But when a death sentence is given (by very influential and highly placed religious authorities) for writing a book that they disapprove of, it illustrates a very fundamental clash of values. That death sentence was confirmed as still standing in 2005 by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This sort of thing justifiably fuels the fires of xenophobia. It's only unfortunate that moderates who follow the religion of Islam about as seriously as most self professed Christians follow their own get lumped in with the mouth breathers who take such things seriously. Those who live in western countries, and are able to adapt to the prevailing values of the same should be free to worship as they like, and wear what they like. But you never see any laws targeting Sikh turbans, because Sikhs have no track record of moving to western countries, and then demanding that those countries do things their way.
Dutch PM on trial for hate speech
- Thread starter Mrs.Lucysnow
- Start date
But when a death sentence is given (by very influential and highly placed religious authorities) for writing a book that they disapprove of, it illustrates a very fundamental clash of values. That death sentence was confirmed as still standing in 2005 by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This sort of thing justifiably fuels the fires of xenophobia. It's only unfortunate that moderates who follow the religion of Islam about as seriously as most self professed Christians follow their own get lumped in with the mouth breathers who take such things seriously. Those who live in western countries, and are able to adapt to the prevailing values of the same should be free to worship as they like, and wear what they like. But you never see any laws targeting Sikh turbans, because Sikhs have no track record of moving to western countries, and then demanding that those countries do things their way.
Why does everyone have these false notions? Khomeini was pissed because Rushdie caricatured him, same as the Shiv Sena was pissed off when he caricatured Bal Thackeray. Its got nothing to do with religion. Everyone has a fan club. For Khomeini it was the people who followed him [Shias] With a billion and a half Muslims in the world, if they wanted Rushdie dead, would he be walking around still?
I would be willing to bet even money that you have no clue what Cat Stevens thinks. Meanwhile, back on topic, Geert Wilders' trial will be a clue to how Europe is moving - I suspect the rightward shift will continue and there will be a ramping up of racism to support the ongoing war effort.
Why do I think it has something to do with religion? From the linked article:
- because that flat out says so.
As far as Yusuf Islam is concerned, we can only go by what he said at the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens'_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie
I still remember a radio station that took a large number of Cat Stevens records and ran them over with a diesel roller after he said that. The band 10,000 Maniacs had a hit with a cover of his song Peace Train, but they pledged to never play it again.
I suppose I'm just showing my profound ignorance of all things Islam by taking these statements at face value. As far as Rushdie still being alive, I credit the British security services, and his years of hiding for that. Maybe Shiites are lazy, and just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Last edited:
Lucky for you there's no way I can get hold of your cash. He'd admitted as much himself. Maybe he just misunderstands what the old git meant.
Ah you believe your media. Well Rushdie is Indian and our media is not sold to any foreign lobbies. Not yet, anyway.
Here I found the whole thing in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jan/11/salman-rushdie-satanic-verses
Here I found the whole thing in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jan/11/salman-rushdie-satanic-verses
Then this video is doctored?
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/4405LuH-Hypotheticals-a-Satanic-Scenario
And his later "Haha, just kidding" backpedaling is a load of BS.
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/4405LuH-Hypotheticals-a-Satanic-Scenario
And his later "Haha, just kidding" backpedaling is a load of BS.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Bells: I would suggest you go back and read his proposals. He wants to offer all Muslims the chance to leave. Those who do not, even those who are integrated into the society, would then be prevented from worshipping as they so choose to. So if they want to worship by choice, they will either have to leave to a place where they can do so freely, or they can convert out of Islam or worship in secret.
Force or offer? There is a difference. He hasn't given any indication that he has anything against integrated muslims that is simply a meaning you have projected unto his words. Where do you see that they will not be allowed to worship? Or that they would have to convert out? Again you have added this interpretation to his words.
Bells: Crime in any society is a concern. But domestic violence and threats of death to people within a family group is not solely the domain of Islam. Honour killing in Islam is known as domestic violence in other cultures. You are carrying on as if no other culture or society suffers such horrible issues.Maybe it is time to stop calling it honour killing because it creates a barrier within our society.. creating an 'us and them' scenario.
Sorry Bells. There is an investigator who works for the UN and he has said that there has been an explosion of honor killings in the UK to the point that it has its own special unit, its not dumped with other domestic violence cases. You have muslims who are violently harassed when they convert and have to leave their communities and go into hiding in the UK. All you are suggesting is that since there was domestic violence in the society they should compound this by inviting immigrants who have domestic violence written into their social narrative and I find that outrageous. I know its popular to now re-frame honor killings as just another form of 'domestic violence' but I don't recall when domestic violence was perpetrated by every male member on the family against their daughters.
Here is what I mean:
The press has reported a number of honor killings in the United States, Canada, and Europe. These cases show the killings to be primarily a Muslim-on-Muslim crime. The victims are largely teenage daughters or young women. Wives are victims but to a lesser extent. And, unlike most Western domestic violence, honor killings are carefully planned. The perpetrator's family may warn the victim repeatedly over a period of years that she will be killed if she dishonors her family by refusing to veil, rebuffing an arranged marriage, or becoming too Westernized. Most important, only honor killings involve multiple family members. Fathers, mothers, brothers, male cousins, uncles, and sometimes even grandfathers commit the murder, but mothers and sisters may lobby for the killing. Some mothers collaborate in the murder in a hands-on way and may assist in the getaway. In some cases, taxi drivers, neighbors, and mosque members prevent the targeted woman from fleeing, report her whereabouts to her family, and subsequently conspire to thwart police investigations. Very old relatives or minors may be chosen to conduct the murder in order to limit jail time if caught.
Seldom is domestic violence celebrated, even by its perpetrators. In the West, wife batterers are ostracized. Here, there is an important difference in honor crimes. Muslims who commit or assist in the commission of honor killings view these killings as heroic and even view the murder as the fulfillment of a religious obligation. A Turkish study of prisoners found no social stigma attached to honor murderers. While advocacy organizations such as CAIR denounce any link between honor killings and Islam, many sheikhs still preach that disobedient women should be punished. Few sheikhs condemn honor killings as anti-Islamic. Honor killings are not stigmatized.
http://www.meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence
Now come back and tell me that honor killings mirrors domestic violence!
Bells: Why shouldn't she wear a veil to work if that is what she believes in?She has obviously integrated enough if she won a seat in Parliament.
You didn't read what I wrote. I said she goes to work in her veil and that she is a palestinian dane. I am suggesting that if the Danes were so racist that this would not be allowed to happen. I am saying that the Danes have tried everything, bent themselves backwards to integrate and include this new community, they have even introduced arabic into their language curriculum which already includes French, German and English, why would they do this if they were not making an effort? Again you are relying on emotion and just like you have with Wilders you fail to hear me, you simply throw your own meaning unto my words which makes discussions like this impossible and which is why out of frustration with the restrictions of political correctness the right has become stronger as they aren't afraid to talk about it. If the left made a genuine attempt to talk and listen to the public about this subject without the PC hysteria there would have been more of a public discourse. Instead they have made it impossible to address these issues without being pigeon holed a racist!
Bells: So murder, revenge killing and domestic violence was a non-issue in the Netherlands before Muslims started migrating there?
This is a strawman. I wrote this: The Dutch have had similar experience and now they are sick of it. They are sick of the requests which limit their freedoms, they are sick of the killing of artists and running around looking for places to hide muslim women who are running away from their wacky religious relatives.
Its the bulk of these issues impacting small, sometimes mostly homogenized, nations that are bringing this backlash. That and the refusal of labor and moderate movements to address the issue of immigration. But I don't expect you to deal with that part of my argument because its more difficult to address, its easier for you to package all my statements into a critique on honor killings.
Bells: Yes, I am sure the Indigenous populations of both the US and Australia will agree that there has been a lot of integration for generations.It is amusing that there were no problems with Muslims before 9/11. It is also astounding that it was since 9/11 that we suddenly find that they are not integrated in society and persecute them for it.
Well dear I have lived in NY for many years and I can say its a truly integrated city in the sense that everyone can pretty much live together without fear of each other. What you should find amusing is that there have not been many problems for muslims after 9/11. I am not speaking of a problem in Europe that began with 9/11 it didn't and that just shows how little you know of what is going on in Europe, they have had these problems for a decade. And when were we speaking of indigenous populations? I was speaking of new immigrants! Stop trying to re-orchestrate my arguments!!!
Bells: Tell me, how easy is it to integrate in a society that rejects you and your religion? You're right, integration is about adapting.. to each other. But how easy is it to integrate when your religion is abused, your religious book is torn to shreds and you are told if follow all of what is in that religious book, you are somehow akin to believing in murder, etc? How can one integrate when the other party is screaming at you to get out?
Well this is what you don't seem to understand, these societies didn't reject their religion, not initially, like Denmark they made every attempt to afford the new population all sorts of economic, social and cultural incentives without any formal plan to integrate the community that there were problems. When you are dealing with a group that doesn't integrate as easily as others then you need to force it not introduce programs where children are taught in their native language etc. In a sense I blame Europe for not initially doing this. Where has anyone torn the koran to shreds? LOL. And you are amused when I call you hysterical! Islam is being associated with murder not because its being cast on them from outside, it happens when a muslim goes about fatwas, honor killings or suicide bombing. Is it the majority of muslims who are behaving like this? No. But the more you have even a fraction of these problems in teeny countries like Denmark the people will feel it.
Bells: When you integrate, you need to accept the other. When there is no acceptance on one side, the other side will simply refuse to integrate with you.
It is not up to the host society to integrate with the new immigrant its the responsibility of the new immigrant to integrate with the host society.
Bells: How can anyone integrate when you have words like "learn the language, take off the sack and respect our freedom of speech" being bandied around?
Ahh! Well if they cannot learn the language in a timely fashion they should leave. If they cannot take off the ask and respect the freedom of speech they do not belong in the West but a different kind of society and so should leave. And just in case you don't know wearing the sack is not a part of their religion so I don't know why they are using religious intolerance as an argument. Sam has had this to say in another thread:
"The veil came to Saudi Arabia with Abdul Wahab 100 years ago, before that the abaya was on the same level as the male desert scarf, a voluminous garment to wrap yourself in for protection from sun and sand. Its always been associated with modesty and social class [see Sophie Marceau's face veil in Braveheart] but it was more of a fashion statement and cultural tag like veiled hats at funerals."
No where in the Koran does it say a woman must wear the sack. But what I do find interesting is that the habit (no pun intended) began with Abdul Wahab ie 'wahabism' and we all know wahabism is the kind of Islam no one wants to spread through the land.
Bells: How can anyone integrate when you are lumped in with the few radicals simply because of your religion?
Well then they should do what some british muslims have done which is to form groups that are against radicals. There is a group who goes around following radical rallies and protests with larger groups of moderate muslims who shout them out by making their presence known. They yell 'YOU DO NOT REPRESENT US!' over and over again and I think its brilliant. They need to do more of that!
Bells: The reaction and actions of Wilders will only lead more people to move towards the more radical aspects of the religion, simply because it is offering them the opportunity to vent. Because at the moment, in the Netherlands as it is for most of Europe, Muslims are being told to integrate but not being allowed to.
Bells get it into your head! You are trying to kill the messenger!!! He mirrors the opinion of the second largest party in the Netherlands. A party that will win in the coming elections. This didn't begin with Wilders but was already an existing problem. He simply opened his mouth and addressed it! Its absolutely bullshit that muslims are not allowed to integrate, they refuse to integrate but they love the social welfare. They had this same issue for almost 20 years ago in Brussels! They didn't complain about their african population it was always the muslims.
Bells:You cannot have integration when you demand that they give up all aspects of their society and their beliefs to be 'just like us'.
Not all aspects. They are being asked to learn the language, give up the robe, and respect the freedoms of the host culture which would include the freedom to use cartoon satire and irony in their newspapers, it includes the freedom to make films and documentaries without being censored by the threat of violence.
Bells: That is not how it works. In Australia, for example, we have integration but we also allow people to keep their own identities and their religious. At least we have in the past. We did when we migrated here. The more radical aspects of our society that is now making itself heard is because we had our own Wilders, in the guise of Hanson, who with her words, created an 'us against them' attitude and the more racist individual in our society latched onto her like she was mana from heaven. The result was a creation of a divide and migrants, be they Asian or Muslim or African were pushed to the outer circle and told they had to integrate. That they somehow had to leave their identity and their culture behind and live and breath just like 'we' do, while ignoring their cultural history. And it has created a massive barrier.
Read my previous response no one is suggesting that they cannot have their own identity. Australia is a large country my dear and like the US it has the capacity to absorb new immigrants, this isn't true for a country like denmark that has a host population of 5 million.
Bells: No Lucy. What he is suggesting is no more Muslim migrants. Period.
No new immigrants Bells and I am fine with that. There is no point in bringing in more muslims if you haven't figured out how to integrate the ones you already have! He cannot by law prevent muslims from other EU countries who are EU citizens from going where they like and he cannot oust EU converts. The only way he could 'oust' all muslims is if Holland officially left the EU and that is not going to happen any time soon.
Bells: Refer to above. The ban would be for all Muslim migrants, regardless of where they are from.
Bullshit you obviously do refuse to understand the legalities of this or you are ignorant of EU law. Or maybe you just cannot calmly read what he is saying without re-interpreting his statements.
Force or offer? There is a difference. He hasn't given any indication that he has anything against integrated muslims that is simply a meaning you have projected unto his words. Where do you see that they will not be allowed to worship? Or that they would have to convert out? Again you have added this interpretation to his words.
Bells: Crime in any society is a concern. But domestic violence and threats of death to people within a family group is not solely the domain of Islam. Honour killing in Islam is known as domestic violence in other cultures. You are carrying on as if no other culture or society suffers such horrible issues.Maybe it is time to stop calling it honour killing because it creates a barrier within our society.. creating an 'us and them' scenario.
Sorry Bells. There is an investigator who works for the UN and he has said that there has been an explosion of honor killings in the UK to the point that it has its own special unit, its not dumped with other domestic violence cases. You have muslims who are violently harassed when they convert and have to leave their communities and go into hiding in the UK. All you are suggesting is that since there was domestic violence in the society they should compound this by inviting immigrants who have domestic violence written into their social narrative and I find that outrageous. I know its popular to now re-frame honor killings as just another form of 'domestic violence' but I don't recall when domestic violence was perpetrated by every male member on the family against their daughters.
Here is what I mean:
The press has reported a number of honor killings in the United States, Canada, and Europe. These cases show the killings to be primarily a Muslim-on-Muslim crime. The victims are largely teenage daughters or young women. Wives are victims but to a lesser extent. And, unlike most Western domestic violence, honor killings are carefully planned. The perpetrator's family may warn the victim repeatedly over a period of years that she will be killed if she dishonors her family by refusing to veil, rebuffing an arranged marriage, or becoming too Westernized. Most important, only honor killings involve multiple family members. Fathers, mothers, brothers, male cousins, uncles, and sometimes even grandfathers commit the murder, but mothers and sisters may lobby for the killing. Some mothers collaborate in the murder in a hands-on way and may assist in the getaway. In some cases, taxi drivers, neighbors, and mosque members prevent the targeted woman from fleeing, report her whereabouts to her family, and subsequently conspire to thwart police investigations. Very old relatives or minors may be chosen to conduct the murder in order to limit jail time if caught.
Seldom is domestic violence celebrated, even by its perpetrators. In the West, wife batterers are ostracized. Here, there is an important difference in honor crimes. Muslims who commit or assist in the commission of honor killings view these killings as heroic and even view the murder as the fulfillment of a religious obligation. A Turkish study of prisoners found no social stigma attached to honor murderers. While advocacy organizations such as CAIR denounce any link between honor killings and Islam, many sheikhs still preach that disobedient women should be punished. Few sheikhs condemn honor killings as anti-Islamic. Honor killings are not stigmatized.
http://www.meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence
Now come back and tell me that honor killings mirrors domestic violence!
Bells: Why shouldn't she wear a veil to work if that is what she believes in?She has obviously integrated enough if she won a seat in Parliament.
You didn't read what I wrote. I said she goes to work in her veil and that she is a palestinian dane. I am suggesting that if the Danes were so racist that this would not be allowed to happen. I am saying that the Danes have tried everything, bent themselves backwards to integrate and include this new community, they have even introduced arabic into their language curriculum which already includes French, German and English, why would they do this if they were not making an effort? Again you are relying on emotion and just like you have with Wilders you fail to hear me, you simply throw your own meaning unto my words which makes discussions like this impossible and which is why out of frustration with the restrictions of political correctness the right has become stronger as they aren't afraid to talk about it. If the left made a genuine attempt to talk and listen to the public about this subject without the PC hysteria there would have been more of a public discourse. Instead they have made it impossible to address these issues without being pigeon holed a racist!
Bells: So murder, revenge killing and domestic violence was a non-issue in the Netherlands before Muslims started migrating there?
This is a strawman. I wrote this: The Dutch have had similar experience and now they are sick of it. They are sick of the requests which limit their freedoms, they are sick of the killing of artists and running around looking for places to hide muslim women who are running away from their wacky religious relatives.
Its the bulk of these issues impacting small, sometimes mostly homogenized, nations that are bringing this backlash. That and the refusal of labor and moderate movements to address the issue of immigration. But I don't expect you to deal with that part of my argument because its more difficult to address, its easier for you to package all my statements into a critique on honor killings.
Bells: Yes, I am sure the Indigenous populations of both the US and Australia will agree that there has been a lot of integration for generations.It is amusing that there were no problems with Muslims before 9/11. It is also astounding that it was since 9/11 that we suddenly find that they are not integrated in society and persecute them for it.
Well dear I have lived in NY for many years and I can say its a truly integrated city in the sense that everyone can pretty much live together without fear of each other. What you should find amusing is that there have not been many problems for muslims after 9/11. I am not speaking of a problem in Europe that began with 9/11 it didn't and that just shows how little you know of what is going on in Europe, they have had these problems for a decade. And when were we speaking of indigenous populations? I was speaking of new immigrants! Stop trying to re-orchestrate my arguments!!!
Bells: Tell me, how easy is it to integrate in a society that rejects you and your religion? You're right, integration is about adapting.. to each other. But how easy is it to integrate when your religion is abused, your religious book is torn to shreds and you are told if follow all of what is in that religious book, you are somehow akin to believing in murder, etc? How can one integrate when the other party is screaming at you to get out?
Well this is what you don't seem to understand, these societies didn't reject their religion, not initially, like Denmark they made every attempt to afford the new population all sorts of economic, social and cultural incentives without any formal plan to integrate the community that there were problems. When you are dealing with a group that doesn't integrate as easily as others then you need to force it not introduce programs where children are taught in their native language etc. In a sense I blame Europe for not initially doing this. Where has anyone torn the koran to shreds? LOL. And you are amused when I call you hysterical! Islam is being associated with murder not because its being cast on them from outside, it happens when a muslim goes about fatwas, honor killings or suicide bombing. Is it the majority of muslims who are behaving like this? No. But the more you have even a fraction of these problems in teeny countries like Denmark the people will feel it.
Bells: When you integrate, you need to accept the other. When there is no acceptance on one side, the other side will simply refuse to integrate with you.
It is not up to the host society to integrate with the new immigrant its the responsibility of the new immigrant to integrate with the host society.
Bells: How can anyone integrate when you have words like "learn the language, take off the sack and respect our freedom of speech" being bandied around?
Ahh! Well if they cannot learn the language in a timely fashion they should leave. If they cannot take off the ask and respect the freedom of speech they do not belong in the West but a different kind of society and so should leave. And just in case you don't know wearing the sack is not a part of their religion so I don't know why they are using religious intolerance as an argument. Sam has had this to say in another thread:
"The veil came to Saudi Arabia with Abdul Wahab 100 years ago, before that the abaya was on the same level as the male desert scarf, a voluminous garment to wrap yourself in for protection from sun and sand. Its always been associated with modesty and social class [see Sophie Marceau's face veil in Braveheart] but it was more of a fashion statement and cultural tag like veiled hats at funerals."
No where in the Koran does it say a woman must wear the sack. But what I do find interesting is that the habit (no pun intended) began with Abdul Wahab ie 'wahabism' and we all know wahabism is the kind of Islam no one wants to spread through the land.
Bells: How can anyone integrate when you are lumped in with the few radicals simply because of your religion?
Well then they should do what some british muslims have done which is to form groups that are against radicals. There is a group who goes around following radical rallies and protests with larger groups of moderate muslims who shout them out by making their presence known. They yell 'YOU DO NOT REPRESENT US!' over and over again and I think its brilliant. They need to do more of that!
Bells: The reaction and actions of Wilders will only lead more people to move towards the more radical aspects of the religion, simply because it is offering them the opportunity to vent. Because at the moment, in the Netherlands as it is for most of Europe, Muslims are being told to integrate but not being allowed to.
Bells get it into your head! You are trying to kill the messenger!!! He mirrors the opinion of the second largest party in the Netherlands. A party that will win in the coming elections. This didn't begin with Wilders but was already an existing problem. He simply opened his mouth and addressed it! Its absolutely bullshit that muslims are not allowed to integrate, they refuse to integrate but they love the social welfare. They had this same issue for almost 20 years ago in Brussels! They didn't complain about their african population it was always the muslims.
Bells:You cannot have integration when you demand that they give up all aspects of their society and their beliefs to be 'just like us'.
Not all aspects. They are being asked to learn the language, give up the robe, and respect the freedoms of the host culture which would include the freedom to use cartoon satire and irony in their newspapers, it includes the freedom to make films and documentaries without being censored by the threat of violence.
Bells: That is not how it works. In Australia, for example, we have integration but we also allow people to keep their own identities and their religious. At least we have in the past. We did when we migrated here. The more radical aspects of our society that is now making itself heard is because we had our own Wilders, in the guise of Hanson, who with her words, created an 'us against them' attitude and the more racist individual in our society latched onto her like she was mana from heaven. The result was a creation of a divide and migrants, be they Asian or Muslim or African were pushed to the outer circle and told they had to integrate. That they somehow had to leave their identity and their culture behind and live and breath just like 'we' do, while ignoring their cultural history. And it has created a massive barrier.
Read my previous response no one is suggesting that they cannot have their own identity. Australia is a large country my dear and like the US it has the capacity to absorb new immigrants, this isn't true for a country like denmark that has a host population of 5 million.
Bells: No Lucy. What he is suggesting is no more Muslim migrants. Period.
No new immigrants Bells and I am fine with that. There is no point in bringing in more muslims if you haven't figured out how to integrate the ones you already have! He cannot by law prevent muslims from other EU countries who are EU citizens from going where they like and he cannot oust EU converts. The only way he could 'oust' all muslims is if Holland officially left the EU and that is not going to happen any time soon.
Bells: Refer to above. The ban would be for all Muslim migrants, regardless of where they are from.
Bullshit you obviously do refuse to understand the legalities of this or you are ignorant of EU law. Or maybe you just cannot calmly read what he is saying without re-interpreting his statements.
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Europeans uniformly oppose the war which is why they have sent so few troops as compared to the heavy presence the US would prefer from their allies. This started brewing waaay before 9/11 and said wars.
Highest ranking cleric? By whose measure? Iran's? India's? Saudi Arabia's?
There are a gazillion fatwas a day, many of whom contradict each other, they are like opinion columns in a western newspaper. The clergy has no authority in Islam.
Such "opposition" makes little difference to the victims:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Doesn't matter Sam if it makes a difference to the victims or not I am stating a fact which is that they oppose the war and their present problem of muslim immigrants and Europeans started way before 9/11. This thread isn't about afghanistan so please leave it out of the discussion.
Yeah lets talk about hypotheticals rather than ongoing massacres.
Lets hear about how much the Afghans adore being occupied while the Europeans struggle with being forced to kill their children.
You guys are so superficial, its unbelievable.
I'd like to see Europeans having their sleeping children dragged out and shot in the head with polls declaring how much they love their occupiers, being hotly debated as rational discussions in the forums.
Lets hear about how much the Afghans adore being occupied while the Europeans struggle with being forced to kill their children.
You guys are so superficial, its unbelievable.
I'd like to see Europeans having their sleeping children dragged out and shot in the head with polls declaring how much they love their occupiers, being hotly debated as rational discussions in the forums.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Yeah. Lets talk about the article I posted about the netherlands and local European issues concerning muslim. I tell you what though, you can always start yet another thread on massacres if you like. I mean really, you can actually make one instead of trolling this one with the issue you prefer instead of dialoging about immigration and integration which is what I am here to discuss.
If you continue to bring it up its only because you are trolling the thread trying to derail it with an off-topic discussion
If you continue to bring it up its only because you are trolling the thread trying to derail it with an off-topic discussion
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Who said that fears over the islamification of Europe has anything to do with terrorism? Because it doesnt. You are confusing American fears with European fears and they are different. Notice you never hear americans talking of the islamification of the US even though they have a higher rate of converts, no one speaks of it really. Perhaps its because they tend to integrate in the US which has a different capacity for absorbing immigrants.
Notice how no one talks of the westernisation of other lands by the Europeans either. Why do you suppose that is?
Have the Dutch apologised for their occupation and Dutch-ing of other lands yet? Will they be bringing their churches home from Indonesia?
Have the Dutch apologised for their occupation and Dutch-ing of other lands yet? Will they be bringing their churches home from Indonesia?
