Iceland welcomes first Syrian refugees

[Saiwania]

That's not what he said. Your bigoted behavior sets an image of The West which is in line with ISIS' West vs Muslims dichotomy.

Maybe the Muslim world should realize that they are responsible for why the west has grown to hate them. It is their religion's attitude towards everything non-Islamic or infidel. Islam shows no quarter to people who refuse to submit to Muslim rule, so why should non-Muslims not respond to aggression against them by Muslims with aggression of their own? An eye for an eye, is a better policy than being a pacifist because for one- you won't get killed so easily if you actually fight back. It is a fact that Muslims attacked the western world before the west ever attacked Muslim countries.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

That's not what he said. Your bigoted behavior sets an image of The West which is in line with ISIS' West vs Muslims dichotomy.

Maybe the Muslim world should realize that they are responsible for why the west has grown to hate them. It is their religion's attitude towards everything non-Islamic or infidel. Islam shows no quarter to people who refuse to submit to Muslim rule, so why should non-Muslims not respond to aggression against them by Muslims with aggression of their own? An eye for an eye, is a better policy than being a pacifist because for one- you won't get killed so easily if you actually fight back. It is a fact that Muslims attacked the western world before the west ever attacked Muslim countries.

Largely Western Tolerance is a great thing when it comes to non-aggressive cultures. Chinese immigrants have not to my knowledge gone into Cologne and had the audacity to rape and grope women in public in front of police who have been forced to remain 'politically correct.' Sikh's, to my knowledge, have not started grooming gangs that specifically target British school girls and ply them with drugs and alcohol to get them to prostitute. So on and so forth.

[Grenartia]

Why does Nihilism work at all? Why does it need to forget anything? What's the point of it if its all worthless anyhow?

Sure it does not live for meaning or purpose, and not according to any system of ethics, but it still has feelings - affections, passions, compulsions, yearnings, aspirations, desires, etc. Is it not fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as any other philosophy? If you prick it, does it not bleed? If you tickle it, does it not laugh? If you murder it's family and burn down it's home, does it not mourn?

I'm just saying. The logical implication that nothing has meaning or purpose means that everything is a waste of time and effort. So it is meaningless to agonize over the bleeding, meaningless to mourn, meaningless to laugh, meaningless to eat, meaningless to live, according to Nihilism.

[Conscentia]

Strawman.
Also, the phrase "I could care less" could mean that you care a lot. Even that you care more about it than anything else.

Actually that isn't a straw man, since he provided no argument.

I disagree.

And furthermore, grammatical semantics are less important than the comprehension. Nice try though.

The only reason I comprehended it is because I've seen the error before.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

Actually that isn't a straw man, since he provided no argument.

I disagree.

And furthermore, grammatical semantics are less important than the comprehension. Nice try though.

The only reason I comprehended it is because I've seen the error before.

You can disagree all you want, but he didn't provide an argument. A strawman argument has to be an "argument."

Everyone comprehended it, because it's an expansive error common across the English language.

[Grenartia]

I honestly don't see how its a problem that some of them don't like gay people. Honestly, they have every right to not like them, its called freedom.
Also, most real Christians don't like gay people either, you're saying that those people are such a problem aswell?

Yes, total bullshit.

Its different because christians are not actviley killing gay people or treating women like garbage in the same numbers. Yes christians can be intolerant but im not afraid of being thrown off a fucking building by them. Not to mention shit like honor killings. They are not related, christian extremism and islamic extremism are such a vastly different level in the modern world its laughable.

The only real difference between Christian extremism and Islamic extremism is that Christian extremism, existing mostly in developed nations, doesn't have to resort to the explicit methods that Islamic extremism has to (by virtue of the fact that it primarily exists in underdeveloped nations). Christian extremism can resort to indirect methods. Instead of outright throwing queer people off of rooftops, we can simply send them to torture camps to "pray" their "sins" away until they kill themselves.

[Roski]

I honestly don't see how its a problem that some of them don't like gay people. Honestly, they have every right to not like them, its called freedom.
Also, most real Christians don't like gay people either, you're saying that those people are such a problem aswell?

Yes, total bullshit.

Its different because christians are not actviley killing gay people or treating women like garbage in the same numbers. Yes christians can be intolerant but im not afraid of being thrown off a fucking building by them. Not to mention shit like honor killings. They are not related, christian extremism and islamic extremism are such a vastly different level in the modern world its laughable.

Speak for your fucking self.

I am very afraid of the christian community around me.

[Hjallaland]

But the "Muslim is not a race" excuse does nothing to explain the stupid fucks who attack and/or kill brown-skinned (mostly Indian or Sikh) people on the presumption that they were Muslim.

Sikhs are mostly Indian.

But no, it doesn't. Most anti Immigrants aren't supportive of the shooters.

Most anti immigrants want the refugees to be send back to their home countries so they can be killed there. Honestly i don't think that makes much of a difference.

Syria does not execute homosexuals or apostates and is quite progressive in women's rights for the region. Except for areas currently controlled by ISIS, of course.
So I've no idea what the fuck you're talking about here, except some generalism of Islamist rhetoric that doesn't apply to Syria, which was a fairly secular country in the ME before the war.

Yes, largely because of Assad being a secularist. And being gay is still punishable in Syria and was even before the war, hence why you would be fleeing from Syria.

The idea is this:

Leftists let hundreds of thousands of people into their country without any sort of ideological screening. Since you've stated that Syria is quite progressive in women's rights for the region even you acknowledge that these people are not Western people where the belief of equality is largely widespread. This is the problem, these people bring over their backwards beliefs, which influence a larger minority than usual to commit crimes or carry on prejudice.

Culture belief is the direct reason that there is a massive overrepresentation of Muslims in rape and murder crimes in Europe. Because the average European doesn't have a culture where honor killings is a thing.

Funny how some keep claiming it are leftists, yet the Netherlands is welcoming refugees aswell even though it has a Right-Wing led government. This has really nothing to do with left or right, its a Humanitarian matter. Sure governments screwed up on several matters concerning this issue but in no way it can be blamed on either side. Keep in mind that the entire refugee crisis isn't even a real crisis.
About 1.3 million refugees arrived in Europe through the mediterranean sea till now. The number is roughly equal to the amount of refugees currently residing in Lebanon, a country smaller than Kosovo. Lets say they all head for EU member states, it still means that only 1 in 391 people would be refugee, which isn't even a problem.
The actuall problem is the crap between the Schengen members and EU states on what to do with these people and furthermore on how countries handle the extra refugees.

[Grand Britannia]

Well, so much for Iceland being my destination of choice for when the US isn't majority White. It looks like I need to settle for Argentina.

This is the first time I see this said unironically.

[Conscentia]

Sure it does not live for meaning or purpose, and not according to any system of ethics, but it still has feelings - affections, passions, compulsions, yearnings, aspirations, desires, etc. Is it not fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as any other philosophy? If you prick it, does it not bleed? If you tickle it, does it not laugh? If you murder it's family and burn down it's home, does it not mourn?

I'm just saying. The logical implication that nothing has meaning or purpose means that everything is a waste of time and effort. So it is meaningless to agonize over the bleeding, meaningless to mourn, meaningless to laugh, meaningless to eat, meaningless to live, according to Nihilism.

So? Heartlessness, selfishness, and waiting for death are equally meaningless. Meaning is not the only motivator.

[Jochistan]

Maybe the Muslim world should realize that they are responsible for why the west has grown to hate them. It is their religion's attitude towards everything non-Islamic or infidel. Islam shows no quarter to people who refuse to submit to Muslim rule, so why should non-Muslims not respond to aggression against them by Muslims with aggression of their own? An eye for an eye, is a better policy than being a pacifist because for one- you won't get killed so easily if you actually fight back. It is a fact that Muslims attacked the western world before the west ever attacked Muslim countries.

Largely Western Tolerance is a great thing when it comes to non-aggressive cultures. Chinese immigrants have not to my knowledge gone into Cologne and had the audacity to rape and grope women in public in front of police who have been forced to remain 'politically correct. Sikh's, to my knowledge, have not started grooming gangs that specifically target British school girls and ply them with drugs and alcohol to get them to prostitute. So on and so forth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Cana ... ized_crime
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Duhre+g ... story.html
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-sikhs-of-vancouver
http://www.warriorsreligion.com/resources/deathlist (this one is on Sikh criminals and millitants as well)

Also, drug and child prostitution circuits often have presence in vietnamese communities and Chinatowns.

[Unnamed island state]

That's not what he said. Your bigoted behavior sets an image of The West which is in line with ISIS' West vs Muslims dichotomy.

Yes, but that shouldn't matter. We shouldn't be forced into anything that we don't want, because our enemies want us to act a certain way, even if it strengthens them. It's a battle of ideology. If we make compromise we lose in the long run.

The West compromising would mean giving up liberal values and treating Muslims as a monolithic group of malevolent sub-humans.

[Grenartia]

And your bigotry only fuels Daesh's propaganda machine.

I could care less how much I'm hurting ISIS' feelings. The Muslim immigrants going to Europe are more trouble than they're worth from my perspective and I want them gone. The only outcome short of that which I'd consider a victory for my side of the political landscape, is if all of the Muslim immigration was stopped but the ones which didn't wind up getting deported were allowed to stay.

1. Typical intellectual dishonesty, ignoring literally everything else I said.

2. Its not about "hurting" Daesh's fee-fees. Its about the fact that oppressing Muslims (yes, this includes kicking out refugees) legitimizes Daesh's propaganda which frames it as literally defending Muslims from Western persecution. If you don't oppress Muslims, fewer people will be interested in supporting Daesh. Now stop giving Daesh ammo.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Excellent

[Grenartia]

That's not what he said. Your bigoted behavior sets an image of The West which is in line with ISIS' West vs Muslims dichotomy.

Yes, but that shouldn't matter. We shouldn't be forced into anything that we don't want, because our enemies want us to act a certain way, even if it strengthens them. It's a battle of ideology. If we make compromise we lose in the long run.

1. In what fucking universe is taking in refugees and not oppressing them a "compromise"? That's the bare minimum requirement for being the fucking good guys, not a fucking compromise.

2. If you can't even muster the will to do this one simple fucking harmless thing out of a sense of pragmatism and self-preservation, then we're fighting a losing battle. Daesh has already won.

[Grenartia]

That's not what he said. Your bigoted behavior sets an image of The West which is in line with ISIS' West vs Muslims dichotomy.

Maybe the Muslim world should realize that they are responsible for why the west has grown to hate them. It is their religion's attitude towards everything non-Islamic or infidel. Islam shows no quarter to people who refuse to submit to Muslim rule, so why should non-Muslims not respond to aggression against them by Muslims with aggression of their own? An eye for an eye, is a better policy than being a pacifist because for one- you won't get killed so easily if you actually fight back. It is a fact that Muslims attacked the western world before the west ever attacked Muslim countries.

Which is about like saying that we're ultimately responsible for "muslims hating the west" (or whatever your standard jihadi will say). Because both statements are utterly fucking useless (since nobody on either side would even consider the possibility, as you are surely proof of), and worse, counterproductive. By saying things like that, you are LITERALLY hindering our effectiveness against Daesh. Which is equivalent to helping Daesh. Why are you helping Daesh?

[Grenartia]

I'm just saying. The logical implication that nothing has meaning or purpose means that everything is a waste of time and effort. So it is meaningless to agonize over the bleeding, meaningless to mourn, meaningless to laugh, meaningless to eat, meaningless to live, according to Nihilism.

So? Heartlessness, selfishness, and waiting for death are equally meaningless. Meaning is not the only motivator.

Just because negative things are also worthless doesn't mean that positive things being worthless isn't bad.

[Saiwania]

2. Its not about "hurting" Daesh's fee-fees. Its about the fact that oppressing Muslims (yes, this includes kicking out refugees) legitimizes Daesh's propaganda which frames it as literally defending Muslims from Western persecution. If you don't oppress Muslims, fewer people will be interested in supporting Daesh. Now stop giving Daesh ammo.

Even supposing that some Muslims which are on the fence decided to join ISIS, I don't want them being granted asylum in the first place if they're predisposed to Islamic fundamentalism. So what if they join ISIS? Big or small army, they are still going to lose.

I don't recall Muslim nations for example, opening their borders to White Christian males out of fear that they'll join some Christian terrorist group which will carry out attacks in the middle east. That proposition is absurd as is the notion that the western countries have no choice but to never close their borders because otherwise Muslims might radicalize further. If they did, that'd actually strengthen the argument of keeping them out.

[Grenartia]

2. Its not about "hurting" Daesh's fee-fees. Its about the fact that oppressing Muslims (yes, this includes kicking out refugees) legitimizes Daesh's propaganda which frames it as literally defending Muslims from Western persecution. If you don't oppress Muslims, fewer people will be interested in supporting Daesh. Now stop giving Daesh ammo.

1. Even supposing that some Muslims which are on the fence decided to join ISIS, I don't want them being granted asylum in the first place if they're predisposed to Islamic fundamentalism. 2. So what if they join ISIS? Big or small army, they are still going to lose.

3. I don't recall Muslim nations for example, opening their borders to White Christian males out of fear that they'll join some Christian terrorist group which will carry out attacks in the middle east. 4. That proposition is absurd as is the notion that the western countries have no choice but to never close their borders because otherwise Muslims might radicalize further. If they did, that'd actually strengthen the argument of keeping them out.

1. I'm not really seeing anything that actually addresses my points. Or even a coherent statement at all.

2. That remains doubtful. Never underestimate one's enemy.

3. Name a major Christian terrorist group carrying out attacks in the Middle East. Name one. Just one. I know you can't. That's where your statement becomes irrelevant.

4. Not at all. All you've just proven to me is that you don't understand psychological warfare on even a basic level.

[Saiwania]

3. Name a major Christian terrorist group carrying out attacks in the Middle East. Name one. Just one. I know you can't. That's where your statement becomes irrelevant.

No, it is exactly my point. If Muslim countries got even half of a taste of their own medicine, perhaps the Islamic world would be substantially less enthusiastic about the concept of Jihad in general.

[Jochistan]

That's not what he said. Your bigoted behavior sets an image of The West which is in line with ISIS' West vs Muslims dichotomy.

Maybe the Muslim world should realize that they are responsible for why the west has grown to hate them. It is their religion's attitude towards everything non-Islamic or infidel. Islam shows no quarter to people who refuse to submit to Muslim rule, so why should non-Muslims not respond to aggression against them by Muslims with aggression of their own? An eye for an eye, is a better policy than being a pacifist because for one- you won't get killed so easily if you actually fight back. It is a fact that Muslims attacked the western world before the west ever attacked Muslim countries.

Saiwania, just..stop.

Islam in all it's traditions, orientations, sects, subsects, movements, schools of thought, leanings and strains isn't unanimously murderous against non muslims and out to get you.

I get that you have the absurd view that all muslims that aren't Fundamentalists are no true muslims, but have you stopped to consider by that definition, most muslims aren't real Muslims? Or at least a fucking massive portion of them

[Jochistan]

3. Name a major Christian terrorist group carrying out attacks in the Middle East. Name one. Just one. I know you can't. That's where your statement becomes irrelevant.

No, it is exactly my point. If Muslim countries got even half of a taste of their own medicine, perhaps the Islamic world would be substantially less enthusiastic about the concept of Jihad in general.

So you're advocating terrorism.

[Notariao]

Good for Iceland. Progress is finally here.

[Jochistan]

Good for Iceland. Progress is finally here.

Not until they crack down on the fundamentalists

[Samnoreg]

This is mainly a good thing. All of Europe should do its part in alleviating this migration issue, I just hope Iceland doesn't take in too many folks. Only so much available room in such a tiny country before urban areas are overpopulated, and then you might have some problems. Hopefully they can be adequately integrated and assimilate well into Icelandic culture.