This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is it time Europe bans Islam &amp; muslim immigration?

Scroll to see replies

For ISIS members, the Muslims you mention are not real Muslims, so it's ok to kill them. Like when Christians said that Catholic or Protestants were heretics and slaughtered each other.

ISIS is Muslim. They have a different interpretation of the Koran. As this book was written by several hands over the centuries, it has some contradictions and violent pages. They choose to only read these ones.

Whether someone is muslim or not, its not 'ok' to kill them. Fix up your language you uneducated person. A well known quote from the Quran states 'to have killed a human is as though you have killed the whole of humanity'.

Reply 481

Diffusion

Original post by xxvine

yeah saw this

really hope people are more sensible but going by forums and twitter...i doubt it. The women wearing hijab's are going to be under threat the most compared to the men as it is easier to tell from women than men.

Absolutely, it's quite frightening really. The statistics on Islamaphobic hate crimes released earlier this year were really sad to see. Anyone visibly Muslim are open to violence. Case in point, the Muslim lady in a hijab pushed into a train last week.

Reply 482

Al_YG

ISIS is a politically motivated movement. Ask yourselves ... Sweden and the Netherlands are non-Muslim, why have they not been attacked? Its clearly nothing to do with being Muslim or not - if this was religious a quarter of the humans alive today would have been bombing everyone... Dont attack the poor muslims who we know and are friends with. Isis is evil, not islam.

Reply 483

Al_YG

Even Barack Obama has made a one hour speech praising the success of the muslims

Reply 484

Josb

Original post by xxvine

ISIS are insane to me...dont even know if you can include them in a group. They are that out of touch.

Are they worse than the Puritans during Cromwell's leadership?

Reply 485

master1234567

So you blame all 1.6 billion Muslims. You do know more Muslims are killed than non Muslims by isis. Every day Muslims are killed by isis. So wake up Muslims got nothing to do with isis.

There are millions living in Europe for better life not to attack innocent people.

Reply 486

troubadour.

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

If saying that not all Muslims are terrorists and that it's stupid to think of them that way is pro-Islam, then I am proudly pro-Islam.

Good on you. The post wasn't directed at you, however, so I don't see why you take that as an insult, and why you presume that what I meant by pro-Islam in that context was 'saying that not all Muslims are terrorists and that it's stupid to think of them that way.' I don't want to assume much but the fact that you took the trouble to respond to a post just to make a general point assuming that I was making a general argument that I wasn't when it's clearly aimed at a different person doesn't seem too promising.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 487

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Hydeman

^ 95% vacuous, irrelevant fluff

What, in fact, is your view on the issue?

Reply 488

username1245326

Original post by Hydeman

Are you able to wait until the motives of the perpetrators are identified or is that too much to ask? It may very well turn out to be an Islamic group that's behind the attacks, but until then, let's keep the baseless finger-pointing to a minimum.

It astonishes me how willing people are to simply assume that it's an Islamic attack and then start debating the implications of that assumption as if it's fact.

get.real.

Reply 489

troubadour.

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

^ 95% vacuous, irrelevant fluff

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

If saying that not all Muslims are terrorists and that it's stupid to think of them that way is pro-Islam, then I am proudly pro-Islam.

... to accuse me of 'vacuous irrelevant fluff.'

What, in fact, is your view on the issue?

Ah, there we are -- nice little apologist pretending he asked me this question before and that I replied with an irrelevant answer. I've dealt with enough of your kind in the last 48 hours. The fact that you don't know my view indicates that you haven't read the thread -- I'm not going to spend time making up for your laziness, nor do I have the patience to talk to a condescending bastard like you.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 490

troubadour.

Original post by JNDSAN

get.real.

Get rational.

Reply 491

username1245326

Original post by Hydeman

Get rational.

what planet do you live on? Rational thinking? Okay go ahead and try that then chum lol, who else would it have likely been?

Reply 492

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Hydeman

You're right, I should have called you the Islamic apologist you are and then told you to **** off and stop quoting me just to declare your love of Muslims. It's quite rich for somebody who posts a soppy declaration like this...
... to accuse me of 'vacuous irrelevant fluff.'
Ah, there we are -- nice little apologist pretending he asked me this question before and I replied with an irrelevant answer. I've dealt with enough of your kind in the last 48 hours. The fact that you don't know my view indicates that you haven't read the thread -- I'm not going to spend time making up for your laziness, nor do I have the patience to talk to a condescending bastard like you.

^ 100% impertinent nastiness

I'd prefer not to wade through much more of this. Could you just tell me what you actually believe about the issue?

I can't believe you've got enough patience to type out two paragraphs of ad hominem but not enough to write a single sentence describing what your view is.

Reply 493

troubadour.

Original post by JNDSAN

what planet do you live on? Rational thinking? Okay go ahead and try that then chum lol, who else would it have likely been?

Have you looked a the time stamp on my post? It was posted before IS had claimed responsibility. It is entirely rational to ask for evidence before pointing fingers. The evidence has since materialised, and I don't particularly mind finger-pointing now. It's not my fault that you haven't bothered to read past the first page of the thread.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 494

username1245326

Original post by Hydeman

Have you looked a the time stamp on my post? It was posted before IS had claimed responsibility. It is entirely rational to ask for evidence before pointing fingers. The evidence has since materialised, and I don't particularly mind finger-point now. It's not my fault that you haven't bothered to read past the first page of the thread.

lol, i had in fact seen the time you wrote the first. I'd just love to know, even before it was (obviously) confirmed that ISIS committed the Paris attacks, who it could have otherwise been, given....um.... everything thats gone on in the middle east and europe as of late?! so I say, as i did in the beginning, get real and read the news. im not replying anymore or getting in an argument so reply if you wish, but i wont be reading it.

Reply 495

troubadour.

Original post by JNDSAN

Sure, you won't. :smile:

Kind of like the fact that you're a rational person. Oh wait... :rolleyes:

I did read the news and withheld judgement until a positive statement confirming responsibility had arrived. I don't see why you and a number of other people on this thread seem to think that it's okay to assume without evidence in this one instance. To use 'who else could it have been?' argument is to ask me to prove a negative (that it definitely wasn't IS) and that I can't be asked to do, sorry. The burden of proof is on you if you claim, without evidence, that it was IS before it had been established.

Have a nice time trying to pretend you didn't read this. :smile:

Reply 496

username1245326

Original post by Hydeman

Sure, you won't. :smile:

Kind of like the fact that you're a rational person. Oh wait... :rolleyes:

haha i couldnt resist chum! nope lol, im rational. Theres a difference. You are being very fair - being fair isn't always rational. The difference is distinct. It is rational to believe that, given that french airstrikes have irked ISIS, the refugee crisis and the ISIS leader saying he would use it to mount attacks on Europe in february and the attack in paris this year, that ISIS would be behind the attacks, especially given the typical methods used in this case. Those are the reasons to believe, before knowing for certain, that isis did this. The other thing you have to do when being rational , is think - who else could it have been ? anti capitalists, catholics, etc etc ..... nope, theres no other viable alternative is there? tell me if you can think of one, Id genuinely love to know what you think. So , presuming this was ISIS was indeed in accordance with reason and logic, as is the definition of rational. Disagree with that - i dare you chum!

(sits, dying to know what he/she'll come up with)

Reply 497

number23

That one way trip to Mars is seeming a lot more appealing...

Reply 498

Observatory

Original post by viddy9

It's not about British economic interests winning, it's that there is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of foreign aid on the economies of developing countries - many argue that economic foreign aid has not only failed to help developing countries, but has done damage to them. I suspect that simply pumping lots of money into developing countries will have negative consequences for them, which is why I would oppose it.

The benefits in terms of well-being for immigrants far outweigh the supposed negatives for some British people. The people who support the idea in the thread title, if they were asked which is worse: not being able to migrate to a country and enjoy a considerable improvement in well-being; or not having their wish of "no Muslim immigrants" satisfied, they'd obviously say that not being able to migrate is worse.

The strength of their preference not to have Muslim immigrants is minimal compared to the preference of Muslim immigrants to migrate to Britain and enjoy better living standards.
Firstly and as I said at the start I just don't agree with you on the fundamental basis that we can trade off the values and wellbeing of bystanders against one another. I didn't push it because it's not like either of us is going to persuade the other, but just to put the case for the other side against the obvious-sounding "make everyone as well off as possible":

Imagine that you are walking alongside a lake and you see a drowning man; someone comes up to you and offers to sell you a life buoy for all your worldly goods. All your worldly goods are certainly not as valuable to you as his life is to him. Are you obligated to do it? In my opinion no, and in the opinion of the law also no. In your framework, I think the answer has to be yes.

Now suppose that that man will use all your worldly goods to buy a few hundred assault rifles and stage a coup d'etat to impose his cult-like beliefs about how to conduct every aspect of daily life on thousands of innocent others, while you intended to use them to buy a house and go on holiday to Tuscany.

Secondly, although it's a weaker philosophical counterargument - you clearly believe in totally open borders - I'd remind you that in practice my proposal does no violence whatsoever to your values. I am assuming that immigration levels are fixed by political requirements much below the total demand for immigration. By excluding muslims specifically I am not reducing the total number of people removed from third world poverty. At the same time, I am reducing the damage immigration causes to the UK. So my proposal has equal benefit to the worst off and greater total net benefit to the world. Given my assumption of limited immigration, you ought to agree with me even within your own moral framework.