion, you might well travel to the land whose laws you reject ... the alienation can come from the rootkitting itself. Good points though.
part of my point is that, although Islam is currently in the media for extremist acts, it is not necessarily a property exclusive to Islam.
:
To put it another way. Whilst it is valid to say "Islam has features that may lead to extremism", it would be wrong to say those features are unique to Islam.
:
Those features are inherent in all religions and exist even in non-religious belief systems such as separatist or independence groups (who view their actions as legitimate means to achieve their higher purpose).
:
Scientologists, whilst not committing mass shootings, are renowned for extremely ruthless behaviour, well outside societal and even legal norms, towards those their leadership deem are legitimate targets.
:
Bombings and shootings targeting clinics and their staff have long been a feature of US right wing Christianity.
:
In the UK, a small group of people believed it was legitimate to threaten, fire bomb and even car bomb people over animal rights.
 
Last edited:
consider the laws of Islam as interpreted by certain preacher legitimate. And here we have the problem.

no, that's a consequence of the problem. the problem is that our own secular western law doesn't seem to apply equally to everyone, or anyhow hasn't stopped some westerners from thoroughly making the middle east into a pyre, which is is exactly the place where you can find people mad enough to be willing to die, and is exactly the reason for that people to be seeking refuge now.

this 'conflict' is just economic and geopolitical. western powers have been feeding the beast for decades now for a reason. i can't help but to think this has been very much intentional. this whole primitive and gruesome isis thing with their fanatic butchers otherwise perfect english gentlemen wearing jilbabs and top notch social media strategies just stinks anyway. we are the butchers, we have killed innocents by the hundreds of thousands. a good way to get past that is creating a really grueling enemy that instills a lot of fear. fear is good for business, and business is going better than ever. what's a few sacrifices, here and there? it's just cannon fodder. talk about the god of money, this has nothing to do with religion. religion is just another weapon. not everybody has a fleet of mechanical drones.
 
The key word there is "reasoned". There is nothing at all that is reasonable about Pat Condells rants.

When "critiques" of an entire culture revolve around things which aren't true then they aren't critiques. Do some looking. Or alternatively just read this. Lying about foreign cultures, religions, and races, and using a few bad examples from those places to sir up hatred is the very definition of bigotry.

Condell, like so many bigoted degenerates, starts with a premise (X is bad and we should all hate it) then searches for evidence to justify that premise. That is not how a "reasoned" mind works. You start without judgement, you look at the situation, and you formulate your opinion based upon what you find.

Just cannot agree. I think he's quite careful where he points his finger of blame, but simply isn't afraid to point it out unlike far too many other people. ie: We're so busy trying to be politically correct and at times bend over to Islam, we forget what's reasoned and fair.

By your reasoning for example, lets consider the simple situation of images (cartoons) being printed of Muhammad. Of course most Muslims don't cause a problem, but some do! So should we ignore the matter? We do have demonstrations, riots and even murder. So why should we have to appease Islam's belief, while they ignore ours? Ignoring this, and suggesting anyone who then says Islam is wrong on this matter (or any other) is simply a bigot, or is a degernate, is not only wrong, it's dangerous!

Why is it dangerous? Because the moment you start suggestion people cannot print, write, and say what they want about a religion (or associated culture), and the moment you don't print, write or say what you want about a religion/culture for fear of being called a bigot, or a degenerate, you're giving away our freedom. And people quite literally bought you that freedom with their lives.
 
Last edited:
part of my point is that, although Islam is currently in the media for extremist acts, it is not necessarily a property exclusive to Islam.
:
To put it another way. Whilst it is valid to say "Islam has features that may lead to extremism", it would be wrong to say those features are unique to Islam.
:
Those features are inherent in all religions and exist even in non-religious belief systems such as separatist or independence groups (who view their actions as legitimate means to achieve their higher purpose).
:
Scientologists, whilst not committing mass shootings, are renowned for extremely ruthless behaviour, well outside societal and even legal norms, towards those their leadership deem are legitimate targets.
:
Bombings and shootings targeting clinics and their staff have long been a feature of US right wing Christianity.
:
In the UK, a small group of people believed it was legitimate to threaten, fire bomb and even car bomb people over animal rights.

That's all very fair and true.

But do animal activists run whole countries/cultures where half the population is basically subjugated? Do Scientologists run entire countries/cultures where freedom of belief and apostasy is rewarded with possible state murder?

Of course this is not a black and white Islamic issue, as it's hugely cultural. But ignoring the two are basically bed fellows doesn't help IMHO.

Consider how Saudi Arabia wants to be head of the Human Rights Council. How is that anything other than a Monty Python sketch? Why are they not being told to get their act togethor first and join many of the rest of the members in the 21st century.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you could do some looking too, not at random internet apologism but at the scripture and history itself.

For example, compare the claim in your link that "Muhammad wanted his armies to fight like freaking hippies" with this.

Some hippies :(

The problem with these sort of comparative criticism is they fail to take into account the time in which they occurred.

This was a time when much of Europe was in what we call the dark ages, when tribes battled each other for these exact purposes, to enslave the defeated.

One of the more common criticisms if Muhammad and his contemporaries is they had intimate relations with very young girls. That is conveniently forgetting that this was also common in Europe, until the 19th century. Edward I of England married a 9 year old girl. Until the middle of the 19th century is was common for wealthy men to take a mistress, that is a pre-pubescent girl, maintain her in lodgings and visit her at will. When she reached puberty she would be sent to a wealthy house to work as a maid for the remainder of her life.

In the last 50 years there have been numerous groups, mainly from the US, claiming to be following some Christian based teachings which have ended up killing many people. The People's Temple for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

Moreover, almost every terrorist group claiming to be following Islam, over the last 50 years has had its roots and finance in Saudi Arabia. That includes the 9/11 hijackers and bin Laden. Saudi Arabia which practices every abomination which is currently being aimed at Isis. Saudi Arabia which practices slavery and Child Marriage.

Nice to see that a load of oil can protect them. Oiling the wheels of justice indeed.
 
Maybe you could do some looking too, not at random internet apologism but at the scripture and history itself.

Quoting scripture to basically call a culture barbaric presents a problem - there is no correlation between scripture and the behaviour of the people that scripture relates to. There are Buddhists like Phra Kittiwuttho who have called for people to be killed merely for being communist. How could he, if Buddha specifically states no killing? Well...

Religious texts and teachings are all alegorical, and have been since at least Augustine.

Citing history is useful. But then you could cite how, for example, most of the Islamic states that Mr Condell calls backward places that are stuck in the dark ages were actually secular democratic states during the 1940s. What was Europe doing at the time? And just why isn't Iran, for example, democratic anymore? Ohhh right.

Have you seen Condells rant on Palestine? "Crybabies" over a "phoney Palestinian cause"? Look:

map2.jpg

That hasn't happened in the middle ages. That didn't happen in 1850 or 1902. That has happened within the lifetime of people alive today, who can remember it and are still living under it. He's complaining about seeing Muslims on English streets even though they are almost all just minding their own business, but doesn't see the actual takeover of another nation and the "resettlement" of it's population as an issue. That's sheer hypocrisy.

And, if all else fails, you could turn to science. One of the criticisms leveled at religious people is that they fail to adapt their thinking when empirical evidence is produced which counters a certain religious position (the age of the earth and evolution of life being an example). When Condell talks about "Islamic misogyny" when Bangladesh, the fourth biggest Muslim nation on the planet with 89.5% of the population being Muslims out of 150 million people, only had female contenders for its last election (Sheikh Hasina, Khaleda Zia, Rowshan Ershad), I only see an idiot who won't let facts get in the way of his opinion - the irony is painful here.

part of my point is that, although Islam is currently in the media for extremist acts, it is not necessarily a property exclusive to Islam.
:
To put it another way. Whilst it is valid to say "Islam has features that may lead to extremism", it would be wrong to say those features are unique to Islam.
:
Those features are inherent in all religions and exist even in non-religious belief systems such as separatist or independence groups (who view their actions as legitimate means to achieve their higher purpose).
:
Scientologists, whilst not committing mass shootings, are renowned for extremely ruthless behaviour, well outside societal and even legal norms, towards those their leadership deem are legitimate targets.
:
Bombings and shootings targeting clinics and their staff have long been a feature of US right wing Christianity.
:
In the UK, a small group of people believed it was legitimate to threaten, fire bomb and even car bomb people over animal rights.

You might find the link I posted above quite interesting. :)

Most terrorist acts in the past few decades haven't been Islamic but have been associated with a group whose members are mostly Hindu and atheist, LTTE. They are actually the inventors of the belt bomb device. However, as their targets have not been white westerners there has been barely any news coverage of them at all. Islamic terrorism on the scale we're seeing now is an incredibly modern phenomena. According to Robert Pape the seeds of it were sown in 1990 after the first gulf war. Saddam Husseins forces were removed from Kuwait, but the United States left behind 50,000 troops in Saudi Arabia as well as supplying the regime with over 22 billions worth of advanced weapons. This has been seen by many in the Arab world (already unhappy with our activities in supplying dictators, fighting proxy wars, supporting Israel, and organizing coup-detats) as an actual occupation. Our responses (more invasions, flying predator drones over their countries and more killing, as well as more backing to the Saudi government) are only making things worse.
 
When Condell talks about "Islamic misogyny" when Bangladesh, the fourth biggest Muslim nation on the planet with 89.5% of the population being Muslims out of 150 million people, only had female contenders for its last election (Sheikh Hasina, Khaleda Zia, Rowshan Ershad), I only see an idiot who won't let facts get in the way of his opinion - the irony is painful here.
...and by doing this, you're of course doing exactly what he suggests the problem is, you're ignore the problems elsewhere :rolleyes:

ie: Not all refugees are "bad", so let them all in! But as he points out, some refugees could be "bad", so don't simply let them in!


You're seemingly either under the impression Condell is saying "all," or you are simply suggesting he is for the purpose of your own agenda?


A perfect example... While you point to a possibly a +ve religious/cultural example, let's see Pat pull no punches - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4E8vypb5xo

Is he wrong? Should we overlook what happens in Iran? Or does the Islamic Republic need to be called a duck when it quacks like one?
 
Last edited:
...and by doing this, you're of course doing exactly what he suggests the problem is, you're ignore the problems elsewhere :rolleyes:

I'm not ignoring any problems. I am suggesting that the problems be dealt with by using reason and logic, not ignorance, stupidity and hate. Invasions, bombing and oppression of Muslims is what is causing the problem. Fostering hatred towards other people is the problem, not Islam.

ie: Not all refugees are "bad", so let them all in! But as he points out, some refugees could be "bad", so don't simply let them in!


You're seemingly either under the impression Condell is saying "all," or you are simply suggesting he is for the purpose of your own agenda?

I am under the impression he says ignorant crap like:-

"The phoney Palestinian cause".

And yes, he does tend to denigrate the entirety of the Islamic world. His hatred is absolutely fine with me - I have no objection to human stupidity. My issue is with his absolute ignorance. He talks in this video about Islam "elbowing its way into Western society". Islam has been in Europe for centuries. To listen to these racists you'd think Muslims had suddenly showed up last week.

Do you know how, when you see that creationist museum in the USA, and you see images of Jesus riding dinosaurs and "evidence" that the world is 6000 years old or whatever it really gets your back up because you see just how wrong it is? Well I see the same when I see someone talking about one fifth of the worlds population, and the civilization that gave us algebra, the guitar, and the scientific method, as if they had just come down from the trees.

Is he wrong? Should we overlook what happens in Iran? Or does the Islamic Republic need to be called a duck when it quacks like one?

Yes, he is wrong. "Religious savages" do not run Iran. "Savages" run Iran.

I am not telling you this again. He is talking complete crap. He is entirely ignorant of the geopolitical makeup of the Islamic world. Iran does have a theocratic government who are pretty nasty, but what Condell is doing is conflating the oppression in Iran with Islam. Then he is pointing the finger at Islamic people coming here as refugees, who are feeling the savagery that is taking place not trying to bring it with them, and telling you to hate them because they are the same.

It is pure propaganda. He is, with an incredible level of irony, indocrinating you, in spite of the evidence to the contrary of his sermons which exist all around you.
 
I'm not ignoring any problems. I am suggesting that the problems be dealt with by using reason and logic, not ignorance, stupidity and hate. Invasions, bombing and oppression of Muslims is what is causing the problem. Fostering hatred towards other people is the problem, not Islam.
Understood...
And I concur with you suggesting invasions and bombings is not typically a good move...

Yes, he is wrong. "Religious savages" do not run Iran. "Savages" run Iran.
And if your supposed "savaged" are quoting the Koran (eg: Hadd crimes) as the justification for their legislation, couldn't they be termed "religious savages?" ;) And indeed when someone is hanged for nothing more than Apostasy, it's hard to not see the cause as "religious"...
 
Last edited:
The French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls asks to the European Union to stop receiving the refugees. In an interview published wednesday by the "Süddeutsche Zeitung", a major German newspaper, sees a rejection of German politics. "The Germany took an honorable decision by opening its doors to refugees, but it is not the France that has said, Come ! ". According to the "Süddeutsche Zeitung", the message of the French Prime Minister is that Europe "immediate stop receiving refugees from the Middle East". "If we do not do, then the people will say: enough of Europe !"
 
The problem with these sort of comparative criticism is they fail to take into account the time in which they occurred.

This was a time when much of Europe was in what we call the dark ages, when tribes battled each other for these exact purposes, to enslave the defeated.

One of the more common criticisms if Muhammad and his contemporaries is they had intimate relations with very young girls.

The current difficulty doesn't come from the evil deeds of history (which are clearly common to many faiths and cultures), it's from contemporary attitudes of followers to their history. The more followers cling to the violent/supremacist aspects of their scriptures (which again are not unique to any faith), the worse things get.

If an important aspect of a violent/supremacist scripture is that it is the final and perfect revelation of the will of God, then the corresponding religion will have great difficulty in adapting to historical change. Arguably, the only option it has is to cause historical change, which is evidently a very powerful attribute for a religion to have! Of course, people aren't stupid and many will decide to be moderates who ignore the violent/supremacist/immutable bits, but the message (being immutable) will still be there to "root kit" future generations. Even the moderates are likely to have copies of the message on their houses.

If the religion additionally takes an extremely harsh view of apostasy, then anyone seriously seeking to reform it is going to have a very hard time, though perhaps not for long.
 
Quoting scripture to basically call a culture barbaric presents a problem - there is no correlation between scripture and the behaviour of the people that scripture relates to. There are Buddhists like Phra Kittiwuttho who have called for people to be killed merely for being communist. How could he, if Buddha specifically states no killing? Well...

He was clearly not following Buddhist scripture, since there is (as the article says) no justification for violence there. It doesn't mean a Buddhist can't be violent, it means a Buddhist can't be violent because he's been "root-kitted" by his religion. Islam is of course not the only scripture with violence in it, but it does appear to have characteristics that bring violence out more than others do.

Religious texts and teachings are all alegorical, and have been since at least Augustine.

That might be your opinion and my opinion, but very large numbers appear not to agree with us. It's what the actual followers do (even if only in a large enough minority) that counts.

Citing history is useful. But then you could cite how, for example, most of the Islamic states that Mr Condell calls backward places that are stuck in the dark ages were actually secular democratic states during the 1940s. What was Europe doing at the time? And just why isn't Iran, for example, democratic anymore? Ohhh right.

If I'd been programmed with an immutable ideology of perfection, I'd be forced to defend the various overthrows of democratic governments that the West has done, and might even have to get violent if you brought the subject up ;)

Have you seen Condells rant on Palestine? "Crybabies" over a "phoney Palestinian cause"? Look:

View attachment 77370

That hasn't happened in the middle ages. That didn't happen in 1850 or 1902. That has happened within the lifetime of people alive today, who can remember it and are still living under it. He's complaining about seeing Muslims on English streets even though they are almost all just minding their own business, but doesn't see the actual takeover of another nation and the "resettlement" of it's population as an issue. That's sheer hypocrisy.

I had a look at a video on Palestine by him, he has a strong view but I don't believe it's bigotry. I think he's factually wrong on Fatah refusing to accept Israel's right to exist (their position changed ... and might change again, who knows?). Recognition of "right to exist" is certainly a valid concern (and policy driver) for Israel.

As I mentioned before, pretending that God gave you some land thousands of years ago is not a morally sound basis for a claim -- I have boycotted Israeli goods in the past -- but we are where we are :(

And, if all else fails, you could turn to science.

it says: Hezbollah suicide bombers in the period 1982–1986 were 71% Communist/Socialist, 21% Islamist, 8% Christian (204–07)

1982-1986 was a different geopolitical age. Also, it would be interesting to see the religious breakdown of the 71% (Islamist <> Islamic).

That said, I'm sure that any population could be pushed into such measures, under a harsh enough occupation -- though the sweetener of a martyr's reward in the afterlife must encourage such behaviour among individuals who are amenable to that kind of thing.

One of the criticisms leveled at religious people is that they fail to adapt their thinking when empirical evidence is produced which counters a certain religious position (the age of the earth and evolution of life being an example). When Condell talks about "Islamic misogyny" when Bangladesh, the fourth biggest Muslim nation on the planet with 89.5% of the population being Muslims out of 150 million people, only had female contenders for its last election (Sheikh Hasina, Khaleda Zia, Rowshan Ershad), I only see an idiot who won't let facts get in the way of his opinion - the irony is painful here.

Firstly, that's a criticism that applies to fundamentalist religious people, those who cannot let go of the fundamental revealed truths they have been taught. Not to religious people in general (imo).

On the political thing: the two propositions (misogyny exists; a woman becomes PM) are not mutually exclusive. I hope that the Bangladeshi PM will be able to tackle the problem of illicit, misogynistic sharia law that still apparently afflicts the country despite its secular constitution and political system.
 
The French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls asks to the European Union to stop receiving the refugees. In an interview published wednesday by the "Süddeutsche Zeitung", a major German newspaper, sees a rejection of German politics. "The Germany took an honorable decision by opening its doors to refugees, but it is not the France that has said, Come ! ". According to the "Süddeutsche Zeitung", the message of the French Prime Minister is that Europe "immediate stop receiving refugees from the Middle East". "If we do not do, then the people will say: enough of Europe !"

That's the danger here. Pushed too hard, voters always shift toward the right/isolationist/nationalist position ... they have nowhere else to go. I originally thought that it would just be the UK being pushed toward the exit, but now I wonder...
 
The French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls asks to the European Union to stop receiving the refugees. In an interview published wednesday by the "Süddeutsche Zeitung", a major German newspaper, sees a rejection of German politics. "The Germany took an honorable decision by opening its doors to refugees, but it is not the France that has said, Come ! ". According to the "Süddeutsche Zeitung", the message of the French Prime Minister is that Europe "immediate stop receiving refugees from the Middle East". "If we do not do, then the people will say: enough of Europe !"

Then he is at best a coward, scared to accept refugees because of right-wing xenophobic elements within his country, or he is inhumane and isn't fit to be a leader of people.

http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/prsr/prsr.html

France, just like every other nation which accepts UN law, has a legal obligation to protect and provide aid to refugees. Just ignoring law when it isn't convenient is not the act of a civilized state.

He was clearly not following Buddhist scripture, since there is (as the article says) no justification for violence there. It doesn't mean a Buddhist can't be violent, it means a Buddhist can't be violent because he's been "root-kitted" by his religion. Islam is of course not the only scripture with violence in it, but it does appear to have characteristics that bring violence out more than others do.

That's my point entirely - this part I bolded just isn't true. The biggest Islamic states are no more violent and dangerous than, for example, the USA or UK. They are violent and dangerous, no doubt. But then so are we.

Furthermore Islamic nations in history have had prolonged periods of peace and advancement that really would put Europe to shame. The Islamic Golden age lasted a few centuries until the Monguls showed up, Europe has never had such an age. Is there anything intrinsically violent or barbaric about the European? Of course not, it was simply our feudal system which was based heavily on competition between vassal barons, kings, etc didn't really lend to peace. The reason Europe had a dark age when Islam was advancing was political. Would it have been reasonable for the Muslims of the day to look at the Christians and blame the Bible?

You can interpret virtually any allegorical scripture in virtually any way. I mean, look at this crap. It's more like music or poetry than a set of instructions, and while do get literalism as I showed earlier religious fundamentalism is a negative predictor of being involved in Jihad.

Another point to consider, if you go back to the data collected by Pape, is that until very recent history (the last decade) Islamic terrorists have not been the most prolific, the Tamil Tigers held that dubious honor. If you go back to the 1930s, 40s, and 50s you'll find atheists were the biggest killers (before I see the common rebuttal of "there is no atheist scripture which says atheists must kill" you'll find dialectical materialism, and the utilitarian reasoning behind it, very much makes the case that without a soul life is just matter in motion and therefore there it is no more immoral to end a life than it is to smash a rock). Go back earlier you'll find Christians are the worst with British, French, and Spanish imperialism, the slave trade, and all the crap from that era.

You could go back all the way to when we were almost monkeys and you'd see the exact same violence that you see chimpanzees dishing out to each other when two groups decide they want a particular set of trees. The ultimate root cause is the same - we can not evolve, and most humans are unwilling to acknowledge that part of themselves. They see their hostility towards others who are different, and who have a different language, culture, place of origin, skin colour etc as righteous.
 
Last edited:
The current difficulty doesn't come from the evil deeds of history (which are clearly common to many faiths and cultures), it's from contemporary attitudes of followers to their history. The more followers cling to the violent/supremacist aspects of their scriptures (which again are not unique to any faith), the worse things get.

If an important aspect of a violent/supremacist scripture is that it is the final and perfect revelation of the will of God, then the corresponding religion will have great difficulty in adapting to historical change. Arguably, the only option it has is to cause historical change, which is evidently a very powerful attribute for a religion to have! Of course, people aren't stupid and many will decide to be moderates who ignore the violent/supremacist/immutable bits, but the message (being immutable) will still be there to "root kit" future generations. Even the moderates are likely to have copies of the message on their houses.

If the religion additionally takes an extremely harsh view of apostasy, then anyone seriously seeking to reform it is going to have a very hard time, though perhaps not for long.

I need some clarification here.

Are we talking about the likes of Blair and Bush, who seem to each believe they were inspired by their god to destroy the ME, or some Americans who believe that America is god's will?

There are 350 million Americans and quite a lot of damage being done to the world.

There are 3.5 billion Muslims and even, like for like, the damage done by them is minuscule.

People have cited their claims about their scriptures to justify many acts over the years, from the Branch Davidians religious sect to al Qa'ida.
 
I need some clarification here.

Are we talking about the likes of Blair and Bush, who seem to each believe they were inspired by their god to destroy the ME, or some Americans who believe that America is god's will?

There are 350 million Americans and quite a lot of damage being done to the world.

There are 3.5 billion Muslims and even, like for like, the damage done by them is minuscule.

People have cited their claims about their scriptures to justify many acts over the years, from the Branch Davidians religious sect to al Qa'ida.
Congratulations! You've just demonstrated why religion should play no part in state decisions/law/personal freedoms :)

Many Islamic cultures are clearly especially guilty on this front!
 
Last edited:
Congratulations! You've just demonstrated why religion should play no part in state decisions/law/personal freedoms :)

Many Islamic cultures are clearly especially guilty on this front!

Thank you. I've achieved something positive at least.

A secular society. Who'd 'a' thunk it? :S
 
That's all very fair and true.

But do animal activists run whole countries/cultures where half the population is basically subjugated? Do Scientologists run entire countries/cultures where freedom of belief and apostasy is rewarded with possible state murder?

Of course this is not a black and white Islamic issue, as it's hugely cultural. But ignoring the two are basically bed fellows doesn't help IMHO.

Consider how Saudi Arabia wants to be head of the Human Rights Council. How is that anything other than a Monty Python sketch? Why are they not being told to get their act togethor first and join many of the rest of the members in the 21st century.

...and on the matter of Saudi Arabia, and state law being "polluted" (controlled) by religious madness - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34982154

Saudi and Iran are right up there on the execution league tables, but it's all OK because clearly it makes sense all those poets guilty of apostasy need to lose there heads to protect the public...

Let's just remind ourselves it's the 21st century, man landed on the moon nearly 50years ago, but people are still being beheaded over not believing in a state endorsed supreme super being for which there is not a shred of evidence.... And let's give these folks a pat on the back and make them head of the Human Rights Council for showing such remarkable, reasoned, common sense :)

[/rant]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom