What we know about Islam in Europe

[4est_4est_Gump]

I looked at the links.

They are still bullshit.

I know.

Ain't it the truth?

I get the very same reaction from Frodo in his thread...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Quote of the day:

According to a recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center, a significant percentage of Muslims responded favorably when asked if “suicide bombings can be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies[.]” Unquestionably, there are varying cultural/geographic perspectives on the matter; yet research indicates that a significant percentage of Muslims within the Palestinian territories (46%), Lebanon (29%), and Egypt (24%) share a considerably favorable view of this crime. Moreover, international intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, estimate the percentage of radicalized Muslims throughout the international community to be anywhere from 15% to 25%. This is a staggering number, considering that approximately 1.6 billion people identify themselves as Muslim.

For an open and honest dialogue to occur within the West, specifically within Europe, one must come to terms with the geopolitical atmosphere of today. Secularization is a remnant of the French Revolution and has come to define modern European culture. A considerable number of Europeans have shunned the Judeo-Christian values of their past in favor of a hyper-liberalized, secular mindset. The problem that has emerged in recent decades is that their current worldview does not coincide with the influx of Muslim immigrants from across the Middle East and North Africa that are making their way into Europe. Their very existence is defined by religion and a hyper-conservative worldview. In essence, Europeans without a clear identity are attempting to absorb immigrants with a distinct identity. Within such a fragmented social framework, conflict is inevitable.

Owen McCormack
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/one_sided_multiculturalism.html#ixzz3PjomMOup

 

[PoppingTom]

The links are in the article I linked to.

I cannot help, or take part in, intellectual laziness.

The links I mentioned weren't in the article.

No link to the map of the Steinke Institut.

And the link to "the chief of German police" is indeed a link to the breitbartian frontpage mag.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes they are when you go to the actual article. They're highlighted in blue.


Stop bothering me. You don't believe any of it anyway.


Ogg found them with no problem.

 

[PoppingTom]

Yes they are when you go to the actual article. They're highlighted in blue.


Stop bothering me. You don't believe any of it anyway.


Ogg found them with no problem.

AJ is on a lying spree.

The links I mentioned aren't in the article. Period. Everybody can prove it.

Ogg just found every link in the article bullshit.



Feel free to repeat your lie, assuming somebody will believe it. That's the mainstream media tactic you're accusing so many times.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm sorry.

I misunderstood you.

You seem to be focused only on the facts you want to be true, so you provide your own links and don't look at anything else. You're right, very main-stream media on your part too.

 

[PoppingTom]

I'm sorry.

I misunderstood you.

You seem to be focused only on the facts you want to be true, so you provide your own links and don't look at anything else.

Still spreading lies?

I provided no links at all. I don't even said yours are not true. I asked: where is the backup to these points ?

Facts can be backed up. Your "facts" cant. If you can't provide any more backup, it's no facts you're talking about. THIS IS TRUE, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR BELIEF IS. I don't have any problem to NOT take you seriously if you want that, it's much easier and funnier the other way around. If this is your game, we can play it.

But if you want to be taken just a little bit seriously at all, act like a serious person and not like the drunken garbage collecting conspiracy theories telling white trash 50 feet from your door.

And this means: back your stuff up. Believable.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I get it.

There is no problem with your Muslim communities.

They have integrated nicely and pose you no problems. I get it. I am wrong.

Of course, for you to be safe, I have to be wrong about everything, every time, every day.

That day when I am right might be an unlucky one for some random German gay who gets killed by some rabid Christian right-winger screaming allahu akbar in order to incite violence against the religion of Peace.

So I will continue to be happily wrong as long as you are personally violence free.

Until that day when I am unhappily right.

 

[oggbashan]

Yes they are when you go to the actual article. They're highlighted in blue.


Stop bothering me. You don't believe any of it anyway.


Ogg found them with no problem.

The French one still refers to the 750 'sensitive' zones which are about economic disadvantage, not No-Go areas. I have posted several times about those zones. In the UK we have similarly designated regeneration zones. The wording is different, the resources dedicated are different, but the principles identifying them are the same. They are zones that need economic help - compare with the economic problems of New Orleans and Detroit in the US, but none of the UK or French zones were/are ever as in as bad a state as those.

The Swedish one refers to 55 zones which have significant criminal gang activity that poses a threat to policing BUT the police still act in them. It appears to be a (part-redacted) report basically setting out the case for more Police resources to be financed. The report is about criminal gangs, not Muslim No-Go areas.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Are any of those criminal gangs Muslim?

Are most of those drug gangs Muslim?

Are ALL of them Muslim?

Are not the poppy yields going up in Afghanistan and then to these gangs? Is it not, along with oil, one of the main sources of income for the Jihaddi, I mean, I'm sorry, there are no Jihaddi, these criminal gangs who go out into the streets and celebrate every instance of random workplace violence the faux Muslims perpetrate on their secular hosts?

 

[oggbashan]

I get it.

There is no problem with your Muslim communities.

They have integrated nicely and pose you no problems. I get it. I am wrong.

Of course, for you to be safe, I have to be wrong about everything, every time, every day.

That day when I am right might be an unlucky one for some random German gay who gets killed by some rabid Christian right-winger screaming allahu akbar in order to incite violence against the religion of Peace.

So I will continue to be happily wrong as long as you are personally violence free.

Until that day when I am unhappily right.

Of course there are problems with SOME Muslims in Europe. But the 'evidence' for No-Go areas is rubbish. Almost all major groups of immigrants have taken time to integrate and there has been friction between them and other citizens, who may well have been from a previous immigrant group.

In the late 1940s and 1950s there was trouble in London for Irish and West-Indians. It took a decade or so for them to be accepted. The Indians expelled from Uganda also faced hostility.

Demonising ALL European Muslims makes integration less likely. If the majority feel that they are unwelcome and that everyone is against them, they are likely to identify the authorities and the media as 'the enemy'.

France has a particular problem with North African Muslims who were part of its 'Empire' before the Civil War in Algeria. Those Algerians who fled to Metropolitan France were mainly supporters of the French - yet were treated very badly by the French authorities.

In the UK, the problems mainly relate to those from Pakistan, who have come in large numbers using existing family members in the UK as a 'hook' to gain visas for the extended family. While many have integrated, some of the more recent massive influx have brought rural customs and traditions that are illegal even in Pakistan such as 'honour' killings and forced marriages. Gradually such customs are being eroded by action from the authorities and resistance from younger members of their own community who want to live 'normal' UK lives.

But there are still some Muslim people who consider the West as enemies of Islam and the Allies interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria as aggression against Islam. Those individuals either preach or disseminate jihadism, or seek to become jihadis themselves. They exist. They hate 'us' - the western democracies, yet they enjoy and exploit the benefits of the democracies' freedoms including free speech, the internet and unrestricted travel.

Disaffected and sometimes minor criminal young men find jihadism attractive because it gives them status that they would never get from being unemployable uneducated delinquents. They don't understand that their minor crimes would be harshly treated under a strict Sharia-run state. Some even believe that the virgins are awaiting them in paradise.

Integrating immigrants takes time. Persuading them, particularly the older generation, that they should stop appealing to traditions and customs that are illegal here, takes time and effort.

But calling for ALL of them to be killed just reinforces their fear of 'us'.

 

[zipman]

The French one still refers to the 750 'sensitive' zones which are about economic disadvantage, not No-Go areas. I have posted several times about those zones. In the UK we have similarly designated regeneration zones. The wording is different, the resources dedicated are different, but the principles identifying them are the same. They are zones that need economic help - compare with the economic problems of New Orleans and Detroit in the US, but none of the UK or French zones were/are ever as in as bad a state as those.

The Swedish one refers to 55 zones which have significant criminal gang activity that poses a threat to policing BUT the police still act in them. It appears to be a (part-redacted) report basically setting out the case for more Police resources to be financed. The report is about criminal gangs, not Muslim No-Go areas.

So in other words, THERE ARE NO SHARIA LAW ZONES IN EUROPE.

 

[oggbashan]

Are any of those criminal gangs Muslim?

Are most of those drug gangs Muslim?

Are ALL of them Muslim?

Are not the poppy yields going up in Afghanistan and then to these gangs? Is it not, along with oil, one of the main sources of income for the Jihaddi, I mean, I'm sorry, there are no Jihaddi, these criminal gangs who go out into the streets and celebrate every instance of random workplace violence the faux Muslims perpetrate on their secular hosts?

My understanding of Swedish isn't extensive, but the report is about criminals, NOT Muslims. Of course some of them might be Muslim.

As for the poppy fields of Afghanistan? I think the Allies' biggest mistake was that they didn't offer to BUY all the opium for medical use and encourage its growth as the only real cash crop possible. There is a worldwide shortage of opiate products for medicine. Afghanistan could have met that demand, and whatever the allies or the Afghan government paid would have been higher than the Taliban or the smugglers.

Most drug dealers in Europe are NOT Muslims. Most of the Muslim community regard drug abuse as a sin, as is using alcohol and tobacco. Muslim drug-dealers are pariahs in their own community.

 

[oggbashan]

So in other words, THERE ARE NO SHARIA LAW ZONES IN EUROPE.

Yes. I keep repeating that. There are idiots who try to set up their own as a publicity stunt for the media, but in the UK one such group was arrested and convicted of intimidation. They really wanted to extort money from local businesses for 'protection' - just like other criminal gangs.

 

[unregistered]

 

[oggbashan]

Check this out. It was posted by BusyBody in the politics thread, they are called Lawless Zones:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/01/22/ezra-levant-proves-there-are-no-go-zones-in-europe/

Seen it already. It was and is bullshit.

 

[PoppingTom]

Are any of those criminal gangs Muslim?

Are most of those drug gangs Muslim?

Are ALL of them Muslim?

Are not the poppy yields going up in Afghanistan and then to these gangs? Is it not, along with oil, one of the main sources of income for the Jihaddi, I mean, I'm sorry, there are no Jihaddi, these criminal gangs who go out into the streets and celebrate every instance of random workplace violence the faux Muslims perpetrate on their secular hosts?

Those gangs are that much muslim like the Italian mafia next door is catholic.

And calling the poppy fields in Afghanistan:

The success of Afghanistan’s 2000 drug eradication program under the Taliban had been acknowledged at the October 2001 session of the UN General Assembly (which took place barely a few days after the beginning of the 2001 bombing raids). No other UNODC member country was able to implement a comparable program:

“Turning first to drug control, I had expected to concentrate my remarks on the implications of the Taliban’s ban on opium poppy cultivation in areas under their control… We now have the results of our annual ground survey of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. This year’s production [2001] is around 185 tons. This is down from the 3300 tons last year [2000], a decrease of over 94 per cent. Compared to the record harvest of 4700 tons two years ago, the decrease is well over 97 per cent."

(Global Research)

Yes, the radical Taliban successfully banned poppy cultivation in Afghanistan in just one year.

 

[PoppingTom]

I get it. I am wrong.

Of course, for you to be safe, I have to be wrong about everything, every time, every day.

I don't say you're right or wrong.

I say : your facts aren't backed up and highly illogical, so this shit isn't even believable at good will without making a fool out of the one believing it.

I'm able to change my mind, even if you think this is a weakness. But THIS SHIT won't change anybody's mind that's already sane.

 

[zipman]

Seen it already. It was and is bullshit.

LOL, it's funny how desperate they are to believe this story.

Facts? We don't need no stinking facts.

 

[PoppingTom]

LOL, it's funny how desperate they are to believe this story.

Facts? We don't need no stinking facts.

Can somebody explain to me the fun of being such an idiot all the time?

I get that celebrating his own dumbness can be fun if it's not meant seriously. I get that some people prefer loyalty over truth. I know that some people rather die than confess an error.

But constantly being the idiot seems to me like mortification of the flesh. Maybe those people expect to be honored with being a bit smarter in their afterlife.

 

[zipman]

Can somebody explain to me the fun of being such an idiot all the time?

I get that celebrating his own dumbness can be fun if it's not meant seriously. I get that some people prefer loyalty over truth. I know that some people rather die than confess an error.

But constantly being the idiot seems to me like mortification of the flesh. Maybe those people expect to be honored with being a bit smarter in their afterlife.

It starts with confirmation bias - seeking out information that supports or substantiates their world view. It gets interesting when that is proven to be inaccurate. Then desperation to be right kicks in and they double down on stupid.

Some like Vette and A_J will just keep going with it. Others like Ish just disappear and try and pretend it never happened.

It's comical.

 

[unregistered]

 

[PoppingTom]

When did you prove the link I posted to be inaccurate? Or did you just declare it so?

If you talk about the last link you provided: it's not inaccurate. It's simply bullshit.

Is this enough to call me a wimp like always, or are you in need of any more explanations regarding this?

 

[PoppingTom]

It starts with confirmation bias - seeking out information that supports or substantiates their world view. It gets interesting when that is proven to be inaccurate. Then desperation to be right kicks in and they double down on stupid.

Some like Vette and A_J will just keep going with it. Others like Ish just disappear and try and pretend it never happened.

It's comical.

Well, I can understand Ish's tactic. He tests his POV on people he can rely to have the exact opposite POV. This can be fun, to admit to be wrong isn't, so to disappear seems to be healthful.

I can even understand Vette a bit: he's misanthrope and can't jump over his own shadow.

But this "double down on stupid" would give me head cancer over time. I can logically understand people like this exists, but I can't get the feeling of being a person like that. I sometimes feel like talking to a computer program.

 

[zipman]

When did you prove the link I posted to be inaccurate? Or did you just declare it so?

There was nothing in it that proves that there are enclaves of Sharia no go zones in Paris or anywhere else in Europe. Nothing at all.

That's what Ish asserted before he disappeared from the thread and what is being discussed.

Of course if there was anything at all that you thought proved it, please tell me what part of that rambling, nonsensical diatribe you think does it.