Study: Germans see Islam as a threat

[muse]

That's a speech, not an argument. Not worth wasting time on.

That's regrettable - And it only confirms why Muslims come across as Intolerant aggressive, etc etc.

I do wish you would reconsider if it is an effective approach. You made such strong and persuasive arguments, to then just throw up your hands... I regret it

 

[Developereo]

Charity begins at home.

For Western citizens of Muslim faith, home is the West.

Only racists and bigots would propose to calibrate citizens' rights based on their ethnicity or religion.

That's regrettable - And it only confirms why Muslims come across as Intolerant aggressive, etc etc.

I do wish you would reconsider if it is an effective approach. You made such strong and persuasive arguments, to then just throw up your hands... I regret it

No one's throwing up their hands.

I asked specific questions and you came back with a speech instead of answering my points.

So I will ask my question again: should the rights of Muslim citizens in the West be calibrated to their "home" countries? how about Muslims born in the West?

 

[Vinod2070]

I am looking at the time period when Israel was formed -- because someone raised the issue -- and what was the prevailing ideology regarding colonialism at the time.

What is right and moral today was right and moral yesterday and will be right and moral tomorrow.

Blaming it on "prevailing ideology", "barbaric time" is a cop out. Something I am not a great fan of.

This is not a debate about the history of military conquests throughout time. If India ever attains the global status that the US enjoys -- and enjoyed at the juncture of the WW -- then you are welcome to form global organizations and redress whatever centuries old grievances you harbor

.

See, what happens in the future and what grievances of whom are redressed is in the womb of the future (Bhavishya ke garbh mein hai).

Future is pregnant with possibilities and we don't know how things will pan out.

I am just telling you a perspective that is different from yours. I do hope the Dharmic people secure their justice and bigotry of the other side doesn't continue to get rewarded.

I am an interested party here just as you are an interested party on the other side.

We were born into these positions and I have nothing against you personally.

Not sure what you've heard, but I am pretty sure the British handed Hong Kong over to the indigenous people.

Absolutely. And I expect the same to happen elsewhere where the Turks and Arabs happened to be the occupiers.

Even after the whole discussion about colonialism and Wilsoniasm, you still don't get it.

And, given your obsession with race and religion, you never will.

You are trying to frame the discussion in terms that work for you.

Again, cholbe na.

the whole world kraps their pants afraid of us....

You should really be Afraid of their "fear".

This so called fear only results in dehumanization after a point.

 

[Developereo]

What is right and moral today was right and moral yesterday and will be right and moral tomorrow.

Sure, we can take the reversal of all military conquests to its logical conclusion and all of humanity can squeeze back into Africa. We might have to displace a few people living there, but nothing that can't be worked out.

You are trying to frame the discussion in terms that work for you.

I am stating documented facts of history on what happened around that time frame.

Also, not that I want to get into it, but it was the Israelis who framed the conflict in religious terms -- long before a Palestinian even met the first Jewish settler.

 

[Roybot]

Three interesting ideas - what if the other side were to pose this to us?

What if they asked us, as Solomon2 does, WHAT DID YOU DO, about the discrimination against and persecution of Christians, Hindus, Shia'ah, Ahmadi, or ideas in society that demonize the West and Western Civilization? -- and are they not asking themselves that if they do not highlight these, are they not being complicit??

Typical Muslim Answer: We are not a secular democracy, we are an Islamic country. You claim to be a secular country, so we can grill you about discrimination and persecution and vilification, since we are an Islamic country you are stupid to even ask such a question.

 

[muse]

So I will ask my question again: should the rights of Muslim citizens in the West be calibrated to their "home" countries? how about Muslims born in the West?

No they ought not nor are they

 

[Vinod2070]

By far the biggest genocidal killers of Muslims are Muslims themselves and no "more control over media" will take that glaring fact away and spin it. Those numbers put to shame the ill's of other religious sects upon Muslims. You do a Gujarat in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen etc every week.

That doesn't seem to matter.

It is only an inconvenient fact that can be brushed under the carpet.

It is so much easier to just blame the evil West (and other evil kaffirs).

 

[Developereo]

No they ought not nor are they

But to bring up the situation in the Muslim world in a discussion about Muslims in the West is to implicitly suggest that they should be.

After all, when discussing the social conditions of African-Americans, few people would bring up charts about conditions in Africa.

What does a 12 year old Muslim schoolgirl in Australia or Sweden have to do with the constitution of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

 

[Vinod2070]

For Western citizens of Muslim faith, home is the West.

Only racists and bigots would propose to calibrate citizens' rights based on their ethnicity or religion.

That is because the hated West allows the Muslim immigrants (and others as well) to become citizens and enjoy all the benefits that come with it.

Something no Muslim country would allow you. Even if you spend the whole life there.

I don't see you raising that issue anytime?

Now, the grant of that citizenship was based on an an implicit contract. There are obligations with the rights that citizenship gives.

If even a marriage can be annulled when things don't work out, can't the non fulfillment of the implicit contract annul the rights granted under the citizenship?

Have Muslims kept their side of the bargain? Are not so many of them more loyal to global Islamic cause than the country of stay?

Are many of them not turning against the very country that allowed them, dissing its values, its culture, its leaders, demanding to impose their own medieval (in the eyes of the natives) values?

Would they be wrong to ask them to go back and enjoy those values in their Islamic homes?

Let's take the example here itself. There is hardly a single Muslim member among so many who live in the West, who is not more concerned about the Islamic world than their country of stay.

Many abuse their countries when they can.

Watch this video from 23:00. Some of your own people seem to have got it. May b you will also one day.

With a lag as we have seen recently.

 

[Developereo]

Now, the grant of that citizenship was based on an an implicit contract. There are obligations with the rights that citizenship gives.

No one denied that.

What YOU fail to understand is that the matter is handled on a case by case basis. One has to prove that a specific person violated that contract before revoking their rights.

Just because some black people robbed a bank doesn't mean you can start rounding up all black people.

Once again, it is your tendency to see everything through stereotypes that leads you to support collective punishment.

 

[Vinod2070]

But to bring up the situation in the Muslim world in a discussion about Muslims in the West is to implicitly suggest that they should be.

After all, when discussing the social conditions of African-Americans, few people would bring up charts about conditions in Africa.

What does a 12 year old Muslim schoolgirl in Australia or Sweden have to do with the constitution of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

Then why is it the global Islamists who raise these issues and not people as citizens of the country concerned?

And why are not the global Islamists concerned with the millions of 8 and 10 year old girls who are forced into burqa (I see it in my own city, 10 year olds forced into burqa) but make noise about the 300 odd who were supposedly effected by the France law that seeked to uphold French cuture in French land?

Cholbe na.

Sure, we can take the reversal of all military conquests to its logical conclusion and all of humanity can squeeze back into Africa. We might have to displace a few people living there, but nothing that can't be worked out.

One doesn't need to go into undocumented pre history.

There are far easier ways and I am sure humanity will find a way to right some obvious wrongs without us all going back to our ancestral homes in Africa.

I am stating documented facts of history on what happened around that time frame.

Also, not that I want to get into it, but it was the Israelis who framed the conflict in religious terms -- long before a Palestinian even met the first Jewish settler.

Yes, they did.

And I think of it as a great triumph of hope and humanity that they could return to their punya bhumi after all these centuries.

I would have hoped that the side effects could have been avoided. Looking at the complete lack of remorse from the Islamists, I reserve those thoughts.

 

[Developereo]

Then why is it the global Islamists who raise these issues and not people as citizens of the country concerned?

Local Muslims raise issues which they feel are important enough, just as they condemn actions of Muslims which are wrong.

French activists, Muslim and otherwise, have brought up the matter in public debate.

 

[India defense]

@1ndy You can only speak for yourself.

that's what he said ...didnt he

 

[Vinod2070]

No one denied that.

What YOU fail to understand is that the matter is handled on a case by case basis. One has to prove that a specific person violated that contract before revoking their rights.

Just because some black people robbed a bank doesn't mean you can start rounding up all black people.

Once again, it is your tendency to see everything through stereotypes that leads you to support collective punishment.

You don't have to tell me Western values here.

I know you guys are very good at exploiting these liberal values without ever letting them pollute you.

They are called "sickularism" and "democrazy" in your own countries.

Yet you have no issues in demanding stuff from others using the same!

Jab tak chal raha hai, chalane do.

Local Muslims raise issues which they feel are important enough, just as they condemn actions of Muslims which are wrong.

French activists, Muslim and otherwise, have brought up the matter in public debate.

You ignore the important parts.

And why are not the global Islamists concerned with the millions of 8 and 10 year old girls who are forced into burqa (I see it in my own city, 10 year olds forced into burqa) but make noise about the 300 odd who were supposedly effected by the France law that seeked to uphold French cuture in French land?

Cholbe na.

 

[muse]

But to bring up the situation in the Muslim world in a discussion about Muslims in the West is to implicitly suggest that they should be.

After all, when discussing the social conditions of African-Americans, few people would bring up charts about conditions in Africa.

What does a 12 year old Muslim schoolgirl in Australia or Sweden have to do with the constitution of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

Most Muslims in the West are not native born, be reasonable - most Muslims in the West do not share Western values, do not value Western civilization and are closely connected with their home countries - that is to say we are connected, we are all connected, not just in affinity but attitudes with home countries --