qman said:

Tip, you misrepresent my posts, I never stated much of what you claimed.

"why anyone should or whould mix with any other group"

I never said that, similar cultures and people mix together quite well, mixing people from the third world into developed societies has been a proven disaster.

---

Quote:

"Cultural diversity is a failure"

No, Muslims living in the EU is a failure, so much so that three major leaders have publicly acknowledged this fact.

---

Quote:

"indifferent to thousands of deaths just because they are part of a certain group"

I don't think that's the case, BTW one could make the case you show the same indifference to the victims of the terrorist attacks.

---

BTW, how can anyone make the case that I am indifferent to victims of terrorism? I've told you that the Paris attacks were very close to my family's home, I've also referred to others I know have been affected and I was in central London myself during the attacks.  If anything, what i'm saying is that our countries shouldnt fuel these groups that attack our people. How is that being indifferent about deaths from terror attacks??? You seem to think its one or the other. Why can't I wish a lack of needless death upon all people? Or are you saying that advocating for not bombing other countries mean its ok that our people die...? I don't know. Perhaps you can clarify?

Quote:

"fascist thugs who attack muslim women"

Example?

---

I posted previously the gathering in Brussels square where Belgians of all ethnicities and backgrounds, men women and children, were gathering to demonstrate unity... and then the asshole thugs came along and started attacking hijabi women and trampling flowers that were put in memorial of the victims. I was suggesting that those thugs would probably make the case that muslims are bad because they are bad to women and yet they are people who would run over and attack hijabi women.

if you need the link i posted and another example, let me know.

Quote:

The fact that governments get to use "homeland security" as on excuse to erode our civil rights has NOTHING to do with someone like myself, the citizens of the EU were NEVER given a choice on third world people invading their homelands, now that it has turned into a shitfest doesn't make it their fault.

---

Quote:

Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis tells Owen Jones he would love to give Brussels a shock – but a vote to leave the EU in the UK’s refrendum in June would lead to the disintegration of the European Union and a return to the xenophobia, racism and ultra-nationalism of the 1930s. He argues that it could also lead to Boris Johnson becoming prime minister

---

Tipote said:

Or those apologising for fascist thugs who attack muslim women in defense of "OUR" women..LOL

---

Tipote said:

If you go to some parts of London, it is sometimes only Orthodox Jewish and i would be certain of some shared views about women and homosexuality to say the least.

---

Tipote said:

and this opinion piece also makes some very good points about Brussels..

The scariest thing about Brussels is our reaction to it

Quote:

Think like the enemy. Let’s suppose I am an Islamic State terrorist. I don’t do bombs or bullets. I leave the dirty work to the crazies in the basement. My job is what happens next. It is to turn carnage into consequences, body parts into politics. I am a consultant terrorist. I wear a suit, not explosives. A blood-stained concourse is a means to an end. The end is power.

This week I had another success. I converted a squalid psychopathological act into a warrior-evoking, population-terrifying, policy-changing event. I sent a continent into shock. Famous politicians dropped everything to shower me with cliches. Crowned heads deluged me with glorious odium.

I measure my success in column inches and television hours, in ballooning security budgets, butchered liberties, amended laws and – my ultimate goal – Muslims persecuted and recruited to our cause. I deal not in actions but in reactions. I am a manipulator of politics. I work through the idiocies of my supposed enemies.

    We should not alter laws, not infringe liberties, not persecute Muslims

Textbooks on terrorism define its effects in four stages: first the horror, then the publicity, then the political grandstanding, and finally the climactic shift in policy. The initial act is banal. The atrocities in Brussels happen almost daily on the streets of Baghdad, Aleppo and Damascus. Western missiles and Isis bombs kill more innocents in a week than die in Europe in a year. The difference is the media response. A dead Muslim is an unlucky mutt in the wrong place at the wrong time. A dead European is front-page news.

So on Tuesday the TV news channels behaved like Isis recruiting sergeants. Their blanket hyperbole showed not the slightest restraint (nor for that matter did that of most newspapers). The BBC flew Huw Edwards to Brussels. It flashed horror across the airwaves continually for 24 hours, incanting the words “panic”, “threat”, “menace” and “terror”. Vox pops wallowed in blood and guts. One reporter rode a London tube escalator to show possible future targets, to scare the wits out of commuters. It was a terrorist’s wildest dream.

With the ground thus prepared, the politicians entered on cue. France’s President Hollande declared “all of Europe has been hit”, megaphoning Isis’s crime. His approval rating immediately jumped.
David Cameron dived into his Cobra bunker and announced the UK “faces a very real terror threat”. An attack is now “highly likely”, according to the security services. Flags fly at half-mast. The Eiffel Tower is decked in Belgian colours. President Obama interrupts his Cuba visit to stand “in solidarity with Belgium”. Donald Trump declares that “Belgium and France are literally disintegrating”. It is hard to imagine what could more effectively promote the Isis cause.

Osama bin Laden set out on 9/11 to depict western nations as feckless and paranoid, their liberalism a surface charade easily punctured. A few explosions and their pretensions would wither and they would turn as repressive as any Muslim state.

By Tuesday evening, such a feeding frenzy was in full flood as the security lobby piled in. Cameron’s snoopers’ charter (or “investigatory powers” bill) was lauded as vital to national security. This is despite continued opposition both in parliament and from intelligence experts. This month in the Times, former NSA technical director Bill Binney ridiculed the bill’s “incredibly intrusive” powers of untargeted interception. Each citizen’s browsing history will soon be in the possession of the government, vulnerable to hacking by every marketer and blackmailer in the land.

Under the government’s Prevent strategy, universities and schools must develop programmes to counter “non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism”. The bureaucracy will be awesome. Primary schools are reportedly asking children to spy on one another to check “suspicious behaviour”. So must passengers on Virgin trains, as requested after each station. England is becoming old East Germany.

The Brexit camp, in the person of Ukip’s Nigel Farage, claims that Brussels proves the need to leave Europe. The home secretary, Theresa May, says the opposite. Terrorists would roam free, she says, since it would take 143 days to process terrorist DNA samples as against 15 minutes in the EU.

Reacting to terrorist incidents otherwise, in ways that do not play into terrorism’s hands, may seem hard. A free media feels a duty to report events, as politicians feel a duty to show they can protect the public. That it’s hard to show restraint is no excuse for actively promoting terror. Everyone involved in this week’s reaction, from journalists to politicians to security lobbyists, has an interest in terrorism. There is money, big money, to be made – the more terrifying it is presented, the more money.


We can respond to events in Brussels with a quiet and dignified sympathy, with candles and silences. To downplay something is not to ignore it. The terrorists have specific aims, deploying their atrocities for a political cause. There is no sensible defence in a free society against atrocity. But there is a defence against its purpose. It is to avoid hysteria, to show caution and a measure of courage, not Cameron’s lapse into public fear. It is not to alter laws, not to infringe liberties, not to persecute Muslims.

During the more dangerous and consistent IRA bombing campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s, Labour and Conservative governments insisted on treating terrorism as criminal, not political. They relied on the police and security services to guard against a threat that could never be eliminated, only diminished. On the whole it worked, and without undue harm to civil liberties.

Those who live under freedom know it demands a price, which is a degree of risk. We pay the state to protect us – but calmly, without constant boasting or fearmongering. We know that, in reality, life in Britain has never been safer. That it suits some people to pretend otherwise does not alter the fact.

In his admirable manual, Terrorism: How to Respond, the Belfast academic Richard English defines the threat to democracy as not the “limited danger” of death and destruction. It is the danger “of provoking ill-judged, extravagant and counterproductive state responses”.

The menace of Brussels lies not in the terror, but in the reaction to the terror. It is the reaction we should fear. But liberty never emerges from a Cobra bunker.

---

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

Tip, you misrepresent my posts, I never stated much of what you claimed.

"why anyone should or whould mix with any other group"

I never said that, similar cultures and people mix together quite well, mixing people from the third world into developed societies has been a proven disaster.

---

emphasis should be on the other. I wasn't saying that you think poles can't mix with americans because i know your position on that. I was referring to groups that you otherise.

Quote:

"Cultural diversity is a failure"

No, Muslims living in the EU is a failure, so much so that three major leaders have publicly acknowledged this fact.

---

NO? it was you that has said this "cultural diversity is a failure" stuff and yes you also ALWAYS come out with "three major leaders..." etc but you consistently ignore the actual point in what was said. Most agree that separating and isolating cultures is bad. Within countries that causes problems of course. But on a global stage, you seem to be more in favour of that separation? is that right? 

Quote:

"indifferent to thousands of deaths just because they are part of a certain group"

I don't think that's the case, BTW one could make the case you show the same indifference to the victims of the terrorist attacks.

---

BTW, how can anyone make the case that I am indifferent to victims of terrorism? I've told you that the Paris attacks were very close to my family's home, I've also referred to others I know have been affected and I was in central London myself during the attacks.  If anything, what i'm saying is that our countries shouldnt fuel these groups that attack our people. How is that being indifferent about deaths from terror attacks??? You seem to think its one or the other. Why can't I wish a lack of needless death upon all people? Or are you saying that advocating for not bombing other countries mean its ok that our people die...? I don't know. Perhaps you can clarify?

Quote:

"fascist thugs who attack muslim women"

Example?

---

I posted previously the gathering in Brussels square where Belgians of all ethnicities and backgrounds, men women and children, were gathering to demonstrate unity... and then the asshole thugs came along and started attacking hijabi women and trampling flowers that were put in memorial of the victims. I was suggesting that those thugs would probably make the case that muslims are bad because they are bad to women and yet they are people who would run over and attack hijabi women.

if you need the link i posted and another example, let me know.

Quote:

The fact that governments get to use "homeland security" as on excuse to erode our civil rights has NOTHING to do with someone like myself, the citizens of the EU were NEVER given a choice on third world people invading their homelands, now that it has turned into a shitfest doesn't make it their fault.

---

People vote for their representatives. If those representatives are not representing views held on immigration, they are not voted for.
I obviously accept that failures by all parties have fuelled disenfranchisement with mainstream parties on this issue and others but I believe the issue of immigration that most people have is the vast numbers concerned - NOT the fact that people are coming from "the third world".

---

Bubbles85 said:

Tipote said:

I can't remember what idiot said it, i assume HU, that the Yugoslavian war and the genocides only happened because Muslims were there but maybe they don't know history because it was the muslim populations that were slaughtered in the thousands.

EDIT: OH that was you, Bubbles, saying such absolute bullshit about genocides happened because of the presence of Muslims. thats a new low

---

Who's straw-manning now ....

Where the hell did i say any of that?

I said that in terms of recent conflicts in the vicinity of Europe, all have happened in heavily Muslim populated countrys and nothing more. Which is the truth.

You've decided to twist my words and spout a paragraph of made up bull shit, claiming it to be some thing I've said.

---

Bubbles85 said:

Tipote said:

Or those apologising for fascist thugs who attack muslim women in defense of "OUR" women..LOL

---

No body here is apologizing for fascist thugs attacking women. It's absolutely wrong.
Yet we do seem to have a whole lot of "lets understand the reasons, or, European men do the same" from you, when Muslim immigrants rape and sexually assault European women. How come the same thought process is not extended to the other side?

---

I was speaking partly in jest. I was doing something that Malk did- to use the same lingo some of you here have used- and no one got it then so I dont know why I thought anyone would have this time. People say i'm apologising for terrorists etc, i know no one here was apologising for thugs attacking women. But i'm certain I've acknowledge more to the despicable nature of terrorist acts in Europe then you and qman acknowledge western abuses. Even so, i'm still accused of all sorts of shit.

Quote:

You seem to continually try to disprove the facts, or show them as being incorrectly reported, when these events involving Muslims happen.
Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, you take it as absolute with out a second thought and try to use it as a weapon in your discussion.

---

What facts am I trying to disprove? I said his conclusion and methodology was flawed but he said a lot of accurate things in between his annotations. What am i disproving??

What am i using "as a weapon"?

Are you high bubbles?

Quote:

The reality however, is there are far more attacks by Muslims on women from other cultures, than from any other faction.

---

can you provide those stats please?

Bubbles85 said:

Tipote said:

If you go to some parts of London, it is sometimes only Orthodox Jewish and i would be certain of some shared views about women and homosexuality to say the least.

---

Yeah well, the program did point to some major Anti-Semitism among a very large percentage of the Muslim population living in Britain and probably the same is true for the rest of Europe. I guess you're no different.

---

youre a really bad guesser then apparently, bubbles. Quite an accusation! What a thing to say!!
What anti-semitiic things have I said, Bubbles? I'm interested to know!

my point (clearly you missed it) is that they should have shown the stats for muslims are compared to abrahamic faiths and sects as certain views are shared between jews muslims and christians.. the methodology was sloppy at best.

Quote:

The majority who follow Islam, are ultra conservative in favor of their religion. Sure there are some followers who feel differently (mostly women) but they are in a minority.

---

Where are you getting this from? I'm not sure if i understand the sentence "are ultra conservative in favour of their religion"? There is a huge diversity within Islam and absolutely there has been an increasing wahabisation of sunni islam which fosters ultraconservative interpretations but being against homosexuality etc is just run of the mill retardation you get with all abrahamic faiths and not an indication of especially ultraconservative interpretations of islam. As I said, it would have been more interesting to compare to attitudes among christians and jews.

qman said:

Why should Europeans even have to deal with the threats in the first place? 

---

Quote:

There can be no freedom when a society has been invaded by foreign people that do them harm, of course the reaction is strong.

---

qman said:

US citizens NEVER had any representation when it came to legal or illegal immigration into the US the past 50 years.

The Republicans talked a real tough game, but at the end of the day it was just talk, their big money supporters always wanted an open border.

That's why Trump is #1 in the polls, he's the first candidate in decades to finally represent the tens of millions of US citizens who want our immigration laws to be enforced.

The same thing can be said for EU citizens, they are extremely frustrated with the lack of representation when it comes to the immigration, "refugees", and EU membership.

Like I said a while ago, if the governments of the EU don't fix the "homeland security" issues, the people will take action all on their own.

---

As i've said a few posts up, yes there are failures in representation on immigration but most people are fine with "third worlders" themselves integrating into our society, the problems come with the vast numbers of people and a poor immigration and integration system that fails to serve its purpose.

yes people are not represented very well on the EU either or refugees. the mistake you make is assume that no one wants them, or that a significant majority don't want them.

why on earth do you put "refugees" like that? It seems to hint that you think they are not refugees? thats clearly stupid so there must be another reason!?

this thread is so fucking tiresome.

going around in circles circles circles circles

PS: here is the link you wanted about thugs attacking women..

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23055365#23055365

Bubbles85 said:

Yet we do seem to have a whole lot of "lets understand the reasons, or, European men do the same" from you, when Muslim immigrants rape and sexually assault European women. How come the same thought process is not extended to the other side?

---

is it wrong to "understand the reasons" behind things?

About rape, if I say that European men also rape, that doesnt mean i'm saying its ok for other people to rape.

understanding reasons behind something does not = justifying/legitimising/condoning. (i should put this in my sig because I have to say is so much anyway)

yes you can say that thugs might attack women because they are angry and that is a reason. Yes, clearly.

My point, however, was that it is ironic that some of those thugs and their ideological companions use misogyny as a criticism against muslims (which is a fair criticism against the abrahamic faiths at least) while attacking women themselves! If people really cared about women then they wouldnt be attacking muslim women. that is the point.

Quote:

Once again, a newspaper’s integrity has been found wanting as the press regulator, IPSO, judged the Daily Star Sunday’s headline, “UK mosques fundraising for terror”, to be “significantly misleading” following a complaint lodged by myself. The paper clarified its error on page 2, noting that UK mosques were actually “not involved in any way”. This came just a week after The Sun was forced to acknowledge that its headline “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis” was similarly misleading.

Such inaccuracies are not restricted to the tabloid press. The Times, for example, claimed Muslims were “silent on terror”. This allegation has since been unequivocally rebuffed not only by Home Secretary Theresa May but also by senior counter-terror officers such as Neil Basu and Scotland Yard’s former anti-terror chief Richard Walton.

It’s not just misleading stories which are the problem - we also consistently see articles conflating the faith of Islam with criminality, such as the headlines “Muslim sex grooming” or “Imam beaten to death in sex grooming town” - the latter of which resulted in the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police being “appalled” and writing an open letter criticising the paper.

Sensationalism and scaremongering about the apparent threat posed by Muslims is also widespread. Just look at headlines such as: “BBC puts Muslims before you” (Daily Star); “Halal secret of Pizza Express” (The Sun); “Muslim vote could decide 25 per cent of seats” (Daily Mail).

So what, you might say? We rightly live in a country that cherishes the freedom of the press, and it’s not unreasonable for newspapers to use sensational headlines to sell papers. We know that there is an undeniable and serious threat from many groups identifying as Muslim that strike terror into the hearts of millions. But the inaccurate stories, as well as those that are re-framed to align with the far-right “othering” of Muslims, have real-world consequences.

Recent research by the University of Cambridge has shown that mainstream media reporting about Muslim communities is contributing to an atmosphere of rising hostility toward Muslims in Britain, corroborating the findings of an Islamophobia Roundtable in Stockholm two years ago. Claiming that the media has played no role in the growth in Islamophobia is no longer a tenable position.

More than half of Britons see Islam (the mainstream religion, not Islamist fundamentalist groups) as a threat to Western liberal democracy. Over 30 per cent of young children believe Muslims are ‘taking over England’ and hate crime against Muslims continues to rise, up by 70 per cent in the last year, according to the Metropolitan police.

Of course, the government needs to take the problem of Islamophobia seriously and we all need to hold the media to account better, reporting mistakes and inaccuracies. However, editors of newspapers also need to own up to this problem within the media and take meaningful steps to resolve it.

According to research presented at the Muslim News’ Conference on reporting Islam last year, there have been improvements in the language that is being used, but religious illiteracy remains rife within parts of our newspaper elite. Special training for journalists working in areas touching on Islamic faith and culture, and guidelines for sensitive topics, are now a must-have for any serious paper.

continued..

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

Why should Europeans even have to deal with the threats in the first place? 

---

huh? I must not understand the question..

Quote:

There can be no freedom when a society has been invaded by foreign people that do them harm, of course the reaction is strong.

---

Europe has not been invaded by people that wish them harm.

qman said:

US citizens NEVER had any representation when it came to legal or illegal immigration into the US the past 50 years.

The Republicans talked a real tough game, but at the end of the day it was just talk, their big money supporters always wanted an open border.

That's why Trump is #1 in the polls, he's the first candidate in decades to finally represent the tens of millions of US citizens who want our immigration laws to be enforced.

The same thing can be said for EU citizens, they are extremely frustrated with the lack of representation when it comes to the immigration, "refugees", and EU membership.

Like I said a while ago, if the governments of the EU don't fix the "homeland security" issues, the people will take action all on their own.

---

As i've said a few posts up, yes there are failures in representation on immigration but most people are fine with "third worlders" themselves integrating into our society, the problems come with the vast numbers of people and a poor immigration and integration system that fails to serve its purpose.

yes people are not represented very well on the EU either or refugees. the mistake you make is assume that no one wants them, or that a significant majority don't want them.

why on earth do you put "refugees" like that? It seems to hint that you think they are not refugees? thats clearly stupid so there must be another reason!?

this thread is so fucking tiresome.

going around in circles circles circles circles

PS: here is the link you wanted about thugs attacking women..

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23055365#23055365

---

Tipote said:

opinion piece...

Why the British media is responsible for the rise in Islamophobia in Britain

Quote:

Once again, a newspaper’s integrity has been found wanting as the press regulator, IPSO, judged the Daily Star Sunday’s headline, “UK mosques fundraising for terror”, to be “significantly misleading” following a complaint lodged by myself. The paper clarified its error on page 2, noting that UK mosques were actually “not involved in any way”. This came just a week after The Sun was forced to acknowledge that its headline “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis” was similarly misleading.

Such inaccuracies are not restricted to the tabloid press. The Times, for example, claimed Muslims were “silent on terror”. This allegation has since been unequivocally rebuffed not only by Home Secretary Theresa May but also by senior counter-terror officers such as Neil Basu and Scotland Yard’s former anti-terror chief Richard Walton.

It’s not just misleading stories which are the problem - we also consistently see articles conflating the faith of Islam with criminality, such as the headlines “Muslim sex grooming” or “Imam beaten to death in sex grooming town” - the latter of which resulted in the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police being “appalled” and writing an open letter criticising the paper.

Sensationalism and scaremongering about the apparent threat posed by Muslims is also widespread. Just look at headlines such as: “BBC puts Muslims before you” (Daily Star); “Halal secret of Pizza Express” (The Sun); “Muslim vote could decide 25 per cent of seats” (Daily Mail).

So what, you might say? We rightly live in a country that cherishes the freedom of the press, and it’s not unreasonable for newspapers to use sensational headlines to sell papers. We know that there is an undeniable and serious threat from many groups identifying as Muslim that strike terror into the hearts of millions. But the inaccurate stories, as well as those that are re-framed to align with the far-right “othering” of Muslims, have real-world consequences.

Recent research by the University of Cambridge has shown that mainstream media reporting about Muslim communities is contributing to an atmosphere of rising hostility toward Muslims in Britain, corroborating the findings of an Islamophobia Roundtable in Stockholm two years ago. Claiming that the media has played no role in the growth in Islamophobia is no longer a tenable position.

More than half of Britons see Islam (the mainstream religion, not Islamist fundamentalist groups) as a threat to Western liberal democracy. Over 30 per cent of young children believe Muslims are ‘taking over England’ and hate crime against Muslims continues to rise, up by 70 per cent in the last year, according to the Metropolitan police.

Of course, the government needs to take the problem of Islamophobia seriously and we all need to hold the media to account better, reporting mistakes and inaccuracies. However, editors of newspapers also need to own up to this problem within the media and take meaningful steps to resolve it.

According to research presented at the Muslim News’ Conference on reporting Islam last year, there have been improvements in the language that is being used, but religious illiteracy remains rife within parts of our newspaper elite. Special training for journalists working in areas touching on Islamic faith and culture, and guidelines for sensitive topics, are now a must-have for any serious paper.

continued..

---

This relates to points about the tone of that channel 4 documentary being in terms of Muslims vs rest of Britain. At least trevor made some good points about integration techniques and mechanisms.

---

Yeah, the media convinced UK natives that no go zones exist when they really don't.

The US media is always trying to tell us how wonderful minorities are for the US despite all the problems, I hardly think the UK media is that different.

qman said:

"or that a significant majority don't want them"

The number of EU natives that don't want them is growing everyday. Why in the world would German, French, or Dutch citizens want unskilled/uneducated African's flooding into their homelands?  The vast majority don't contribute at all, and become nothing more than a criminal/social service burdens.

I put "refugees" in quotes because it's been acknowledged that nobody even knows who these people are and where they came from, the whole migration is nothing more than an out of control free for all. I'm sure there's some legitimate refugees that went into the EU, maybe more than half aren't refugees.

---

qman said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12135244/Migrant-crisis-to-cost-Germany-50-billion-by-2017.html

Yeah, I sure the German population is just thrilled to piss money away on their invaders when there's so many natives that are in need of some many things.

---

qman said:

Europe needs to send a clear message that the doors are closed, hopefully that will stop tragedies like this from happening in the future.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/662030/migrant-crisis-400-drown-Mediterranean

---

qman said:

From former German leader Kohl- "Europe cannot become a new home for millions of people in need through out the world"

"National policies of the lone-knight variety must be left in the past. For the most part they have a belief which is different from Judeo-Christian beliefs which form part of the foundations of our social order and our values"

---

Quote:

"The solution lies in the affected regions. It does not lie in Europe"

---

qman said:

Yeah, the media convinced UK natives that no go zones exist when they really don't.

The US media is always trying to tell us how wonderful minorities are for the US despite all the problems, I hardly think the UK media is that different.

---

Tipote said:

search "cultural diversity is a failure" (the thing that qman didn't say) on qman's posts and you'll get 49 posts.

---

wait, did he deny saying that or something?

Im surprised its not more than 49, thats like his go to.