[Phoenix]

Regarding the multiculturalism argument, the biggest problem with it is that it is relativistic. It says "all peoples are equal in spite of differences, and more variety in culture within the same geographic area is the target goal".

This is both a lame goal, and a false premise. A superior goal is "we should let in the best individuals". A more realistic premise is "peoples are not equal, some peoples have cultures which are objectively superior or inferior to others".

Regarding this terrorist though, it's over the top to point the finger at the broad political ideology of 'multiculturalism', it should be more specifically pointed in the direction of Islam.

People need to stop being so quick to be Islam apologists. The fact of the matter is that Islam has an aggressive streak, as evidenced by plain sight and recent history. And such a streak is not a crisp black upon the clear white of the rest of the religions followers. It sits at the tail end of a spectrum.

If you were to poll with complete honesty, the entire Muslim population, and ask them "is it morally right that the entire world should believe in Islam?" and ask them "should Islam actively try to expand towards this?", I suspect that a majority of Muslims would answer "yes and yes".

The fact of the matter is that this issue, the issue of Islamic expansion, is not going to go away until that concept, and by necessary extension the religion itself (since it makes it clear that people submitting to Islam is a moral virtue inseparable from the religion itself), is attacked more generally by non-Muslims. That's just how it is.

(12-16-2014 08:17 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

You can't screen on race/religion, that's a wing nut dream for the foreseeable future, it's unconstitutional.

Actually in Australia it is specifically constitutional to make race specific laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51%...nstitution

It is however specifically unconstitutional to restrict religions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116..._Australia

[Deluge]

(12-16-2014 09:50 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 08:17 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

You can't screen on race/religion, that's a wing nut dream for the foreseeable future, it's unconstitutional.

Actually in Australia it is specifically constitutional to make race specific laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51%...nstitution

It is however specifically unconstitutional to restrict religions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116..._Australia

Context for non-Australians, they use that section on race to craft special laws for outback Aboriginal communties, i.e the Northern Territory intervention.

[lskdfjldsf]

Phoenix, what constitutes a religion though? It can vary from being a loose belief in what happens after death, to being a mandated legal and social system as we see in Islam. Without a clear definition, no boundaries can be established between beliefs and practices.

Wouldn't it make sense to apply the same restrictions to religion as we would to freedom of speech? A clearly defined border between self-expression and infringing upon the rights of others? There is already legal precedent set in forbidding some religious practices (polygamy, some forms of sacrifice, etc.).

The hypocrisy is out of control. In Germany, you'd be sentenced to jail time and pay serious fines for promoting an alternative, right-wing legal system and fencing off areas of cities to enforce it. Yet if someone does this in the name of Islam, it's alright? It's the exact same crime. One is tolerated, one is not, and there's no logic behind it.

[spalex]

The #illridewithyou I'm-not-a-racist wank fest and the All-muslims-are-the-victims-here garbage is too too much for me to stomach.

[Tex Pro]

(12-16-2014 07:47 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:23 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

Damn Ana Kasparian is looking beat. She was cute as hell back in the day, and its sad because me and her are the same age... and she has already brushed up against the wall...

Her in better days

Ana definitely got a nose job. Hard to tell how she has aged since she wears a ton of makeup. Agree with you that she will be hitting the wall soon.

[CJ_W]

@Deluge, I thought it was super hard to get into NZ, like you have to have a 4 year college degree to even think about emigrating there + the usual job with a company there etc. etc. Am I wrong about that?

(12-16-2014 08:17 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:14 AM)CJ_W Wrote:  

Multiculturalism isn't bad. and while I have my personal thoughts on many posters here in this thread and on this site, that isn't the issue either. The only thing that these countries need(Austraiia UK, Sweden, France etc) is to

1)stop that sharia law zone, and special zone nonsense
2)arrest and deport those that commit violent crime who are refuguess,
3)have strict immigration policies (Think Japan, New Zealand)
4)those who are naturalized citizens need to be treated as such
5)stop talking in refugees and asylum seekers for a while (until the "bad immigrant" problem gets solved.)

When it gets bad enough. This will happen anyway. Race, multicultualism has nothing to do with it, when a guest in your house(country) is acting up, that guest has to leave, period. If the guest doesnt abide by the rules/aws of the house/country, they've got to go.

I think the simplest way , in the US at least, that is realistic to keep out destructive characters is screen like hell on education or seriously needed skills like certified underwater welders.

No cheap labor.

You can't screen on race/religion, that's a wing nut dream for the foreseeable future, it's unconstitutional. It's fine not to like Islamic nutjobsm , but since most of the country is non-white you're not too bright if you think you're going to pass a constitutional amendment institutionalizing racism or anti-muslim laws.

There was that ONE nut job psychiatrist that murdered people on a Military base, but look at the 9/11 hijackers- NO COLLEGE GRADUATES.

This is from a government paper on the hijackings:

Saudi authorities interviewed the relatives of these men and have briefed us on what they found. The muscle hijackers came from a variety of educational and societal backgrounds. All were between 20 and 28 years old; most were unemployed with no more than a high school education and were unmarried.85
[/i]

That actually makes a lot of sense, restricting immigration to college graduates for a country that really doesn't need low- skilled immigrant workers (US, England, etc. . .) Problem is though it's already hard enough to get into the U.S. but that doesn't stop people form jumping over the border and "cutting" in line.

There are so many people who have done that and have been living in the U.S. illegally for so long that they effectively have no country at some point.

I really wouldn't mind if they were given amnesty/permanent resident status/whatever its called haha but not without an extensive background check. Any violent crime either here or in their home country and they get sent back.

I still do think having college graduates being a pre-req for immigration IS a good idea but, to be honest, no politician is going to try and push that through. At least in the western world.

[Grange]

What changed about the US that we no longer 'need' low-skilled immigrants? Who do you think handles 75+% of agricultural products at present? Who drives taxis? Who does the basic construction tasks west of the Mississippi?

[Phoenix]

(12-16-2014 10:17 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Phoenix, what constitutes a religion though? It can vary from being a loose belief in what happens after death, to being a mandated legal and social system as we see in Islam. Without a clear definition, no boundaries can be established between beliefs and practices.

Wouldn't it make sense to apply the same restrictions to religion as we would to freedom of speech? A clearly defined border between self-expression and infringing upon the rights of others? There is already legal precedent set in forbidding some religious practices (polygamy, some forms of sacrifice, etc.).

Restricting religion by force isn't whats being advocated. Indeed, after all that's how Christianity started and it took over the empire that initially oppressed it - so it wouldn't work anyway.

However resisting that religion in kind, be it verbally criticizing it, or responding with force against its aggressive faction, is reasonable behaviour.

Bending over backwards to defend a religion that is currently producing powerful and violent factions, is not reasonable behaviour. The West, and probably the East too, are going to learn that they need to do the same to Islam as was done to Japan. Smash any element which is advocating conquest and violence (this would include Iran and any other big players who are supporting Islamic conquest), and accept any collateral damage of moral supporters. Defeat the entire group in their capacity as a violent threat, leaving a peaceful group demoralized from any ideas of world conquest.

You didn't see any 'germans are wonderful people like us' or 'japanese people are innocent, its just bad elements amongst them' nonsense during WW2. You heard people hating on the 'krauts' and racially vilifying the japanese. Such was the necessary mentality - you're not looking to be polite, you're looking to be aggressive and hateful persuant to defeating them.

And once they were defeated what happened? They became peaceful, there was no reason to hate, and we love the Japanese now.

Note that I don't believe this includes Muslims in Western countries. The source is in the middle east, arabia, central asia etc. Any aggression or mistreatment focused on periphery Muslims is not reasonable nor fair. As in WW2, the ultimate goal of the counter attack is to destroy the nation as a violent thread - not just attacking everyone from the nation for the sake of it.

[kaotic]

(12-16-2014 09:50 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Regarding this terrorist though, it's over the top to point the finger at the broad political ideology of 'multiculturalism', it should be more specifically pointed in the direction of Islam.

Yes the problem is absolutely Islamic, that's what the media shows and what our government soldiers fight. Islamic radicalism IS a problem.

Now the question is....who caused them to be like this, who has funded them before, and who left them in shambles ?

The west did, the west funded them, and the west left them in shambles.

Quote:

People need to stop being so quick to be Islam apologists. The fact of the matter is that Islam has an aggressive streak, as evidenced by plain sight and recent history. And such a streak is not a crisp black upon the clear white of the rest of the religions followers. It sits at the tail end of a spectrum.

Because no other religion on planet earth has had an aggressive streak before....

Quote:

If you were to poll with complete honesty, the entire Muslim population, and ask them "is it morally right that the entire world should believe in Islam?" and ask them "should Islam actively try to expand towards this?", I suspect that a majority of Muslims would answer "yes and yes".

I don't suspect that at all, most practice their religion and want to be left alone. I suspect the people who would say yes and yes would be the ones who have had people they knew killed by the west and their countries invaded/influenced by the West.

Because I've never heard Christians say the world needs to be saved and people need to accept Jesus Christ into their hearts.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that this issue, the issue of Islamic expansion, is not going to go away until that concept, and by necessary extension the religion itself (since it makes it clear that people submitting to Islam is a moral virtue inseparable from the religion itself), is attacked more generally by non-Muslims. That's just how it is.

The only "islamic expansion" i see is this ISIS(L) crap going on in the middle east and the regular rag tag Jihad Joe groups. The UK and Euro Islamic immigration problem is also a major conflict however it doesn't hold a candle compared the ISIS, but it DOES need addressing. I don't see Muslims as a whole wanting to take over the world, most are too busy living their own lives, of course only the extremist talking heads get the press.

Since when HASN'T religion want to become the most dominant and powerful religion on earth ?

[spalex]

this made me lol

[DarkTriad]

(12-16-2014 02:14 AM)CJ_W Wrote:  

Multiculturalism isn't bad. and while I have my personal thoughts on many posters here in this thread and on this site, that isn't the issue either. The only thing that these countries need(Austraiia UK, Sweden, France etc) is to

1)stop that sharia law zone, and special zone nonsense
2)arrest and deport those that commit violent crime who are refuguess,
3)have strict immigration policies (Think Japan, New Zealand)
4)those who are naturalized citizens need to be treated as such
5)stop talking in refugees and asylum seekers for a while (until the "bad immigrant" problem gets solved.)

That's it, countries can still take in refuges, immigration but, in the aforementioned countries, someone needs to grab their balls and do the above, and deport those/arrest those people who break the law in protest.

When it gets bad enough. This will happen anyway. Race, multicultualism has nothing to do with it, when a guest in your house(country) is acting up, that guest has to leave, period. If the guest doesnt abide by the rules/aws of the house/country, they've got to go.

No one has the balls to kick bad guests out of their homes yet except for NZ, Korea, and Japan(trust me, you DO NOT want to be a "bad guest" in those countries.)

It's all well and good to offer asylum to people fleeing some hellhole...but if you start taking in enough of the people that are the REASON their home a hellhole, you risk turning YOUR home into a hellhole too, and nobody benefits. This is like letting people overload the liferaft...it doesn't help anybody.

[LouEvilSlugger]

(12-16-2014 12:40 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Yes the problem is absolutely Islamic, that's what the media shows and what our government soldiers fight. Islamic radicalism IS a problem.

Now the question is....who caused them to be like this, who has funded them before, and who left them in shambles ?

(12-16-2014 12:40 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

I don't suspect that at all, most practice their religion and want to be left alone. I suspect the people who would say yes and yes would be the ones who have had people they knew killed by the west and their countries invaded/influenced by the West.

Anglo-Saxons have been by far the most barbarious and bloodthirsty people in recent times

America and its collaborators have created, backed and handled Jihadists as they receive millions of dollars from US closest allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Qatar yet mainstream media have manipulated most of us into believing bearded Muslims wearing turbans were the enemy (they're not), ISIS is basically an US entity yet we belive democratically-elected Bashir Al-Assad who is actually fighting ISIS is the bad guy, same for Gaddafi who was a true patriot only to be humiliated and murdered for Western amusement

Muslims woudn't turn to jihad if America/CIA/NATO had left them alone carring on with their lives on their own soil, instead America has sponsored military coup d'états all over the Muslim world (Syria 1949, Iran 1953, Iraq 1960-63, Afghanistan 1979-89, Turkey 1980, Libya 2011, Syria 2012, Arab Spring) not for the interest of the local population or "democracy", but only theirs (Wall Street), if you ask yourself who benefits from all this unstability then you'll find out who the real enemy is

[DarkTriad]

(12-16-2014 11:52 AM)Grange Wrote:  

What changed about the US that we no longer 'need' low-skilled immigrants? Who do you think handles 75+% of agricultural products at present? Who drives taxis? Who does the basic construction tasks west of the Mississippi?

Without immigrants, they would have to....you know, offer competitive wages to actual American citizens to fill those jobs. This would not be a tragedy.

[tomtud]

Thread off on a tangent......

Depending on which Muslim you ask you will probably get a different definition and meaning of jihad. Yes, colonists have disturbed the Middle East and made a lot of shit. But, islam would have not made it to morocco or Bosnia had it not been for "jihad" or expansion years ago. Just like converting the native Indians when the Europeans came, many religions share the belief to spread the word. Christianity had its own violent past. The crusades were a push back or an attack,,, you decide. But, islam is always on the offence. It's hard to make parallels between these 2 religions because islam has a political component and stricter lifestyle component than any other religion. So IMHO you cannot make parallels. Many Muslims are compatible with west style values however, islam is not.

[Phoenix]

(12-16-2014 12:40 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Because no other religion on planet earth has had an aggressive streak before....

Because I've never heard Christians say the world needs to be saved and people need to accept Jesus Christ into their hearts.

Since when HASN'T religion want to become the most dominant and powerful religion on earth ?

Exactly. "has had".

There was a time when I would have said the exact same things need to be done to Christianity. However the days of the inquisition and the crusades are long gone. The aggressiveness of the religion was overcome internally. Kind of the equivalent of the Japanese overthrowing their government internally instead of having been defeated externally.

Christianity doesn't have a fraction of the world-domination desire that it once had. If it did, you'd probably see "Christian State" groups slaughtering non-believing "heathens" in the name of "Christendom".

When is the last time a Christian, a Jew, or a Hindu, straight up killed people because someone offended their religion? When is the last time a Bishop issued an order for someone to be killed for the same? In Christian countries, what is the punishment for leaving the faith? When is the last time a Hindu hacked off someones head on TV for not accepting the Hindu faith?

Do we say "North Korea and the US are the same, because both countries governments oppress their citizens?". We don't take the same relativist line with countries, so we shouldn't with religions.

[mikado]

(12-16-2014 01:52 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:40 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Because no other religion on planet earth has had an aggressive streak before....

Because I've never heard Christians say the world needs to be saved and people need to accept Jesus Christ into their hearts.

Since when HASN'T religion want to become the most dominant and powerful religion on earth ?

Exactly. "has had".

There was a time when I would have said the exact same things need to be done to Christianity. However the days of the inquisition and the crusades are long gone. The aggressiveness of the religion was overcome internally. Kind of the equivalent of the Japanese overthrowing their government internally instead of having been defeated externally.

Christianity doesn't have a fraction of the world-domination desire that it once had. If it did, you'd probably see "Christian State" groups slaughtering non-believing "heathens" in the name of "Christendom".

When is the last time a Christian, a Jew, or a Hindu, straight up killed people because someone offended their religion? When is the last time a Bishop issued an order for someone to be killed for the same? In Christian countries, what is the punishment for leaving the faith? When is the last time a Hindu hacked off someones head on TV for not accepting the Hindu faith?

Do we say "North Korea and the US are the same, because both countries governments oppress their citizens?". We don't take the same relativist line with countries, so we shouldn't with religions.

This shit is happening in Africa and Asia.
Look at the examples of the Centrafricans ( Muslim body parts COOKED and SOLD by the christians), or the Ouigours, that are oppressed because of their religion too.
Buddhist priests issuing orders to kill Muslims is nothing new.

And again, people are not killed in West Africa when they apostate ( except for rogue cases, Nigeria and Mali that have become bases of Al Qaeda). Again avoid lumping every country with a dominant muslim into the "terrorist basked". At best, we should make a distinction between West African Islam ( where most of the countries are laic) , and the rest ( Middle East and Maghreb, officially muslim countries), and East Africa (way more poor and assailed by Al Qaeda).

[TheWastelander]

(12-16-2014 01:22 PM)LouEvilSlugger Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:40 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Yes the problem is absolutely Islamic, that's what the media shows and what our government soldiers fight. Islamic radicalism IS a problem.

Now the question is....who caused them to be like this, who has funded them before, and who left them in shambles ?

(12-16-2014 12:40 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

I don't suspect that at all, most practice their religion and want to be left alone. I suspect the people who would say yes and yes would be the ones who have had people they knew killed by the west and their countries invaded/influenced by the West.

Anglo-Saxons have been by far the most barbarious and bloodthirsty people in recent times

America and its collaborators have created, backed and handled Jihadists as they receive millions of dollars from US closest allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Qatar yet mainstream media have manipulated most of us into believing bearded Muslims wearing turbans were the enemy (they're not), ISIS is basically an US entity yet we belive democratically-elected Bashir Al-Assad who is actually fighting ISIS is the bad guy, same for Gaddafi who was a true patriot only to be humiliated and murdered for Western amusement

Muslims woudn't turn to jihad if America/CIA/NATO had left them alone carring on with their lives on their own soil, instead America has sponsored military coup d'états all over the Muslim world (Syria 1949, Iran 1953, Iraq 1960-63, Afghanistan 1979-89, Turkey 1980, Libya 2011, Syria 2012, Arab Spring) not for the interest of the local population or "democracy", but only theirs (Wall Street), if you ask yourself who benefits from all this unstability then you'll find out who the real enemy is

I mostly agree with you about Assad and Gaddafi, but to say that Muslims wouldn't turn to jihad if America/CIA/NATO had left them alone is wrong. This has been a thing for almost a century now, starting with the Muslim Brotherhood back in the 1920s. There have been outbursts of intense religious violence, imperialism and terrorism in the Islamic world for a long time.

The thing is the world got a lot smaller and technology has spread far and wide. With air travel and immigration made easy, the West is seeing a bunch of problems with their Muslim immigrant communities. It probably would've been better for everyone involved if they'd just stayed in their home countries. Good fences usually make good neighbors. Instead the extreme left shoehorned them in so they could manipulate them and turn them against the majority white Christian "bourgeoisie." While doing so they create more radicals willing to take up terrorism by destroying the traditional mores and morals of the society through cultural marxism. It's a pretty clever and sick strategy. The more decadent the Western society, the more religious extremists are going to pop up in their immigrant Muslim communities partly as a response to that.

I've been thinking about it more and it seems to me like it's a slow poisoning put into place by the Soviets during the Cold War and perpetuated by their fellow travelers in the West. How do you conquer nations when there's thousands of nuclear missiles that could start flying if you decide to roll your tanks into them? Through destabilizing their society. Yuri Bezmenov's lectures kind of point to that being the case and the kind of crazy social engineering, intimidation, weaponized psychology and widespread covert actions we know the GDR employed against its own citizens lead me to believe it definitely had a role in all this.

What's funny is that they're gone now, so the true believers have shifted and morphed into the kind of weirdos we see today.

It's also interesting to think about what happens whenever there's a Muslim terrorist attack in the West: calls for more surveillance, counter-terrorism weapons and forces, yet also calls for "tolerance." You have to conclude that the governments absolutely love the opportunity chaos presents to grab more power and tighten controls on their own citizens. They don't take Islamic terrorism all that seriously. If they did there'd be mass deportations of suspected malcontent elements. Instead a muslim US Army Major shoots up his base and they call it workplace violence. A recent convert beheads a woman in Oklahoma, then gets shot down by a sheriff's deputy and it gets a couple hours of media attention. NYPD officers are attacked by an axe-wielding convert and you hear about it for a little bit and then it fades from the news.

I was surprised they were calling what happened in Australia terrorism. Of course, now I'm wondering why they did that.

[spalex]

This article is bang on the money.

http://bernardgaynor.com.au/predictably-...ege-wrong/

[tomtud]

Spalex, good find.

More journalists who aren't so PC is what is needed.

[Soberane]

(12-16-2014 11:29 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:47 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:23 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

Damn Ana Kasparian is looking beat. She was cute as hell back in the day, and its sad because me and her are the same age... and she has already brushed up against the wall...

Her in better days

Ana definitely got a nose job. Hard to tell how she has aged since she wears a ton of makeup. Agree with you that she will be hitting the wall soon.

She sure did, she used to have a wide as fuck nose.

[Grange]

(12-16-2014 01:35 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:52 AM)Grange Wrote:  

What changed about the US that we no longer 'need' low-skilled immigrants? Who do you think handles 75+% of agricultural products at present? Who drives taxis? Who does the basic construction tasks west of the Mississippi?

Without immigrants, they would have to....you know, offer competitive wages to actual American citizens to fill those jobs. This would not be a tragedy.

Where in your budget would you like to cut back to be able to afford to keep using those goods and services at the much higher prices they would charge?

[Soberane]

(12-16-2014 07:55 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:35 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:52 AM)Grange Wrote:  

What changed about the US that we no longer 'need' low-skilled immigrants? Who do you think handles 75+% of agricultural products at present? Who drives taxis? Who does the basic construction tasks west of the Mississippi?

Without immigrants, they would have to....you know, offer competitive wages to actual American citizens to fill those jobs. This would not be a tragedy.

Where in your budget would you like to cut back to be able to [b]afford to keep using those goods[/b] and services at the much higher prices they would charge?

Prices has been going up, and the American citizen whom buy it many times are jobless.

Many Americans would be very happy to work agriculture and drive taxis, they jus don't want to do it cheap like immigrants.

[Deluge]

A few updates.

The gunman got asylum because he was apparently being persecuted in Iran for his teachings. Remember this man is a self-declared Sheikh. It seems he converted from Shia to Sunni Islam at some later point in Australia which explains why an Iranian was supporting ISIS. As I suspected he was indeed an Australian citizen.

What is surprising though is that he had a gun licence. I mentioned earlier it has been very difficult to get a gun in Australia since the Howard era, Tony Abbott's mentioned he might reconsider the gun laws further now. Abbott (and Howard) is a staunch conservative so if he wants to go even further there's nothing standing in his way politically.

[Mr. Wolf]

(12-17-2014 01:03 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I mentioned earlier it has been very difficult to LEGALLY get a gun in Australia since the Howard era.

Fixed it for you. I know this perp had a gun legally, but if a few of the actual customers in the shop had been allowed to concealed-carry this would have been a very different event:

A. It never would have happened because the terrorists knew they would have been shot; or,
B. The terrorists would have attempted their crime but been shot by one or more customers having concealed-carry permits. A few more may have died, but at least they would not have lived in fear.

[iknowexactly]

(12-16-2014 10:17 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Phoenix, what constitutes a religion though? It can vary from being a loose belief in what happens after death, to being a mandated legal and social system as we see in Islam. Without a clear definition, no boundaries can be established between beliefs and practices.

Wouldn't it make sense to apply the same restrictions to religion as we would to freedom of speech? A clearly defined border between self-expression and infringing upon the rights of others? There is already legal precedent set in forbidding some religious practices (polygamy, some forms of sacrifice, etc.).

There are laws regulating balances of freedom-- harassment, extortion, libel, things like inciting to riot. The central issue with religion is it's inherently based on something not objectively observable. It about what people have in their minds.

So we have to agree on external real, photographable actions to have any workable rule of law.