Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chakede)
    sounds very much ISI propaganda, pakistan was responsible for training most of the al queda and taliban terrorists for decades, including the 7/7 bombers from the uk. the attacks going in pakistan right now are simply the gneeration of islamic terrorists it trained that no longer fund it anymore becuase the USAs threats, and their backlashing against the hand that fed them for so long. that is what happens when you flirt with extremists for you own aims.
    there is islamic terrorism globally - so there must be some doctrine that promotes it amoung islamically indcotrinated people. other faiths are not linked with this sort of thing as much as islamic communities
    I really hope you are not implying that my personal experiences are ISI propaganda! Harsh.

    And as far as I have read, the USA and Saudi have had just as much influence on the birth and upbringing of those terrorist groups. And even if a countries rigged government are responsible for them, why should an innocent public have to pay the price?
    And remember that most religion have gone through a rough patch where they have had extremeists fight under their name. Its just the world becoming smaller and more connected that has caused this to become such a huge thing
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhereIsTheLove??)
    I really hope you are not implying that my personal experiences are ISI propaganda! Harsh.
    certainly am ,considering you have the delusion that terrorist attacks in pakistan are some sort of conspiracy developed from outsiders, instead of ignoring the reality that paksitan has been the biggest islamic terrorism factory for last 30 years. By dealing in that industry for so long, it was ineveitable the wheels were going to come off at some point and they would turn their guns on their handlers

    (Original post by WhereIsTheLove??)
    And as far as I have read, the USA and Saudi have had just as much influence on the birth and upbringing of those terrorist groups. And even if a countries rigged government are responsible for them, why should an innocent public have to pay the price?
    not really , their ideologies come from islamic shiekhs and imams not anyone else, usa maybe ( in the past ) helped with arms to saudi, but its the saudis themselves who choose who to dish them out to. so far they have armed sunni terorrist groups like hamas, taliban and IS to push their own agendas. but lets not kid ourselves to establish where the motivation for all islamist terrroism comes from.

    (Original post by WhereIsTheLove??)
    And remember that most religion have gone through a rough patch where they have had extremeists fight under their name. Its just the world becoming smaller and more connected that has caused this to become such a huge thing
    no other faith has had the conation to terrorism that the islamic community has; people - there is a reason for this, it is not fluke , or media, it is based on whats happend over the last 50 years. and the failure of the islamic world to deal with the issue in its own community - becuase it seems muslims dont want to take ownership of their own issues, that why the west has intervened so much.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhereIsTheLove??)
    Yes but the majority of Christian countries (not all but a majority) are well established and have enough money to educate and keep their population happy.
    Whereas the majority of muslim countries are still unstable, impoverished, in the middle of wars that were actually started by Western foreign policies. A large number of their population is uneducated and constantly in fear of their family's saftey to worry about anything else.
    So it is pretty hard to comare them both with each other at the moment...
    So you are at least admitting Muslim culture tends to be violent and barbaric, but the reason is just poverty?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well said:congrats:
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Oh when was this, on a gap yah?
    :lol:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    I don't believe that or a second.

    I still find it amusing that you think that Germany bringing in millions of these migrants is not going to be a complete and utter disaster.
    Lol I am completely and utterly atheist, how do I prove that to you?

    And it hasn't been a disaster, imagine a world where the refugees were stuck where they landed, it would be far worse.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    You don't seem to understand what integration is.
    What would you define 'integration' as?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    1. It is failed, your definition is just suited to your needs.

    2. So in order for integration to fail, it requires all having had to leave. Then I might as well say all Muslims need to be peaceful, else you can't call it a religion of peace.
    So 'failed' is defined as a small handful are causing problems?

    And Muslims are generally peaceful, it would be quite evident if we lived in a world of 1.6 billion radicalised extremists.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    But most people who criticise Islam for being extreme don't then blame ALL Muslims for terrorist attack and the such, only a dunce would make such a comment. That said, it ha been shown consistently by poll after poll that Muslims tend to hold more conservative and backwards beliefs which often form fertile breeding ground for terrorists and this is something that has to be tackled.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    What would you define 'integration' as?
    For starters it's not just living alongside, but with. Which means your definition of "only failed if all had to leave" fails already.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhereIsTheLove??)
    Oooh where did you go OP?
    I had the same experience going to Pakistan. The general population is so welcoming to foreigners and there is such a sense of community and empathy that you just don't see enough over here.
    I volunteered at a hospital after a terrorist attack funded by India (cuz believe or not not all terrorism is done by 'muslims' and so many of the injured and dying people who were brought in were carried for miles by total strangers to the hospital. These strangers would then stay with the patients and bring them food despite being completely poor with no pennies to spare.
    And yes - pretty much all muslims over there so...

    True there are some controversial phrases in the Quran, but if you look at the history at the time those were released - most of them were during war periods. The majority of the book actually does condemn violence and preach peace, acceptance of everyone regardless of their religion, even rights for women etc.

    If you (and this is directed at generally to anyone reading) are one of those people who pick out violent sounding phrases from the Quran as justifcation for your views,
    then remember that that is what the those murdering extremists do.
    So you are not presenting yourself as very educated person. Which is a shame really.
    I went to Kargil in north India which is 95% Muslim, and also Indonesia a year ago
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    You're saying that Islamophobia of westerners causes terrorism.Cant you see anything wrong with that? If a muslim is offended by islamophobia then the correct response is to get on with your life or complain to the police.The correct response is not to becone radicalised and slaughter everybody.If Islamophobia causes radicalisation then it says a lot about the attitude of some muslims towards western society.
    Nope, I said that it is a contributing factor towards making them more likely to become sympathetic with extremist views. Please don't smear my words.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    For starters it's not just living alongside, but with. Which means your definition of "only failed if all had to leave" fails already.
    Its only failed if something catastrophic happened in response, all of them being forced out by the locals is one possible manifestation of this.

    I'll ask again though, what is 'integration' to you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    But most people who criticise Islam for being extreme don't then blame ALL Muslims for terrorist attack and the such, only a dunce would make such a comment. That said, it ha been shown consistently by poll after poll that Muslims tend to hold more conservative and backwards beliefs which often form fertile breeding ground for terrorists and this is something that has to be tackled.
    What is wrong with holding 'backwards' views? So long as they aren't willing to act on it, there is no problem. In my opinion, many people in this country who voted Brexit, such as those who voted to leave and make us economically worse off for their own xenophobic/anti-immigrant views hold 'backwards views'.

    Find me a poll which says that "x% of Muslims would willingly go out and commit terrorist atrocities" and then I'll be worried.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    So 'failed' is defined as a small handful are causing problems?

    And Muslims are generally peaceful, it would be quite evident if we lived in a world of 1.6 billion radicalised extremists.
    Small handful? Come off it. It is much more than just a small handful. It is every family that discriminates against gays and women, doesn't send their daughters to school. Would be happy under Sharia law, etc.

    And I already told you that majority of Turks in Germany identify as Turks not German. Consider au contraire this to Commonwealth immigrants to the UK, say Indians in later generations. They identify as British. Do any even adhere to the caste system? They adapted and thrived.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Its only failed if something catastrophic happened in response, all of them being forced out by the locals is one possible manifestation of this.

    I'll ask again though, what is 'integration' to you?
    I already told you what it is. And I already told you that your definition is beyond ludicrous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Small handful? Come off it. It is much more than just a small handful. It is every family that discriminates against gays and women, doesn't send their daughters to school. Would be happy under Sharia law, etc.

    And I already told you that majority of Turks in Germany identify as Turks not German. Consider au contraire this to Commonwealth immigrants to the UK, say Indians in later generations. They identify as British. Do any even adhere to the caste system? They adapted and thrived.
    1. It is a small handful, the excessive majority of immigrants throughout history and throughout the refugee crisis have arrived without being sexual predators or terrorists. We have more domestic rape/assault cases than immigrants by far.

    2. Sharia Law means nothing, it has no set list of things which are to be followed. And polls taken also suggest that Muslims who want Sharia Law in western countries agree that it wouldn't apply to non-Muslims. Sharia law =/= throwing gays off roofs or chopping off limbs for stealing. It is interpreted differently across the world. People who criticise Islam throw 'these people want Sharia Law' into the pond without acknowledging how vague it actually is.

    3. I don't see why identifying as ethnicity x is a problem, surely integration problems would be racial clashes or organised violence by or against these immigrants?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    I already told you what it is. And I already told you that your definition is beyond ludicrous.
    well you haven't convinced me, sorry
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I went to Kargil in north India which is 95% Muslim, and also Indonesia a year ago
    interesting you picked an area Kargil in kashmir that was swarmed with islamist militants that kicked off a war between india and pakistan in the 90s. not really a good example to rpove the point you are flailing to make...

    Kargil was fyi originally a buddhist district of india, before it was invaded by islamic army forcibly converting by sword most of its inhabitants.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    1. It is a small handful, the excessive majority of immigrants throughout history and throughout the refugee crisis have arrived without being sexual predators or terrorists. We have more domestic rape/assault cases than immigrants by far.

    2. Sharia Law means nothing, it has no set list of things which are to be followed. And polls taken also suggest that Muslims who want Sharia Law in western countries agree that it wouldn't apply to non-Muslims. Sharia law =/= throwing gays off roofs or chopping off limbs for stealing. It is interpreted differently across the world. People who criticise Islam throw 'these people want Sharia Law' into the pond without acknowledging how vague it actually is.

    3. I don't see why identifying as ethnicity x is a problem, surely integration problems would be racial clashes or organised violence by or against these immigrants?
    Ethnicity? Who was talking about ethnicity...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.