Islam: What the West Needs to Know

[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
But still these Muslims refuse to wash for the sake of preventing disease in their patients? How do you defend that?

Why do you assume he is defending that? How about you ask him his opinion instead of rolling out yet another strawman?

The idea that the Islamic “religion has problems hygiene” (sic) is quite laughable, and that is what Shoebolt’s post was about.

We’ve got Muslim immigrant cab drivers in the States who refuse to take passengers carrying alcohol!

So what? I suggest you take it up on the “Fatties not Welcome” thread.

Do what you want in “Muslim” countries, but in the secular West? Adjust or leave. Nobody forced these people to immigrate or to take these positions.

Don’t be an imbecile! You are wrongly assuming that every last person involved in such activities is an immigrant.

I agree with the part where you say that nobody forces anyone to become cab drivers or surgeons, but I don’t see what all the rompus is about. Aren’t there safeguards to reprimand doctors who don’t scrub up? The behavior described in the article would never be tolerated by universities and hospitals in my country. You seem to have trouble telling non-issues blown out of proportion by the media to make a buck from real problems.

And if you think American cab drivers don’t have the right to refuse serving people, then I suggest you go vote for Hillary.[/quote]

Lixy,

Add this to the (growing) list of things that that any country should just say “no” to when demanded by their islamist guests. Let’s keep the welfware demands to just a single wife ok?

You give some folks an inch, and they end up demanding six feet of meat and cheese.

Lixy,

While we are on the topic of how well - or not - deeply “religious” followers of islam assimilate, and the challenges they pose to societies that allow them in, you might explain to the Germans they just need to get used to their Dhimmitude status.

After a Moroccan thug was stabbed to death in self-defense by a German man he was trying to rob, Muslims in Cologne took to the streets in protest. Apparently, islamists believe it�??s their right to mug Germans, and the Germans should just accept it.

The whole idea of muslims assimilating into other societies is a pipedream, it is not their way. All we need to do is take a look at what Islam did to India to see how muslims cannot get along with others. Because of Islam India has been ripped into three countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh).

Think about this, the Indians and the Pakistani’s are the same race, the same culture, but it has not stopped the Pakistani’s from building nuclear weapons so they can exterminate members of their own race in India.

If islam can lead people to threaten to exterminate their own race in India, why would anyone ever think that muslims would be able to move into Europe and America and assimilate and get along with people who are not the same race or culture.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Think about this, the Indians and the Pakistani’s are the same race, the same culture, but it has not stopped the Pakistani’s from building nuclear weapons so they can exterminate members of their own race in India. [/quote]

India’s first nuclear device was detonated in 1974, and had a yield of 12kt. Pakistan started developing nukes in the late 70s.

Yet, you claim that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were developed with the purpose of exterminating Indians. It becomes almost surreal when you try to blame it on Islam.

I doubt you have any weight left on this forum. Claiming Europe is not democratic, Muslims should be put in internment camps and what not. Do us all a favor and find yourself a new hangout.

I didn’t bother to mention the Indian arsenal because of the fact that they share a border with a nuclear armed, brutal, communist, dictatorship (China) that has invaded neighboring countries (Tibet) and the part of India they call South Tibet in 1962.

I would say the Indians have a legitimate self defensive need against Chinese aggression.

Actually I said that muslims should be sent back to their homelands as a first resort internment would only be a last resort for those who could not be repatriated.

The EU is undemocratic. The German Reichschancellor Merkel has stated that the European constitution should not be put to another vote by the people, because they clearly will not accept it. This document was rejected by a democratic vote, that should have been the end of it. To bring it back and then say we aren’t going to give the people a vote this time, because they rejected it last time is completely undemocratic.

Last point Lixy. I would wager that I have more weight on this forum than you. I think you would like to see me leave because my point about Pakistan is a very valid one, that even someone as smart as you can’t refute.

[quote]lixy wrote:

I doubt you have any weight left on this forum. [/quote]

Did Lixy really - really - just write this?

Really?

Funniest thing I have read in weeks.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I didn’t bother to mention the Indian arsenal because of the fact that they share a border with a nuclear armed, brutal, communist, dictatorship (China) that has invaded neighboring countries (Tibet) and the part of India they call South Tibet in 1962. [/quote]

Ha! So, when India does it, it’s not even worth mentioning because it is obviously nothing but a deterrent. Yet, when Pakistan gets nukes, it is to “exterminate”?

Boy, oh boy! You’re a piece of work.

And since we’re on the subject, what is your position on Iranian getting nukes? Surely, you must know that they border Russia and Pakistan both of which are nuclear powers. The belligerence of the former does not need to be demonstrated, and the latter is a nest for extremist terrorists who would be delighted to blow up some of those Shi’ite heretics in Tehran. And yes, both are brutal and dictatorial regimes. Note that I didn’t even mention the US troops encircling it.

Oooh…that makes it better. My mistake.

Refresh my memory. When did the Germans reject the document “by a democratic vote”?

Are you saying that Europe is “undemocratic” because of what a politician in Germany stated? WTF?

Wager along! Everybody knows what my position on Pakistan is.

Thanks for the compliment though.

I’ve had friends who are Iranian. If people like my friends were the ones running Iran I would have no problem with the Iranians having nukes. Then again my friends would probably invest the money in something that would deliver more benefit to the Iranian people.

The present government in Iran on the other hand I have serious misgivings about. I think Ahamdinejad has been deliberately provocative and he even makes some of his own people nervous.

I don’t see him changing course, so I am afraid the Israeli’s are going to do something about it and it is going to be a real mess, with a lot of people dying who don’t need to.

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Unequivocally agreed with. But what I said is also true. This is why there is no consensus on what do with this issue in any government or any body of political science discussion.[/quote]

I really don’t get where the complication comes in.

What part of ILLEGAL do people not understand?

Round 'em up and send 'em back.

Expensive, but it solves the problem.

ElbowStrike

I forgot the EU. The French and Dutch rejected the EU constitution in referendums.

When Britains Labour party ran for reelection their party manifesto stated that they would hold a referendum on the EU constitution. Merkel lobbied against anymore referendums because of the rejection the last time so no referendums will be held on the EU constitution, this time.

Another undemocratic aspect of Europe is the European Court of Justice having the authority to create new laws. Unelected judges having the power to craft legislation is undemocratic. It should be left to elected legislators.

Then last week the European parliaments president (who is German) was given new powers under an “enabling act” which allows him to disregard parliamentary procedures which are clearly laid out in law.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I forgot the EU. The French and Dutch rejected the EU constitution in referendums.

When Britains Labour party ran for reelection their party manifesto stated that they would hold a referendum on the EU constitution. Merkel lobbied against anymore referendums because of the rejection the last time so no referendums will be held on the EU constitution, this time.

Another undemocratic aspect of Europe is the European Court of Justice having the authority to create new laws. Unelected judges having the power to craft legislation is undemocratic. It should be left to elected legislators.

Then last week the European parliaments president (who is German) was given new powers under an “enabling act” which allows him to disregard parliamentary procedures which are clearly laid out in law.

[/quote]

Focus. You’re slinging things all around in the hope that something will stick. Not going to cut it with the not-so intellectually challenged crowd.

You didn’t answer my questions, and you went on talking about what the Labor party stated. Here’s a newsflash for you. Politicians lie; that’s what they do! Luckily, in democracies there are mechanisms designed to hold them accountable and ensure they pay for their mischiefs. Needless to tell you about Blair and his sunken political career.

I loathe Merkel and her globabilist policies. But I fail to see what you are blaming her for and how that makes Europe “undemocratic”. Moreover, I have no idea what your beef with the ECJ is. Sure, the judges are not directly elected, but are any such positions appointed in that fashion anywhere? Did you vote for the folks sitting in the US Supreme Court?

[quote]lixy wrote:

Did you vote for the folks sitting in the US Supreme Court?[/quote]

Oh, but Lixy, the US Supreme Court never legislates from the bench. That would be unconstitutional.

You are missing a very important point Lixy. Labour made a promise and has broken that promise by transferring their power to Brussels without asking the peoples permission. Your so called democratic mechanisms for holding them accountable have been circumvented, because noone cares about getting reelected to a parliament that is no longer going to have any power.

If Bliar is sunken why do they keep talking about him becoming the first president of Europe?

True the US Supreme Court judges are not elected, however their sole role is to decide the constitutionality of legislation that is crafted by elected lawmakers and disputes between states. They do not have the authority to create new laws which the ECJ does have. Unelected government officials creating laws the way they see fit with no accountability is very undemocratic.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
lixy wrote:

Did you vote for the folks sitting in the US Supreme Court?

Oh, but Lixy, the US Supreme Court never legislates from the bench. That would be unconstitutional.[/quote]

Ipse dixit Dubya.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
But still these Muslims refuse to wash for the sake of preventing disease in their patients? How do you defend that?

Why do you assume he is defending that? How about you ask him his opinion instead of rolling out yet another strawman?

Fair enough. Ok, I’m asking him…and you. [/quote]

Well, I don’t. I strongly condemn it.

That said, I know for a fact that Britain needs doctors and nurses though, and am pretty sure there must be a workaround somewhere to this situation. The most obvious being a simple curtain in the lavatory area.

At the end of the day, it’ll come down to whether the British society needs hospital staff that badly that they are willing to compromise, or that they’ll take a stand on principles. British pragmatism can be a bitch.

I’ll tell you what though, had this happened in Morocco, those chicks would have gotten kicked out swiftly. Don’t want to obey the rules? Go find another vocation! It certainly wouldn’t warrant much debate. Sensationalist rag would pick up the story, but that’s about the size of it.

Where does it say that there are no independent cabs in the United States?

Anyway, I wasn’t aware of the level of regulations surrounding this business in the land of the free. I looked it up, and you are right in that the cab driver doesn’t have much say in who he/she can pick up. It seems a pretty clear-cut case if taken to court.

I’ll ask you this though: what about a Catholic pharmacist who refuses to sell birth control? Does it happen? Where do you stand on the issue? And what does the law says?

[quote]Do what you want in “Muslim” countries, but in the secular West? Adjust or leave. Nobody forced these people to immigrate or to take these positions.

Don’t be an imbecile! You are wrongly assuming that every last person involved in such activities is an immigrant.

No I’m not, genius. Thus the second half of my sentence. You can read, right? [/quote]

Yes, I can.

What allowed you to say that those women were immigrants? Do you know their names? Did you go through their files? Talk to them?

Let’s stick to facts please.

[quote]I agree with the part where you say that nobody forces anyone to become cab drivers or surgeons, but I don’t see what all the rompus is about. Aren’t there safeguards to reprimand doctors who don’t scrub up? The behavior described in the article would never be tolerated by universities and hospitals in my country. You seem to have trouble telling non-issues blown out of proportion by the media to make a buck from real problems.

Yes, there are safeguards. And the Muslims are resisting them.[/quote]

If they are not resistance-proof, the safeguards lose the safe component and become mere guards.

I REALLY don’t get it. If you must make all this ruckus every time somebody is “trying to tell” you stuff, then you have to be one of those people seeking all sorts of limitations on free speech.

[quote]And if you think American cab drivers don’t have the right to refuse serving people, then I suggest you go vote for Hillary.

Wow. You really know nothing about the US, clearly. These prospective passengers are doing nothing illegal or immoral or dangerous. I’d love to see your reaction if fundamentalist Christians in the US began refusing service (housing, loans, restaurant service) to Muslims just for being Muslim*.

*Edit: Since they clearly engage in “non-Christian” practices.[/quote]

Yeah, I didn’t know much about the way US cabs are regulated. It is a lot more draconian than I would have expected. But hey, that’s what you get after decades of voting for Hillaries.

And like I wrote in the “Fatties” thread, I recognize the right of a privately owned business to refuse service to anyone. Be they fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians. Ideally, you need a free-market society for that to work without problems.

[quote]lixy wrote:

I’ll ask you this though: what about a Catholic pharmacist who refuses to sell birth control? Does it happen? Where do you stand on the issue? And what does the law says?

[/quote]

I know Catholic charities which accept government funds have been targeted with legal action to force them to cover such things as birth control in their insurance programs. A believe most, if not all, have turned down those funds.

Have the cab drivers fired, if you can.