Tipote said:

qman said:

"diversity is strength"

In some ideal situations, this is the case. It's not the case with you have a clash of cultures, heritages, and genetics.

---

except its a fact that diversity brings strength - especially when it comes to genetics.

Quote:

The most important aspect of diversity success is economic growth and prosperity, the US and EU no longer have this option available, as a result "cultural diversity" has become a failure. Three major leaders from the EU have already acknowledged this fact, same with Trump.

---

i'd argue that its the economic system thats broken not cultural diversity.
I'd argue that actually cultural diversity is NOT a failure. Until the end of days you will come out with the line of Merkel saying this or that but you consistently ignore the actual point she was making. It wasn't that having other cultures is wrong, its just that a lack of integration efforts on all sides is negative.

I'm very surprised that no one posted about the clash in Brussels yesterday! I'll post something in a sec about it..

Quote:

Is Poles moving into the UK some radical clash of cultures?  NO. Is Africans moving into the UK a clash of cultures? Absolutely, it's a disaster.

---

The influx of Poles is absolutely different enough to cause hostility. As the great psychologist and scholar, WAN, just told us - people don't like different people. For YEARS, British people have been bitching about Poles. There were some areas of the UK with so many Poles that they didn't bother learning English, the road signs were in Polish etc. Now we just have people who look markedly different coming as refugees amid a state of terrorism across the world, so they are the new undesirables.

---

airclay said:

qman said:

Was throwing the Native Americans into reservations American?  What about throwing the Japanese into camps?

You seem to forget that humans will always think about their survival first and then their ideals second, America is no different.

---

no and no. If you'd like to have a conversation on past radically fascist and un-american acts we can do that or we could just stick to the present ones you seem to support.

I can point out your arguments inequities from all sort of political bases on this one. Not only is your view extreme from a leftist view it's extreme from classic american libertarian view.

an old classic from Ben Franklin

Quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

---

---

qman said:

The words cultural diversity were in quotes to represent Muslims living in the EU, so in fact you and everyone else has been discussing that subject matter, I guess you weren't able to detect the sarcasm.

---

qman said:

"productive for the discussion"

There isn't much discussion coming from your side, admittedly you have indicated that you have only attempted to remove "misconceptions" when it comes to terms and definitions that you disagree with, basically suggesting it's your way or the highway when it comes to the discussion.

---

qman said:

airclay said:

qman said:

Was throwing the Native Americans into reservations American?  What about throwing the Japanese into camps?

You seem to forget that humans will always think about their survival first and then their ideals second, America is no different.

---

no and no. If you'd like to have a conversation on past radically fascist and un-american acts we can do that or we could just stick to the present ones you seem to support.

I can point out your arguments inequities from all sort of political bases on this one. Not only is your view extreme from a leftist view it's extreme from classic american libertarian view.

an old classic from Ben Franklin

Quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

---

---

What's your point?  People put survival and safety above their theoretical ideals.

---

Malkuthian said:

Step one: sort out misconceptions. It's not a strange idea in a debate... I find it peculiar that you are trying to mock me because of this concept.

---

Quote:

At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.

---

hostileuniverse said:

progressives believe, at least the ones here on this forum, that the US should be able to absorb 5.6 billion people and be able to support them and welcome them with open arms, that is what the open borders crowd calls for, right? for all the poor people to be able to freely move here? RIGHT?

---

WRONG. 

Tipote said:

The events of yesterday suggest that your hope that "cultural diversity is a failure" is wrong.

People of all nationalities, religions, ethnicities etc were trying to have a peace march but it had to be cancelled because the Belgian security services are already struggling as it is. So they just informally got together in a smaller group on the steps in the Brussels square. If you look at the pictures then they had many nations flags standing together with men, women and children. There were children putting flowers, there were muslim people. It was a show of unity and strength....but then the skinheads came along and changed that.

The security services then were more strained by having to deal with these skinheads while they need to focus on anti-terror operations. Belgium is already a weak, fractured and near incompetent state and the far right make it harder.

It is the far right that are exacerbating things, not Europe's muslim population.!!!

While there are legitimate concerns, this mobilisation of hate is revolting. Anger is understandable, prejudice, hate and violence has no place.

It's very telling that some on the far right will get very angry about "middle eastern misogynists" attacking Western women but really their objection is about race, not misogyny. Those far right thugs in Brussels were attacking especially women who were wearing hijab.

Belgian riot police deploy water cannon against 'fascists' in Brussels square

Quote:

Belgian riot police have deployed water cannon to the Place de la Bourse in Brussels in a bid to disperse a right-wing march that has disrupted a peaceful rally.

Hundreds of people had assembled informally in the large public square to remember the 31 victims of last Tuesday's terror attacks when dozens of men, some wearing masks and balaclavas, barged to the centre.

It comes after a planned peace march through the city was cancelled at the request of Brussels police, who said they were too thinly-stretched to provide enough security for a large-scale demonstration.

The group of black-clad men had mounted the steps of the stock exchange building in the square and started chanting slogans against the Isis jihadist group.

Some members of the group were seen making Nazi salutes, confronting ethnic minority groups and throwing flares.

Riot squads joined police in the square a short while later and, after they ignored requests to disperse in line with the earlier advice from officials, water cannons were deployed. People gathered at the vigil cheered as the protesters were driven away.

Adrian Liston, who was present at the vigil, told the BBC that the memorial had been disrupted by a “bunch of skinheads” who had turned up “in force”.

“They marched into the square and started a major confrontation with the peace protesters,” he added.

“At this point they were really starting to get in the face of the peace protesters, the face of the police, setting off flares, setting off fireworks, and chanting stuff that was really quite ugly.”

---

Far-right protesters in Brussels confronted and intimidated Muslim women on peace march

Quote:

Muslim women were confronted and intimidated by right-wing protesters disrupted a peace vigil dedicated to victims of the Brussels attacks. 

The women were singled out by members of a group of 400 demonstrators at an initially peaceful gathering held to remember the victims of last week's terror attacks in the Belgian capital.

As members of the public laid floral tributes to the victims of Tuesday's attacks at a makeshift memorial, police clashed with the group, which was seen making Nazi salutes and confronting ethnic minority groups including women, according to the BBC.

Adrian Liston, who was present at the vigil, told the BBC that the memorial had been disrupted by a "bunch of skinheads" who had turned up "in force".

"They marched into the square and started a major confrontation with the peace protesters," he added.

On Monday, the death toll rose to 35, not including the three suicide bombers, officials confirmed.

The additional deaths include two more American citizens, bringing the total number of US citizens killed in the attack to four.

Belgium's crisis centre website said there were 35 victims, but said only 28 of the victims had been formally identified.

The foreigners killed were British, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Swedish and US nationals.

The formal "march against fear" through the city was cancelled by Belgian police, as they felt they could not ensure the safety of the crowds and wanted to focus on tracking down people involved in the attacks.

But significant police resources were eventually drawn to the Place de la Bourse, where a peaceful crowd containing Muslims and non-Muslims was confronted by around 400 fascists.

They were seen picking out Muslim women from the crowd at the vigil and singling them out for aggressive, confrontational abuse.

The group carried a banner identifying themselves as "Casuals Against Terrorism".

Many of the men wore balaclavas or 'Anonymous' masks, and they chanted nationalist, anti-immigrant and anti-Isis slogans.

They also made Nazi salutes and waved flares in the air, before being dispersed by riot police using truck-mounted water cannons.

---

---

Malkuthian said:

qman said:

The words cultural diversity were in quotes to represent Muslims living in the EU, so in fact you and everyone else has been discussing that subject matter, I guess you weren't able to detect the sarcasm.

---

What? The sarcasm was to mock the idea that immigrants lead to cultural diversity, right?

qman said:

"productive for the discussion"

There isn't much discussion coming from your side, admittedly you have indicated that you have only attempted to remove "misconceptions" when it comes to terms and definitions that you disagree with, basically suggesting it's your way or the highway when it comes to the discussion.

---

Actually it's the other way around...

I never said anything regarding how you can discuss this matter. I only said that I'm not personally interested in discussing solutions based on misconceptions and hence try to sort out the misconceptions instead.

You on the other hand are telling me that I have to come up with solutions or else its not "discussion", you are saying my actions in this thread (the focus on misconceptions) is a problem. Why is there a problem with me questioning other peoples arguments, without presenting an alternative solution? I think it needs to be done...

If you want to discuss drug policies with someone and this person claims that mushrooms destroys brain cells and creates serial killers who tries to rid the world of pink elephants, I would guess (and hope) you wont debate that persons political suggestions but rather explain that their ideas are based upon misconceptions. There is no point what so ever discussing how to regulate drugs with a person who thinks drugs are something other then what they actually are. Step one: sort out misconceptions. It's not a strange idea in a debate... I find it peculiar that you are trying to mock me because of this concept.

Actually I'm not even sure I disagree with you that much on how to solve the problem. But I disagree with you a whole fucking lot when it comes to how to view Islam and he mixing of cultures, when it comes to questions of blame etc. etc. I think the basis of your ideas is rubbish. This is what I have questioned. And I will continue to do so because I think it's very important that such generalizations and such narrow views are opposed. They are never okay. Regarding the solutions we might agree on some points, but by different reasons. We need to be restrictive in the current situation, but we also need to tread very carefully and consider how radicalization happens, if we want to avoid contributing to the problem. I would say that to find a viable solution the radicalization process needs to be understood. But that's hardly even mentioned in this thread, especially not but those who claim everyone who doesn't agree with them are Muslim-loving apologists. That's what should be discussed, instead of jumping at the gun screaming "Muslims are stoopid, kick 'em out".

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

Tip, Air and Mal don't offer any solutions other than "cultural diversity" makes the world go round.

The riots of sexual and physical assault don't faze them, blowing up airports is just something the natives will have to deal with, the most important things is to preserve Muslims rights within the EU.  News flash, you can't even have freedom is you have a group of people that are a danger to national security.

---

qman, are you trying to compete with hostile for his royal title as the straw man king?

---

qman said:

Freedom comes once national security is established, do you agree with that sentiment?

---

viktor said:

Malkuthian said:

Step one: sort out misconceptions. It's not a strange idea in a debate... I find it peculiar that you are trying to mock me because of this concept.

---

You are so self-righteous it's not even funny. Your idea of a 'misconception' is anytime someone disagrees with what you think.

You think Muslims are a race. That is the biggest misconception anyone has made on this thread.

Until you get a clue you have nothing to contribute here but whining.

---

airclay said:

qman said:

airclay said:

qman said:

Was throwing the Native Americans into reservations American?  What about throwing the Japanese into camps?

You seem to forget that humans will always think about their survival first and then their ideals second, America is no different.

---

no and no. If you'd like to have a conversation on past radically fascist and un-american acts we can do that or we could just stick to the present ones you seem to support.

I can point out your arguments inequities from all sort of political bases on this one. Not only is your view extreme from a leftist view it's extreme from classic american libertarian view.

an old classic from Ben Franklin

Quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

---

---

What's your point?  People put survival and safety above their theoretical ideals.

---

You were suggesting forceful deportation based on a shared religion and I'm pointing out that in no accepted train of political thought is that ok. Well except complete authoritarian fascism based on a nationalistic identity. Is that what you support qman?

Are you trying to qualify subjective judgements that could end one persons life as they know it because of a belief that the majority is fearful?

do you know what america is? or do you know what entitlement is?

---

I support doing what's in the best interest of national security, if that involves deporting some very dangerous people, so be it.

"because of the belief that the majority is fearful"

No, it's based on the people that run the country's national security, not the belief of the majority.  But guess what?  If a country's national security is unwilling or unable to provide the necessary safety, the "majority" will take homeland security into their own hands.

Malkuthian said:

viktor said:

Malkuthian said:

Step one: sort out misconceptions. It's not a strange idea in a debate... I find it peculiar that you are trying to mock me because of this concept.

---

You are so self-righteous it's not even funny. Your idea of a 'misconception' is anytime someone disagrees with what you think.

You think Muslims are a race. That is the biggest misconception anyone has made on this thread.

Until you get a clue you have nothing to contribute here but whining.

---

Oh, ok so there are no misconceptions in this thread then?
Good to know.

I think Muslims are a race?
Lies again.

There are people in this thread who thinks Muslims are a race though.
It has been claimed that Muslims are worth less as human beings because they are genetically inferior from inbreeding... When I call people who say such things racists, you make the assumption that I think Muslims are a race? Seriously? Try harder ffs.

qman said:

Malkuthian said:

qman said:

The words cultural diversity were in quotes to represent Muslims living in the EU, so in fact you and everyone else has been discussing that subject matter, I guess you weren't able to detect the sarcasm.

---

What? The sarcasm was to mock the idea that immigrants lead to cultural diversity, right?

qman said:

"productive for the discussion"

There isn't much discussion coming from your side, admittedly you have indicated that you have only attempted to remove "misconceptions" when it comes to terms and definitions that you disagree with, basically suggesting it's your way or the highway when it comes to the discussion.

---

Actually it's the other way around...

I never said anything regarding how you can discuss this matter. I only said that I'm not personally interested in discussing solutions based on misconceptions and hence try to sort out the misconceptions instead.

You on the other hand are telling me that I have to come up with solutions or else its not "discussion", you are saying my actions in this thread (the focus on misconceptions) is a problem. Why is there a problem with me questioning other peoples arguments, without presenting an alternative solution? I think it needs to be done...

If you want to discuss drug policies with someone and this person claims that mushrooms destroys brain cells and creates serial killers who tries to rid the world of pink elephants, I would guess (and hope) you wont debate that persons political suggestions but rather explain that their ideas are based upon misconceptions. There is no point what so ever discussing how to regulate drugs with a person who thinks drugs are something other then what they actually are. Step one: sort out misconceptions. It's not a strange idea in a debate... I find it peculiar that you are trying to mock me because of this concept.

Actually I'm not even sure I disagree with you that much on how to solve the problem. But I disagree with you a whole fucking lot when it comes to how to view Islam and he mixing of cultures, when it comes to questions of blame etc. etc. I think the basis of your ideas is rubbish. This is what I have questioned. And I will continue to do so because I think it's very important that such generalizations and such narrow views are opposed. They are never okay. Regarding the solutions we might agree on some points, but by different reasons. We need to be restrictive in the current situation, but we also need to tread very carefully and consider how radicalization happens, if we want to avoid contributing to the problem. I would say that to find a viable solution the radicalization process needs to be understood. But that's hardly even mentioned in this thread, especially not but those who claim everyone who doesn't agree with them are Muslim-loving apologists. That's what should be discussed, instead of jumping at the gun screaming "Muslims are stoopid, kick 'em out".

---

"consider how radicalization happens"

Nobody really gives a fuck, they can be as radical as they like in their own homelands, why should EU natives give two fucks what makes them radical?  Guess what happens when you deport them, their "radicalization" becomes irrelevant!!

Do you think rape victims need to study and understand their rapist?  No, they only need to know they can never harm them again, why do you struggle with basic commonsense?

Maybe people in the classrooms like to send time studying why they like to blowup airports and going on rape riots, the EU doesn't have time for such nonsense, change is going to take place with or without people like yourself.

---

Oh, it's not important how radicalization happens?
We should just close the border and throw all bad people out?
That's it? Nothing more to say?
And you claim not much discussion is coming from me?...

Did I say the victims of terrorism needs to understand the terrorists? No I didn't
I said in order to prevent terrorism you need to understand it. Maybe it's not the victims jobs to prevent it but societies?  I know you prefer to fight with a blind fold on though... "know your enemy" and all that is soooo old. It's more modern to post generalized hate on twitter. I get it.

Change is going to take place regardless of people like me?
Best argument so far.
Now that's some good discussing.
A+

---

qman said:

Malkuthian said:

Oh, it's not important how radicalization happens?
We should just close the border and throw all bad people out?
That's it? Nothing more to say?
And you claim not much discussion is coming from me?...

Did I say the victims of terrorism needs to understand the terrorists? No I didn't
I said in order to prevent terrorism you need to understand it. Maybe it's not the victims jobs to prevent it but societies?  I know you prefer to fight with a blind fold on though... "know your enemy" and all that is soooo old. It's more modern to post generalized hate on twitter. I get it.

Change is going to take place regardless of people like me?
Best argument so far.
Now that's some good discussing.
A+

---

"but societies"

These people are religious and political fanatics from primitive cultures, what the hell is there to understand?

"know your enemy"

We know who they are, understanding why they want to blow up airports because of the US presence in the ME is a waste of time, there is no scenario that they would find satisfactory, that's the point.

---

Malkuthian said:

qman said:

Malkuthian said:

Oh, it's not important how radicalization happens?
We should just close the border and throw all bad people out?
That's it? Nothing more to say?
And you claim not much discussion is coming from me?...

Did I say the victims of terrorism needs to understand the terrorists? No I didn't
I said in order to prevent terrorism you need to understand it. Maybe it's not the victims jobs to prevent it but societies?  I know you prefer to fight with a blind fold on though... "know your enemy" and all that is soooo old. It's more modern to post generalized hate on twitter. I get it.

Change is going to take place regardless of people like me?
Best argument so far.
Now that's some good discussing.
A+

---

"but societies"

These people are religious and political fanatics from primitive cultures, what the hell is there to understand?

"know your enemy"

We know who they are, understanding why they want to blow up airports because of the US presence in the ME is a waste of time, there is no scenario that they would find satisfactory, that's the point.

---

You obviously don't know who they are, and because you are completely unwilling to discuss the point on any other level then "they are primitive fanatics", you will never understand who they are... You are obviously satisfied with your ignorance, and that's the problem...

So if not who they are, what created them, what is causing their increase, or how to stop them from increasing, what can we discuss? Stating "they should not be here" is not a discussion. You are not discussing, you are regurgitating propaganda against immigration and Muslims. When opposed you claim everything is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that Muslims are violent and hence should not be allowed in Europe (and this is of course unquestionable). We got the picture, why are you still here?

Personally I think we need to stop buying Saudi oil and placing big sports championships in Qatar. We need to oppose the UN having a Saudi Arabian chairman in the human rights committee. Etc. We need to support secular education in the middle east wherever possible to reduce the preservation of religious justice systems. Closing the boarder and hoping for the problem to go away (including not caring about the problems in Muslims countries and all the Muslim people suffering at the hands of fanatics), is way to naive...*

If you at least had the decency to bring up such topics instead of just claiming again and again they "bad people are bad and should be banned".... And then claiming not enough discussion is coming from MY side...

*Christian faith was also FUBAR once, did that change by keeping Christians disconnected from the rest of the world?

---

"don't know who they are"

Are you suggesting that homeland security in the EU doesn't have a terrorist list?  They do and what demographic do you think is on them? 

"you will never understand who they are"

Really?  They're not disgruntled extremist Muslims.  Let me guess, they're pissed about the Palestinian situation, they're pissed about Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Guess what?  They always going to be pissed off about something regardless of what the West does or does NOT do to appease them.

"we need to stop buying Saudi oil"

  Holy shit, you do have an opinion!! Oil is a global commodity, you can't stop people from selling and buying it.

"we need to"

I don't think anyone in the West is against secular education in the ME, but that's basically on the people that live there or do you think they're incapable of advancing forward without Western influence? 

Even if there were to be significant changes of secularism in the ME, that doesn't change the dangerous elements that still exist in the EU.