Iceland welcomes first Syrian refugees

[Hjallaland]

Lets look at the OVERALL CULTURE of Christian/Westen people then shall we?

General peadophilia amongst priests?: Yup, well known and documented.
General harsh treatment of homesxuals?: Yup more than a few getting beaten up or treated horribly.
Muslim?: Yup, being treated as outcasts and terrorists.
Hate speech/discrimination/racism?: Widely allowed and/or tolerated.
Imperialistic tendencies?: Notorious for interfering in other countries affairs and (trying to) overthrowing democracies.

That a few are being pieces of shit doesn't mean they all are.

1. among priests sure, but this isn't a normal thing in european culture though and is HARSHLY dealt with if exposed in any shape or form so nope, let's move on to the next one.
2. Yes, some gay people are beaten and even murdered but it's not cultural acceptable nor is it legaly acceptable in almost all cases and the law usually protect LGBT for the most part, wrong again it appears.
3. This one you may have some sway because of things like the war on terror that breed a negative stereotype, however, given the current situation this is becoming more legit.
4. Allowed as a personal freedom and not allowed to be used in a manner that endagers others, the law also PROTECTS PEOPLE in this case.
5. Okay yes the euro powers have done a lot of this, that dosn't excuse the others behavior, besides, for being so bad they all sure as fuck want to come to places like Germany

1) Treating woman as shit is treated about as harsh in the Middle-East as peadophilia is in Europe.
2) Its not cultural/legaly accepted in the majority of the Muslim world either.
3) Its not legit at any given time considering that less than 1% are actual terrorists.
4) Doesn't matter, its still widely tolerated and allowed and the law barely protects people against it. Discrimination is illegal in my nation though it happens all the time even by political leaders. The law to protect people from it is a failure in pretty much all nations.
5) It actually created the behavior shown by terrorists. And by those standards you're putting up here, if Muslims do wrong than i twould be no excuse for you to behave in the way you do.

[Purpelia]

1) Treating woman as shit is treated about as harsh in the Middle-East as peadophilia is in Europe.
2) Its not cultural/legaly accepted in the majority of the Muslim world either.
3) Its not legit at any given time considering that less than 1% are actual terrorists.
4) Doesn't matter, its still widely tolerated and allowed and the law barely protects people against it. Discrimination is illegal in my nation though it happens all the time even by political leaders. The law to protect people from it is a failure in pretty much all nations.
5) It actually created the behavior shown by terrorists. And by those standards you're putting up here, if Muslims do wrong than i twould be no excuse for you to behave in the way you do.

I am sure you would not mind providing citations for that.

[Hjallaland]

1) Treating woman as shit is treated about as harsh in the Middle-East as peadophilia is in Europe.
2) Its not cultural/legaly accepted in the majority of the Muslim world either.
3) Its not legit at any given time considering that less than 1% are actual terrorists.
4) Doesn't matter, its still widely tolerated and allowed and the law barely protects people against it. Discrimination is illegal in my nation though it happens all the time even by political leaders. The law to protect people from it is a failure in pretty much all nations.
5) It actually created the behavior shown by terrorists. And by those standards you're putting up here, if Muslims do wrong than i twould be no excuse for you to behave in the way you do.

I am sure you would not mind providing citations for that.

I sure wouldn't, but for what exactly?

[Uxupox]

1. among priests sure, but this isn't a normal thing in european culture though and is HARSHLY dealt with if exposed in any shape or form so nope, let's move on to the next one.
2. Yes, some gay people are beaten and even murdered but it's not cultural acceptable nor is it legaly acceptable in almost all cases and the law usually protect LGBT for the most part, wrong again it appears.
3. This one you may have some sway because of things like the war on terror that breed a negative stereotype, however, given the current situation this is becoming more legit.
4. Allowed as a personal freedom and not allowed to be used in a manner that endagers others, the law also PROTECTS PEOPLE in this case.
5. Okay yes the euro powers have done a lot of this, that dosn't excuse the others behavior, besides, for being so bad they all sure as fuck want to come to places like Germany

1) Treating woman as shit is treated about as harsh in the Middle-East as peadophilia is in Europe.
2) Its not cultural/legaly accepted in the majority of the Muslim world either.
3) Its not legit at any given time considering that less than 1% are actual terrorists.
4) Doesn't matter, its still widely tolerated and allowed and the law barely protects people against it. Discrimination is illegal in my nation though it happens all the time even by political leaders. The law to protect people from it is a failure in pretty much all nations.
5) It actually created the behavior shown by terrorists. And by those standards you're putting up here, if Muslims do wrong than i twould be no excuse for you to behave in the way you do.

I have to say that number #1 is bullshit. They have a pretty big problem concerning child brides, no to mention that female are treated as socially inferior to the male, stoning a woman for adultery is normal (Remember that little girl in Pakistan where she got almost killed for trying to read a book), the mob killings of women. I could go on and on and on on how your comparison is wrong.

[Imperializt Russia]

Some countries have a problem with child brides.
Not the entire middle east, not the entire Muslim world.

Remember it was only a hundred years ago when the age of consent in parts of western Europe was 12, and in Germany it is still 14.

[Hjallaland]

1) Treating woman as shit is treated about as harsh in the Middle-East as peadophilia is in Europe.
2) Its not cultural/legaly accepted in the majority of the Muslim world either.
3) Its not legit at any given time considering that less than 1% are actual terrorists.
4) Doesn't matter, its still widely tolerated and allowed and the law barely protects people against it. Discrimination is illegal in my nation though it happens all the time even by political leaders. The law to protect people from it is a failure in pretty much all nations.
5) It actually created the behavior shown by terrorists. And by those standards you're putting up here, if Muslims do wrong than i twould be no excuse for you to behave in the way you do.

I have to say that number #1 is bullshit. They have a pretty big problem concerning child brides, no to mention that female are treated as socially inferior to the male, stoning a woman for adultery is normal (Remember that little girl in Pakistan where she got almost killed for trying to read a book), the mob killings of women. I could go on and on and on on how your comparison is wrong.

So becouse some nations and tribes are being shitheads means they all are? Just have some looks at Bangladesh, Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia ect. All of them are pretty much at the same standards as European nations regarding laws about male to female equality.

[Hjallaland]

Some countries have a problem with child brides.
Not the entire middle east, not the entire Muslim world.

Remember it was only a hundred years ago when the age of consent in parts of western Europe was 12, and in Germany it is still 14.

Yup, pretty much depends on the nation itself. Countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Oman and even Saudi-Arabia all have the age of consent at 18 for both male as females.
Look at the Philippines to see the extreme reaching a Christian nation, their age of consent is 12.

[Uxupox]

I have to say that number #1 is bullshit. They have a pretty big problem concerning child brides, no to mention that female are treated as socially inferior to the male, stoning a woman for adultery is normal (Remember that little girl in Pakistan where she got almost killed for trying to read a book), the mob killings of women. I could go on and on and on on how your comparison is wrong.

So becouse some nations and tribes are being shitheads means they all are? Just have some looks at Bangladesh, Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia ect. All of them are pretty much at the same standards as European nations regarding laws about male to female equality.

Did I say all of them were? No. It's just that it's a very false comparison to compare that laws in the Middle East concerning women are treated the same as pedophilia in Europe. If somebody is caught perpetrating something like child molestation, child pornography or something related to pedophilia then they are gonna be in for a rough time in the justice system while in the Middle east a woman is a man's property be it their wife, daughter, mother if you are the legal head of family. In Iraq a buddy of mine had to pay the brides family around 5000 USD to marry her(Dowry?).

[Evanescens]

Oh please, have a look at the history of islam. Right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam
They conquered everything that mattered in about a century. Convert or die -- that was the modus operandi, not sunshine and lollypops. It went on and on, until the corpse of Osman empire was torn apart by European powers -- about a hundred years ago. So most people of islam are quite OK with following islam when it suits their biological urges. More to the point that I am making here, in the final analysis islam is irrelevant here. Europe is dealing with biological invasion of a hostile species. The deceptive nuance is that biologically they are humans, but the biological drive that is in their social instincts, imprinted via culture, religion or what not -- does not matter how it happened -- is not unlike that found in animal world. What matters is what best describes the problem, and biological description is the best one. They would not dispute that too. Consequently, the solution is also biological: containment. For goodness sake, each nation has some form of a military, and the primary function of the military is defense of the nation's borders. That is not happening, even police pretends to be blind and deaf when called to deal with such probems. Instead, there are long discussions that go on and on while the future of Europe gets bleaker. Well, it appears the poli-freaking-ticians are scared enough now to close the doors, so there is a dim glimmer of hope yet for Europe to repair the damage and learn the lesson.

Look, I'll be the first to say that the Q'uran and the accompanying hadith do have a lot of things to say that do not jive with today's more tolerant, more egalitarian mindset. But guess what? Only ever a small portion of Islamic adherents have actually kept those words to heart and massacred scores of innocents out of a difference in ideologies -- most people in Islam or in any other religion have been and are content to live out their lives in this world, defying the more extreme dictates of their creed, whether or not they realize it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Oh please, have a look at the history of islam. Right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam
They conquered everything that mattered in about a century. Convert or die -- that was the modus operandi, non sunshine and lollypops. It went on and on, until the corpse of Osman empire was torn apart by European powers -- about a hundred years ago. So most people of islam are quite OK with following islam when it suits their biological urges. More to the point that I am making here, in the final analysis islam is irrelevant here. Europe is dealing with biological invasion of a hostile species. The deceptive nuance is that biologically they are humans, but the biological drive that is in their social instincts, imprinted via culture, religion or what not -- does not matter how it happened -- is not unlike that found in animal world. What matters is what best describes the problem, and biological description is the best one. They would not dispute that too. Consequently, the solution is also biological: containment. For goodness sake, each nation has some form of a military, and the primary function of the military is defense of the nation's borders. That what is not happening. Instead, there are long discussions that go on and on while the future of Europe gets bleaker. Well, it appears the poli-freaking-ticians are scared enough now to close the doors, so there is a dim glimmer of hope yet for Europe to repair the damage and learn the lesson.

Look, I'll be the first to say that the Q'uran and the accompanying hadith do have a lot of things to say that do not jive with today's more tolerant, more egalitarian mindset. But guess what? Only ever a small portion of Islamic adherents have actually kept those words to heart and massacred scores of innocents out of a difference in ideologies -- most people in Islam or in any other religion have been and are content to live out their lives in this world, defying the more extreme dictates of their creed, whether or not they realize it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... man_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

uh-huh

[Jochistan]

You guys see it all wrong, as if your adversary is a competing philosophy that you are trying to out-argue in a contest of ideas. To understand them, you need to understand biology, not philosophy. They are not running from anything -- war is not just a part of their life, it is written into their life reference manual. They are expanding their habitat, which is also written in their manual, and they are not making any semblance of secret out of it. Europe for them is the land of milk and cookies, temporarily and unfortunately occupied by a weak species that has to be driven out, bred out or eaten. Take this viewpoint for a thought experiment, and their actions will make perfect sense.

I am sure there will be a bunch of infantile objections to the above, so let me kindly hit you on the head with the reference manual -- that has always been a good idea, pity it went out of fashion. Ignorance is no longer bliss, kids. It is your bane.

Q 8:65
O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are among you one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome a thousand of those who have disbelieved because they are a people who do not understand.

So, there you have the high morale and a direct order in a nice, short and clear instruction.

Q 2:191
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Yes, that word 'kill' and 'expel' means exactly what it says. When the opportunity presents itself, it is not just OK, it is a direct order. So if they are let in, they cannot be asked to leave -- now it is their land and they must kill any competition.

Q 48:20
Allah has promised you much booty that you will take [in the future] and has hastened for you this [victory] and withheld the hands of people from you - that it may be a sign for the believers and [that] He may guide you to a straight path.

Much booty, get it? My condolences to the female disbelievers -- that includes your booties too. Germany has already discovered that little detail recently.

Q 9:123
O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.

Yes, harshness. That is not a synonym of tolerance and peacefullness, in case there is any doubt. Kids, this goes on and on and on -- if you do not like it, you can try to argue with them -- that may even win you a Darwinian prize in record time. But hey, let's not single out the followers of this particular cult, as they are a large but not the only component of the flood. Others do not have a reference manual at all -- they just do the nature thing, the African way. So here is a viral video for you, all documentary, and get the trusty puke bucket ready, as it is not a fiction or fantasy -- it is in the news.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11 ... ss-europe/

That would have the reverse effect and ramp up the fanaticism.

Those verses were made in context to fighting the Quraish who drove Muhammad out, killed his followers and oppressed the people of the book.

But ok.

[Evanescens]

If you wish to participate in a discussion, you will have to form complete and meaningful sentences. Also -- and I know it is a drag -- you will have to read what you are responding to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... man_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

uh-huh

[Jochistan]

If you wish to participate in a discussion, you will have to form complete and meaningful sentences. Also -- and I know it is a drag -- you will have to read what you are responding to.

Did both.

[Hjallaland]

So becouse some nations and tribes are being shitheads means they all are? Just have some looks at Bangladesh, Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia ect. All of them are pretty much at the same standards as European nations regarding laws about male to female equality.

Did I say all of them were? No. It's just that it's a very false comparison to compare that laws in the Middle East concerning women are treated the same as pedophilia in Europe. If somebody is caught perpetrating something like child molestation, child pornography or something related to pedophilia then they are gonna be in for a rough time in the justice system while in the Middle east a woman is a man's property be it their wife, daughter, mother if you are the legal head of family. In Iraq a buddy of mine had to pay the brides family around 5000 USD to marry her(Dowry?).

That also depends alot on the country. over here in the Netherlands such punishment is more like a joke than anything else.
The one i responded to was talking about the "Muslim culture" (if that even exists), a thing considered much more diverse than just the Middle-East. In fact, even the Middle-East doesn't share the same culture nor are women treated as property everywhere nor is it a Muslim related problem (just have a look at Africa).
There are certainly problems out there regarding women rights but those problems have nothing to do with a religion or even a specific culture.
Its indeed true that in some cultures a certain amount of money is being paid to the brides family and this aswell isn't Muslim related or Middle-Eastern related. Its also a common practice is countries such as India and amongst the Gypsy community in eastern Europe. I'm not exactly an expert on what the meaning of it is but its not as strange or uncommon as it may sound to you.

[Evanescens]

That is irrelevant -- they got as far as Spain, Russia and West Africa. The map is given above. It was a simple conquest, not unlike others in history. But unlike others, its drive is still fully functional and active. That is what Europe is (not really) dealing with now.

Those verses were made in context to fighting the Quraish who drove Muhammad out, killed his followers and oppressed the people of the book.

But ok.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you wish to participate in a discussion, you will have to form complete and meaningful sentences. Also -- and I know it is a drag -- you will have to read what you are responding to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... man_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

uh-huh

I did.

"The Muslim empire was bad because they conquered other people and because they tried to they're not biologically people"

[Evanescens]

If you think I have a 3 second memory span, or somehow cannot recognise a blatant lie against myself, you are very wrong.
So, please, do not talk to me ever again. I will keep my side of that.

"The Muslim empire was bad because they conquered other people and because they tried to they're not biologically people"

[Ifreann]

If you wish to participate in a discussion, you will have to form complete and meaningful sentences. Also -- and I know it is a drag -- you will have to read what you are responding to.

I did.

"The Muslim empire was bad because they conquered other people and because they tried to they're not biologically people"

So what you're saying is that the British should also be considered an invasive species?

[Imperializt Russia]

If you think I have a 3 second memory span, or somehow cannot recognise a blatant lie against myself, you are very wrong.
So, please, do not talk to me ever again. I will keep my side of that.

Well maybe you could reiterate your point in a matter that cannot be boiled down to "Muslims are insects because they want to conquer people and are therefore nothing like the militarised non-Muslim entities of modern and old history that conquered and oppressed people".

[Saiwania]

Christianity has a pretty shitty track record on that.

The fact that you feel more threatened by Christians which aren't a current threat to western civilization as opposed to Muslim fundamentalists which are, suggests that you might be some leftist who feels more threatened by Christians because perhaps they'd vote for the far right which will actually take away the left's power and put a stop to what they want, such as continuing unfettered mass immigration from the poorest nations.

In any case, Christianity did not get spread primarily via military conquest and the Crusades were a defensive offense against Islam's encroachment towards Europe. The closest parallel Christianity has to the Muslim conquests is the European colonization of the Americas and religious conversion was only seen as a secondary goal as opposed to financial gain. The purpose was to find gold and other precious metals and establish permanent trade routes which bypassed the Muslim guarded Silk Road.

[Imperializt Russia]

I have never felt threatened by ethnic minorities.
I have only ever felt threatened by other whites.

Make of it what you will.

Even discounting the entirety of the immigration debate, and I mean absolutely all of it, I don't believe the far right or right offer anything useful and instead offer plenty of detriment. Of course I oppose them.
The immigration debate is just another reason, but frankly a minor reason compared to everything else.

[The Alexanderians]

Christianity has a pretty shitty track record on that.

The fact that you feel more threatened by Christians which aren't a current threat to western civilization as opposed to Muslim fundamentalists which are, suggests that you might be some leftist who feels more threatened by Christians because perhaps they'd vote for the far right which will actually take away the left's power and put a stop to what they want, such as continuing unfettered mass immigration from the poorest nations.

In any case, Christianity did not get spread primarily via military conquest and the Crusades were a defensive offense against Islam's encroachment towards Europe. The closest parallel Christianity has to the Muslim conquests is the European conquest of the Americas and religious conversion was only seen as a secondary goal as opposed to financial gain. The purpose was to find gold and other precious metals and establish permanent trade routes which bypassed the Muslim guarded Silk Road.

It's hard to say that about the Crusades when some weren't even directed at Muslims at all. On top of that they were a series of complex conflicts, heck there were even Muslim allies until someone got greedy. Then there was the time Constantinople got sold out in the forth Crusade. Bottom line the Crusades were like any other war, it was always going to attract people that were purely in it for the money. Which is easy to get by controlling the rich trade routes in a place nicknamed Crossroads of the World.

[Dahon]

Oh please, have a look at the history of islam. Right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam
They conquered everything that mattered in about a century. Convert or die -- that was the modus operandi, not sunshine and lollypops. It went on and on, until the corpse of Osman empire was torn apart by European powers -- about a hundred years ago.

The history of Islam from... the rise of Muhammad to the destruction of Baghdad under Hulagu? Pretty tolerant towards "peoples of the book", i.e. monotheists, so long as religious taxes could be levied -- Jewish and "heretical" Christian communities thrived under the Abbasids, where in Europe the latter were almost all hounded out (and out of existence) by Rome and Constantinople while the former lived only as pariahs against the prevailing Christian ethos. It was more in the interests of Abbasid polity that literature and the sciences were promoted over Islamic doctrine, and they did so with gusto. I wouldn't claim to know about the Abbasids' policies towards polytheists, but seeing as the various Indian kingdoms did trade with the Abbasids, I'm going to assume that they were at least commercial partners, ergo tolerance and not the enforcement of Islamic laws was the norm.

What about between the breakup of the Mongol Empire, half a century after the fucking of Baghdad, and the rise of the Ottomans? Ideological hardening along religious lines, that much was apparent, but Hulagu's Allah-worshipping successors stayed true to Genghis Khan's policy towards religions that did not directly threaten the state (while in general staying out of the whole civilization-exterminating bullshit their forebears did). The Ottomans were indeed different in that they insisted on a convert-or-die policy and arguably did so more thoroughly within its European territories (remember Constantinople?) than was the case with (say) even the policy pursued by the Spanish after the reconquista, but they were different for, what, two centuries tops? (Not to mention the monotheists within the Ottoman empire in Asia survived largely unscathed all throughout their hegemony.)

It was not until the dying decades of the twentieth century that Islamic extremism in the form we hate today rose up to be an existential threat, and that after other avenues of expression in Muslim-majority countries all along the Middle East were denied -- and that very largely in the Middle East; other Muslim-majority nations are content to go on tolerating the prerogatives of other religions and cultures within their countries, and do their level best to scuttle extremists and generally dismiss them as piddling malcontents (which for the most part they are).

So this insistence that Muslim policy all throughout its checkered history has been "biologically hostile" towards other religions as you put it is not only untrue, it assumes yet again that all Muslims regardless of place of origin or what they are actually thinking are a hive mind attuned only towards pillaging and destruction.

[Jochistan]

That is irrelevant -- they got as far as Spain, Russia and West Africa. The map is given above. It was a simple conquest, not unlike others in history. But unlike others, its drive is still fully functional and active. That is what Europe is (not really) dealing with now.

Those verses were made in context to fighting the Quraish who drove Muhammad out, killed his followers and oppressed the people of the book.

But ok.

Or not at all. Since they aren't a miltary force.

And it is relevant because the violent verses were what you were crying about in the first place.

[Saiwania]

Those verses were made in context to fighting the Quraish who drove Muhammad out, killed his followers and oppressed the people of the book. But ok.

So how would you explain the Muslim genocide of the Indian subcontinent? Over 400 million people died at the hands of the Mughals. Islam tried and failed to completely destroy Hinduism. What matters is that Muslims aren't treating these verses as something strictly past tense but are using it to justify terrorism to spread Islam.

Unlike most people, I don't always take the Muslim account's word for what happened. I consider the possibility that perhaps the Quraysh were the real "good guys" who were only trying to put down a violent and regressive cult that was full of zealotry, but that they had the misfortune of losing from letting Islam grow and get out of control until they wound up getting overthrown.