This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

Scroll to see replies

The point is that you aren't Syrian.

One of your parents was, so what? It's like these Americans going I'm Dutch Irish...

Being a nationality is a geographical fact and a set of ideals

Posted from TSR Mobile

What are you even on about. Ofcourse I am,it's my heritage. I follow the culture and speak the language,I don't have to be born there. All my maternal ancestors are from there. That's more than enough

Reply 421

admonit

Original post by pereira325

Do i really have to say it out that not all muslims/followers are terrorists??

Feel free to say something less stupid.

Reply 422

username1148663

Original post by queen-bee

LOL

So by that rational i am Irish because both my maternal grandparents were born in Ireland.
Why not go further and say I'm a Celt, an angle or Saxon.

Complete piss take

I follow some black culture too, I'm black now as well

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 423

Wave of Wisdom

Original post by stewiee

how did we so quickly decipher it was an attack by 'muslims'? ive checked the news on several sites and not a single assertion of the sort.

Let me think... What group of people are known for shouting Allahu Akbar before blowing themselves up after gunning people down? It must have been the Buddhists. Retard.

Original post by pereira325

OP YOU ARE RACIST.I am quite far right wing in my own thinking, but this is clearly an unfeasable idea which has no moral justification.Do i really have to say it out that not all muslims/followers are terrorists??You are despicable.(I am not a muslim myself)

>I am far right wing!!
>I use words like "Racist" without irony!!

Red flag right there. In more ways than one, you damned commie carebear.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 424

queen-bee

Original post by paul514

Then you're Irish.
Syria is my heritage,I can trace my ancestors to that part of the world and everyone on my mother's side is from there so I don't know why you're confused. Quite simple really. I'm British born an of Syrian descent,end of!

Reply 425

xxvine

so all you people with problems with islam...? are you going to keep away from muslims in college? Abuse ladies wearing hijab's in the street? What are you going to do to these muslims?

Reply 426

username1148663

Original post by queen-bee

I'm not Irish though that's the point, God you're dense.

The geographical location of someone's bloodline is irrelevant

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 427

LalaKitten

Original post by queen-bee

You're getting ahead of yourself,nobody said you had an issue with Muslims I'm just pointing out to you that not all migrants coming here are Muslims although the majority are.

I'm merely nipping that inevitable argument in the bud as soon as possible. It's only an inevitability before someone twists my words and completely distorts my intention of meaning.
Their geographical location is also irrelevant, I'd be saying the same even if they were from America or the Ukraine. No one should be able to pass through a border without a paper trail.

Reply 428

Ammat

Nobody knows the whole truth. There are many PLANNED activities around the world that naiive people think are random. We should look at many perspectives and not just the media's, who are CONTROLLING what goes out carefully. The media is owned by certain people with certain agendas who's aim is to brainwash us into believing that all muslims are terrorists... etc so that there may be a massacre of muslims in Europe. Don' t think that just because we are modern in the 21st century that this cant happen, at this rate it definitely will, By the way guys ISIS are imposters, they are NOT muslims for crying out loud (sorry about the rant)

Reply 429

queen-bee

Original post by paul514

I'm not Irish though that's the point, God you're dense.

The geographical location of someone's bloodline is irrelevant

Posted from TSR Mobile

Okay,I don't want to get tension headaches so I'll just stop

Reply 430

xxvine

do you think muslims in the uk will start getting attacked on the street now because of what has happened

Reply 431

StudentInSociety

Original post by UniMastermindBOSS

Just look at the Palestinians. If it wasn't for Iron Dome there would be so many innocent Israelis dead. Hundreds of thousands would be dead if those missiles reached their targets (including Tel Aviv airport) and the Palestinians wouldn't even care, they support it. While Israel )and western countries) do as much as possible to avoid killing civilians.

But the majority of people sticking up for these people have very low IQs so they don't understand these things. They only look at numbers and what the media tells them.

I get your anger but you sound really bigoted right now. That's not the way to go about it. The funny thing is that your view is more of what the media would say than us people with "low IQs". Your sort of standpoint is the sort that would bring a Palestinian-like conflict to our shores, and like the attack in Paris. You're waving a red flag to the bull, further encouraging the marginalisation of the innocent, and literally DRIVING them into the arms of these terrorist groups.

I think we defo need tighter boarder control and more ways of being able to identify migrants from their places of origin. Then (if money and resources were indispensable), I'd call for the mental assessments of people coming in to make sure that they're healthy and not radicalised. Maybe with this we can filter out the people who could be dangerous from actual innocent migrants. There also needs to be a VISIBLE collaboration with UK Muslim leaders, foreign Muslim leaders, and influential PMs and Presidents like Hollande, Cameron and Merkel appealing to Muslims to stop the conflict.

THESE are the sort of resolutions we should be making, not "let's kick them all out and close our boarders because screw you!".

Reply 432

username1148663

Original post by xxvine

do you think muslims in the uk will start getting attacked on the street now because of what has happened

No

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 433

TeaAndTextbooks

No, it's time Europe bans media lies

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 434

viddy9

Original post by Observatory

We do not choose not to ban cars because of the harm it would cause to cars. Immigration of muslims benefits muslims for sure. Does it benefit the British and Britain

Firstly, when we equally consider the interests of all human beings, the benefits of immigration to many immigrants far outweighs any proposed downside (again, I'm not going to comment on whether these downsides actually exist or not) to the native population. Some Muslims are bound to be amongst the beneficiaries of such immigration, meaning that I'm really not concerned about whether it benefits Britain specifically, unless the harms of such immigration, on net, outweigh the vast benefits that immigration brings.

Secondly, it's true that Muslims, on average, underperform when compared with other immigrant groups, but that doesn't mean all of them will. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that we can essentially allow as many people as possible into the country without having to allow in a single Muslim, and that the benefits to the people allowed in will be identical to the benefits that the Muslims would have enjoyed, but with the extra benefit of such immigrants performing better and contributing more to the economy. But, again, we're talking about average figures here: even if I accepted the idea that we should "rate" immigrants, some Muslims will still be likely to contribute a lot to Britain and integrate very well, putting them among the top of the pile (I know some personally), so, again, the idea of banning all Muslim immigration would still be highly flawed. In addition, the government would essentially be saying that Muslims' interests matter less: the idea of a state being seen to support an idea could lead to even more suffering and discrimination.

Reply 435

Observatory

Original post by viddy9

I do not think anyone has the right to make other people worse off in order to perform some act of charity. I realise this is not a mainstream position. On the other hand the mainstream position is that forced charity to other countries should be 0.7% of GDP, which is not that far from zero. Our population is already much more than 0.7% muslim, so I consider any charitable commitment in this regard already fulfilled. My interest in immigration policy is to benefit our own country; I doubt that your formulation would defeat mine at the ballot box, if your side were to phrase its motivation so clearly and honestly in public.

Secondly, it's true that Muslims, on average, underperform when compared with other immigrant groups, but that doesn't mean all of them will. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that we can essentially allow as many people as possible into the country without having to allow in a single Muslim, and that the benefits to the people allowed in will be identical to the benefits that the Muslims would have enjoyed, but with the extra benefit of such immigrants performing better and contributing more to the economy. But, again, we're talking about average figures here: even if I accepted the idea that we should "rate" immigrants, some Muslims will still be likely to contribute a lot to Britain and integrate very well, putting them among the top of the pile (I know some personally), so, again, the idea of banning all Muslim immigration would still be highly flawed. In addition, the government would essentially be saying that Muslims' interests matter less: the idea of a state being seen to support an idea could lead to even more suffering and discrimination.

It's quibbling over price; would I let in Abdus Salam? Probably, even with hindsight knowledge that he used his British education to build atomic bombs for Pakistan. But I don't think that exceptional cases like him, even a much lower bar, would exceed about 10,000/year. That would be essentially negligible and pose little threat to social cohesion.

Reply 436

viddy9

Original post by Observatory

I do not think anyone has the right to make other people worse off in order to perform some act of charity.

I believe that we're obligated to increase net well-being, even if it means that some people have to become worse off. So, yeah, we have a massive philosophical disagreement here.

Original post by Observatory

On the other hand the mainstream position is that forced charity to other countries should be 0.7% of GDP, which is not that far from zero. Our population is already much more than 0.7% muslim, so I consider any charitable commitment in this regard already fulfilled.

Well, it doesn't all go to Muslim countries, and we should be looking to do the most good that we can do as a country. In my view, our foreign aid budget should be much higher, if it makes well-directed contributions to aid in the sector of global health, which has a lot more evidence behind it than economic aid.

Original post by Observatory

My interest in immigration policy is to benefit our own country; I doubt that your formulation would defeat mine at the ballot box, if your side were to phrase its motivation so clearly and honestly in public.

Universal and equal consideration for the interests of all sentient beings almost certainly wouldn't defeat a nation-centric proposition in a national ballot box, no.

Reply 437

Observatory

Original post by viddy9

I believe that we're obligated to increase net well-being, even if it means that some people have to become worse off. So, yeah, we have a massive philosophical disagreement here.

...and we should be looking to do the most good that we can do as a country. In my view, our foreign aid budget should be much higher, if it makes well-directed contributions to aid in the sector of global health, which has a lot more evidence behind it than economic aid.
Yet you probably do not believe that we should have a welfare system that treaty everyone in the world equally, complete with collapse in benefits, healthcare, etc. provision for British citizens down to third world levels. Or maybe you do, in which case I admire your consistency, but I'm afraid such ideas are even more ephemeral.

The other issue you have to consider is how much all of this will damage Britain and thus, even in your own terms, its future capacity for charitable activity. It is great to feed a starving multitude but maybe not the best idea to let them eat all your seed corn.

Well, it doesn't all go to Muslim countries

Good point. We should take even fewer than 0.7% of population, as we already satisfy much of this charitable obligation by permitting immigration of other groups, such as African Christians.

(edited 8 years ago)

Original post by queen-bee

OP, 'TELL YOUR LEADERS TO STOP FUNDING "JIHADISTS" AND TERRORIST FACTIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST THEN. THAT MAY HELP'.

Saw this on Twitter. Couldn't have put it better myself

another conspiracy theory with no credible evidence to back it up. Let me give you a quick history lesson:

ISIS, formally known as the Al-Qaeda of iraq/syria was already around years before ISIS actually turned into a formidable fighting force.

When president assad started going against his civilians, there was a massive outcry from muslims all across the world, for the west to intervene and help the civilians take down the brutal dictator. The west responded, by arming and funding the civilians and defected soildiers, creating the free syrian army. Very generous of them i think.

Now instead of using this funding and weaponry to fight assad, the civilians decide to join the Al-Qaeda of iraq/syria, creating what we know as ISIS now.

essentially here is how it went:
Muslims cry for help - west comes to help by funding and providing weapons - the free Syrian army members either defect to isis, get radicalised or simple sell the weapons of for a profit - isis arises - Muslims suddenly turn around and blame the west for creating isis.

this happened with the Taliban as well:
Russia invade northern Afghanistan - Muslims cry for help - west comes to help, by funding and giving weapons - the fighters led by Osama bin laden fight the war against russia and win - instead of thanking the west, use the training and funding to wage war on the west