Brussels Massacre guarantees the UK will leave the EU!

How many explosions from muslims does it take? What is taking them so long?

 

The Crusades??? The crusades were set off to take BACK land that the muslims had taken from Christians....

 

So, back to square one. Complete waste of time as I originally thought.

Bye.

 

I obviously completely missed what you were on about in the other thread!

 

Yes, you and a certain other member would like us to shut up and go away wouldn't you. 'useful idiots'!

- - - Updated - - -

They're in no hurry. After all they've been waiting since the 7th century!!

 

Fellas, the notion of this thread doesn't make sense at all.

Not at all.

In my perspective, the first thoughts that went through me as far as what the political implications were going to be -- was an idea, now things will get moving.

Belgium isn't a grande nation, like France or the United KIngdom, or a powerful country like Germany.

We are talking about poor little Belgium.

We don't have a powerful land army, nuclear aircraft carriers, or anything of that sorts.

Our military is specialized in cleaning up mine fields and treating burning wounds, that kind of stuff.

In all respects, Belgium makes a great victim.

I'm quite sure our great British friends will come to our assistance, as they did during the great endevour about 100 years ago.

If the anti-EU front would use this attack for their own merit, well -- I'm quite sure the backlash would be unprecedented.

That the British would let us sink over this, well -- the idea alone, I get a bit teary because of it to be quite honest.

I'm quite sure we stand at the ready to launch a massive diplomatic offensive behind the scenes to build-out a European-wide scheme, with willing countries ofcourse -- like a European Deparment of Homeland Security.

It's a perfect wave.

We will succeed, not a question about it.

 

In a war, if you don't kill your enemy your enemy will kill you. Hold that thought!

 

The Leftists are prepared to commit suicide and prescribe suicidalism for all those around them.

But the problem seems to be..............we're not all Leftists.

 

There was no square one. I made a serious post, you cried "bigot" and went off on a supposedly comedic tangent of mockery.

 

Same as anywhere. The politicians are bankrolled by interests who want it for cheap labor, thus having these politicians in their pockets, the politicians do what their "supporters" want.

Then there are the political activist types, specifically Left in orientation, who think Europe and the rest of the West are the cause of third world squalor, so they both want to import the third world en masse to the West and also shake down the West to finance building the third world.

 

Your serious post was laughably trite and banal.

Now, please go away.

 

Seems the OP poster was not the only one to try and use what happened in Belgium for Brexit.

Joined of course by the usual

https://www.rt.com/uk/336661-brussels-attacks-brexit-eu/

 

And in 91 days they can express their outrage in a UK that is no longer part of the EU.

 

Still avoiding why you posted a thread about a treaty to which the UK is not a signatory?

Run rabbit run!

 

I'll give you my full answer............in 91 days.
I'll also be including an autographed photo of Nigel Farage waving a Union Jack at the biggest UKIP rally in UK history.

I heard Trump might even drop in to gloat a little...........it's gonna be great.

 

You do not need to wait 91 days, you know you talked bs. A real man admits his mistakes dosn't run like a startled rabbit. Got you sussed.

 

Playing the victim card will get you no where. No one has invaded and plundered as much as Europeans.

 

Honestly, "phobia" of immigrants, of culturally different people - the xenoi in question - seems to be the most fitting description of many opponents of immigration. Platitudes about ethnocultural suicide are based on nothing nationalist ideology which would be more appropriate to a European absolute monarchy than to a modern liberal democracy, and this is reflected in theoretical opposition to migration and talk of "invaders." As if the people who happened to live on a certain arbitrarily defined square of land for a certain length of time have some sort of inalienable, exclusive ownership of this land.

So I'm the one arguing for dark age culture here, when people in the Dark Ages were vehemently patriotic and viewed all foreigners as barbarians? I really don't see how that follows. And I am still throwing homogeneity into the mediaeval ideological pot, so to speak. Are you trying to suggest that I'm being consistent? What's your point?

That's a ridiculously small minority of Muslims you're talking about there. Using the same logic, I could claim that everyone in Germany is racist and anti-Semitic because the AfD party, which has made some questionable statements about minorities and Jews, made significant gains in the recent regional elections. The vast majority of Muslims, like the vast majority of Germans, do not share the attitudes of extremists. I agree that the pork bans are unreasonable, but allowing immigration does not mean being stupidly politically correct, and some people have taken things too far.

Thanks for the child brides comment; I now have a new quip on my profile page. You've returned to using a tiny minority to make sweeping generalisations about millions of people, which is not the most reasonable way to conduct an argument.

I'm not blaming Europeans, I'm blaming our inept governments and economic system.

So now invasion and militarism are exclusive to Islam and have not been carried out by Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans or anyone else in the past. Nice one. (And no, you didn't explicitly say this, but you sure as hell implied it by singling Islam out.)

Also, if you think religions - ideas - cause war, social unrest or any other social phenomenon, you're living in an idealist fantasy. Religions have been extremely willing to sacrifice their ostensible tenets for the sake of power-grabbing, and all ideas are adaptable to whichever circumstance or society they need to justify. Ideas, as total reflections of material circumstances, have no independent powers of causation.

What's wrong with "throwing Europe's ethnocultural existence in the toilet" anyway? As I've said, immigration is now an integral part of European ideology and culture.

But onto justification. Those aren't the only economic "benefits" of immigration by any means: immigrants tend to make net contributions to public finances (I know for a fact that they do in Germany and the UK, even when native-borns' net contributions are negative), relieve labour shortages and provide an economic boost in the form of enterprise and consumer spending - I mean, just look at the stereotype of South and East Asians as doctors, lawyers and technicians. Beyond economics, immigrants can contribute hugely to artistic and cultural life and make it much more diverse and interesting. Cities like Hong Kong and Singapore are thriving precisely because of their immigrants, while Japan is stagnant, partly due to a lack thereof. And the most successful universities - particularly those in the Anglosphere - have much larger proportions of international students, which make them more dynamic and help rather than hinder their achievement.

Well immigrants are going to stop churning out babies at some point (case in point: I'm an only child and so was my mother) in line with the economic development of their new countries. There are still lots and lots of ethnic Europeans and their culture is perhaps the best-documented in the world. Demographic trends are not stark enough to pose a serious threat to this.

Ha, the reason I didn't answer it is that it is plainly absurd. Cultures are now in positions analogous to predators and prey? That seems like a desperate, unverifiable attempt to force cultural anthropology into some sort of Spencerian, class-society-mediated box and victimise Europeans. And it also seems phobic.

The left is just as diverse as the right. Communists are not social democrats, and indeed we spend more time arguing with them than with conservatives.

I concur with some of this, of course, but "loyalty to the nation they're from"? We're not talking about the East India Company, we're talking about 21st century corporations, which are globalised in every sense of the word. There's no going back.

No, I don't; I realise that we live in a capitalist, liberal, globalised society, and while fighting for something better, we must resist the temptation to try turning back the clocks. The Counter-Enlightenment currents with which you evidently sympathise lost the battle. Get over it.

John 15:6, anyone?

And while we're at it, this entire page: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html . I don't think the specific type of cruelty is relevant.

Oh, capitalism definitely has ethics. Ethics and other obfuscations are part of the problem. I'm not saying that capitalism is inherently "evil", whatever that means, but that it is contradictory and that this contradiction spawns countless problems.

Er, no. That's not what I was arguing. I was responding to your point that innovation and cool sh*t has never existed in Muslim countries.

Once again, I never even insinuated such a thing. I was responding to your point that Christians were merely taking back land which was rightfully theirs from Muslims (or something of the sort).

Nice contradiction. How can I be self-serving if I despise all religion and do not identify in the slightest (even culturally) with Islam? Seriously, the closest I ever get to cultural affinity with Islam is Arabic music and Lollywood films.

The quotations I linked earlier were from the NT, sooo...yeah.

 

In a way they may be right about the squalor. Thanks to Western medicine their populations have become too large.

 

You say this from the purely selfish standpoint of a migrant or descendant of recent migrants who have come to enrich themselves and don't care about the impact to the local culture and population that mass migration causes. Indeed you're so dismissive about it you repeatedly consign all dissent to mass migration as "phobia" as if there isn't anything possibly going on that could be a legitimate argument against it.

Horribly self-serving.

And yes, it is their land. It's not yours. Indeed, you Muslims throw all kinds of fits about the Jews in spite of that YOU invaded that land and took it over from Christians during the reign of Abu Bakr. You said nothing about "well who owns the land" or similar. You seem to fully understand the concept of historical ownership of land when your people are the ones being displaced. Just saying.

More self-service on your part, with a portion of moral double standard.

You are the one that denigrated indigenous European culture as "stangant" and mentioned homogenous European culture in the same breath as the Dark Ages, because apparently dumping millions of illiterate, low average IQ, dirt poor followers of a backward, violent religion will somehow amazingly uplift Europe. No -- it will uplift YOU at the cost of Europeans.

Let's face it; if third world cultures were so great, then third world cultures wouldn't be fleeing their own countries like rats off the Titanic. So third world cultures come from a backward country choked in squalor, but somehow magically when they come to the West it's a great plus for a far more advanced society. Riiight.

You are being consistent... as a self-serving Muslim migrant who doesn't want to lose access.

False analogy. Islam is a violent RELIGION which has an endless 1,400 year history of violence against both outsiders and Muslims that leave the faith. A political party does not equal a religion that enshrines violence, rape, and looting as parts of its core teachings. This a very weak and pathetic argument.

Furthermore, opinion polls show widespread support for both Sharia Law and groups like ISIS among Muslims worldwide, so your idea that "it's just a few" is a load of crap.

And why do you argue it? Because as a Muslim migrant, you want access to the chow.

What tiny minority? What you're doing is that you're not denying Islam teaches such things as valid practices, but are trying to hide by making small - and unsubstantiated - claims that "only a tiny minority" does it.

What magical number of violent Islamists with explosive belts and little girls getting impregnated should the civilized Western world tolerate to please you? What is the magical number we have to wait for before Your Highness so kindly allows us to say enough is enough?

Islam enshrines child sex in the Quran. As such, the practice will never die among the Muslims.

Of course you're blaming Europeans. "Ghettoization and social disconnect" is a shot at the European people themselves, essentially blaming Islamic violence in Europe on Europeans not embracing them enough. Hint: Don't expect to be embraced when you come across the border donning a bomb belt.

Here we go with the religious relativism from you again. Shall we review?

1) You conflate all religions in the same boat even though you have not studied them but assume they all teach violence or nonviolence at a generally equal rate.
2) You make the usual mistake of pointing at an objectionable act by someone that claims X faith as teachings of X faith without bothering to look more closely.
3) You then take 1 and 2 and use them as ideological weapons to legitimize Muslims feeding at the European trough.
4) Spin. Rinse. Repeat.

I don't single out Islam. Islam singles itself out. What other religion teaches violent expansionism, subjugation of nonbelievers, and spent 1,000 years repeatedly invading Europe?

Buddhism? Taoism? Hindus? Druids?

Yeah, just because Muhammad practiced it, his successors and companions practiced it, and Islam has left us with a 1,400 year-long history of expansion by the sword, it's just silly little me for thinking that the teachings in the Quran, Hadiths, and Tafsir were ever followed by anyone... Even when they say "Allahu Akbar" when they detonate themselves.

This is all just a HUGE coincidence.

What you've done thus far is 1) put down European culture without Muslim migration as stagnant and something out of the dark ages, and 2) try to deflect from poor Muslim behavior and history by suggesting that Europeans aren't coddling them enough when they cross the borders.

Trust me - I totally expected this. I have not yet met either a Muslim migrant or a self-loathing left wing Eurotrash that doesn't offer the same talking points.

Actually it's not. It's an innovation that has only been going on for several decades and which is showing signs of receding. It's quite hilarious you actually think that the entirety of Europe's ethnocultural existence is officially trashed due to a political, economic, and social trend of a short span of time.

A vague brushoff of "it's integral" is neither an explanation or a justification for a policy which is causing great harm to native inhabitants. This is a horrible cop out.

Maybe it's just that self-serving attitude of yours again?

This is blather based on appeals to greed.

Hint: Appeals to greed do not nullify or justify placing existential threats via means of massive population transfer onto a group of cultures. If this were the case, then slavery is justified because of cha-ching. $$$$

Hong Kong and Singapore do not import illiterate, backward, low average IQ immigrants. They import people who are educated and from more civilized, high average IQ cultures. Of course due to your endless self-service, you're going to ignore these and pretend that importing millions of illiterate Muslims from low average IQ parts of the world equals a workforce of high IQ workers from China.

The only real benefit is to YOU. Your family doesn't live in the Islamic toilet anymore. You can get housing and other benefits. You are afraid of losing them, thus this endless apologist ramble.

I've yet to see indicators that low average IQ groups stop churning out babies like higher IQ groups have. In the Gaza Strip, some men have 25 kids between their wives.

Furthermore, when you have unchecked mass immigration, you have the demographic projections that Europe and the US has. You have immigrants with higher birthrates than the native population PLUS a endless supply of more coming, ready to pop out some more.

OH well thankfully European culture is "best documented," so when the European people as unique ethnocultural groups cease existing and Europe becomes another Islamic hellhole, we can all feel comforted that we can go to a museum have a looksee. Well thank you so much for your kind words.

It means that in nature there is no example of where you can take one type of life from its habitat and put it just anywhere with other life types and have them flourish. Nothing in nature works this way, be it plants or animals.

But again, you are self-serving, you don't want to lose access to the European feed bag, so you're here trying to rationalize demographic displacement via mass immigration.

Oh look - "phobic." That really IS all you have, isn't it? Borrowed slur labels from Leftist ideologues who try to silence their opposition without addressing it.

Why can't you Muslims just get your act together? You have a massive swath of the planet that you have invaded, refuse to leave, yet can't manage to make into a comfortable home. Why do you have to come to US for remedy?

What does this out of place remark have to do with your use of stock Leftist phrases and catchwords like "phobic" and "xenophobe"? They all use the term in one way or another. As do you.

I had no idea your family and millions of other Muslims were brought to Europe as slaves. As such, there is going back. You can inevitability all you want, but inside you know better.

LMAO. Europe being yet again enveloped by backward Islamotrash is not an "enlightenment current," even though feel the need to repeatedly wrap your agenda with the European Enlightenment. You have not given me ONE reason for Europeans to toss their ethnocultural existence out of the window. Greed, phobic labels, appeals to popularity. That is the basis of your "argument" here. It's hilarious but as poor as I predicted.

Why should we resist national sovereignty? Because you are fearful of being taken away from the European feed bag? That's not a reason. I see why you fear it, though. Who'd want to live in a Muslim dump?

Learn the difference between a symbolic teaching and an actual command to violence. This is what a command to violence looks like:

Quran 9:29:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

That was one of the last "revelations" from Muhammad before he died. It was not abrogated.

Spain and the Balkans suffered through that crap for 1,000 years and oddly you're telling us to shut up and take it. Because it serves YOU for us to do so. Wow what a narcissist.

Mass importation of cheap migrant labor being one, yet is one you insist we allow, conform to, and even dissolve our ethnocultural existence in. And when we resist, out come the labels. "Phobic!"

It mostly existed in terms of peoples who were overrun by the Muslim armies. What you see from Muhammad and his companions isn't remotely innovative; they lived off the loot of the Dhimmi Jizya. How admirable.

Because Muslims keep invading (*)(*)(*)(*). This really is a stuck record. Just how much more land do you people have to occupy before you're happy and your bellies stay full?

You're a migrant or child of migrants of Muslim background. You don't want to be repatriated. You don't care if Europeans cease existing as unique ethnocultural groups and trash them as "phobics" if they resist. That is all 100% self-serving. You don't want to lose access to the European feed bag, even if it means relegating the indigenous cultures to "well-documented" museums.

Because you conflate both allegorical teachings and condemnation into hellfire as equal to Muhammad commanding his followers to take up the sword for the sake of Allah against nonbelievers. Oddly you do this with a straight face and think you've ideologically covered yourself.

But, arguments like that are a dime a dozen from crappy Da'wah sites. Muslims seem to favor them.

 

Again, no one has plundered and invaded as much as Europeans. Drop the superior complex, son.

Now, let's see the verse that tells Muslims to take up the sword against non-Muslims. Let's see what you're made of.

 

You are right! The Crusades were called by the Pope at the behest of the Emperor of Constantinople. I'm not sure, but I believe the Seljuk Turks had conquered the Holy Land and wouldn't allow Christian pilgrims to visit the holy sites ...something that was very important at the time.

 

I don't think massacres on the continent will have any influence on our referendum. We had our own Sunni radicals, born and bred in Britain, who blew over 50 people up. The reason we should get out is the faceless federalists (globalists) in Brussels who want to rule the EU by diktat. I'm afraid American elites (globalists) aren't going to let us go. They will find the way to keep us in. Listen to this liberal idiot.

Don't call them 'illegal immigrants', says Europe human rights commissioner
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ts-commissioner/ar-BBqPZjx?ocid=mailsignoutmd

 

The Truth about the Brussels attack the world doesn't want to admit.

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/t...-about-brussels-attack-email_png_3F1458804859

 

(Sorry for the late reply)

Yes, yes, I'm aware. But I said "anything much", because this thread is about the relationship between Britain and the EU and my post in particular was specifically about that particular alliance, not Britain's relationship with the West in general or the way in which the Brussels attacks affected global geopolitics.

- - - Updated - - -

That’s not why I don’t care about the impact on the local culture; it just happens to be incredibly convenient for you that I’m of foreign descent so that you can carry on spouting reactionary drivel about invasion. The fact of the matter is that immigration happens and cultures change, and this is how society has been progressing since time immemorial.

Well I’m not a Muslim, and I wouldn’t care if someone invaded some land deemed to be Muslim (in fact, that’s my attitude towards Israel). My point is not that Muslims have some magical “right” to land which others don’t, but that all religions invade “each other’s” territory, to the point that it’s irrelevant.

Nope.
I was not denigrating indigenous European culture as stagnant. Cultures are neither stagnant nor progressive; sociopolitical change is. But yes, belief in homogeneity as some sort of sacred standard does belong in the Dark Ages, whether said belief is held by Europeans or Arabs or Japanese or whoever. Because it was discarded during the Enlightenment and the advent of liberalism, and thus is a product of a previous epoch and no longer socially appropriate. Post-Enlightenment societies did not grow through “cultural preservation” but through open-minded globalism.
This does not mean that I identify with liberalism, but that I view the beliefs with which it dispensed as a product of a bygone era.

Ever heard of economic backwardness, political instability and conflict? Yeah, those are things. And yes, in the long run, non-ghettoised third-world immigrants are a plus, just like anyone with intellectual and economic potential; i.e. any other human being.

Both are systems of belief. I don’t see how the fact that Islam happens to also involve a deity matters.

And it’s no coincidence that such “widespread” support only exists in poor countries (and for the same reason, amongst poor people in rich countries).

No, I’m not, because there’s no denying that such things are sanctioned in the Qu’ran and I am not trying to apologise for the contents of a scripture by which I do not abide. I’m an anti-theist, for non-existent-God’s sake. But the contents of a certain religion’s holy book do not determine the behaviour of its adherents, as the majority of Muslims, Christians and Jews demonstrate. As always, concrete social forces determine how people behave, not ideas and abstractions. Which is why there is such a strong correlation between disconnect and poverty and religious extremism, and between financially motivated invasions and religious justification.

How many generalisations will you make before you realise how ridiculous you sound?

You know where else almost a third of girls are married off – to sexual partners – as children? Latin America, the world’s most Christian continent.
Scripture and practice are often wildly divergent.

Where in Allah’s name did you get that from?
Ghettoisation and social disconnect is caused by governmental mismanagement of housing, welfare, education and job search services, such as in Courcouronnes. It’s caused by governments’ usual favourite pastime of screwing poor people (and inmates of the education system) over, except that it disproportionately affects poorer and newer immigrants by dumping them in the national wasteland for them to become so alienated from the rest of society that they turn to religion and to what they think is a faithful interpretation of their religion.

I’ve only been talking about religions whose scriptures I’ve read and whose history I’m familiar with, which is why I haven’t mentioned, say, Taoism – I have no idea about that religion. And given the amount of violence in both the Old and New Testament…
Sure, there are specific Bible verses about peace, but the same applies to the Qu’ran. I mean, the word “Islam” literally means peace. That isn’t to say that Islam is a peaceful religion, but the same applies to every other religion.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Well, Buddhists have used their philosophy to justify blatant religion-based oppression and segregation in Myanmar and religion-driven civil war in Sri Lanka. And Hindus invaded much of India during its southward expansion, slaughtering people, forcing conversions and subjugating Sikhs, Muslims and followers of various indigenous religions. More recently, there were some destructive Hindu nationalist riots in Gujarat where non-Hindus were targeted, and the now-ruling BJP – a strongly Hindu outfit with support amongst the Brahmins – was silent.

I was not saying that the teachings were never followed by anyone. I was saying that religious cherry-picking is context-dependent.

Now who’s pointing at an objectionable act by someone that claims X faith as teachings of X faith without bothering to look more closely?

So the Völkerwanderung (whatever that’s called in English), all the migration to Early Modern Europe and the post-WWII displacement and consequent migration never happened?
Funnily enough, all of these instances of migration greatly aided Europe’s cultural development.

Once again, that is not what I was saying. European migration is not justified because it is integral, but because it’s integral, it’s not some sort of menace that threatens Europe’s “ethnocultural existence.”

Oh look, another ad hominem.

Well, slavery was appropriate (I’m a moral nihilist) during a certain economic epoch. But that epoch is over.
By your logic, everyone who wants economic growth is just “appealing to greed.”

Actually, a fair amount of refugees from Syria etc. are professionals. IQ is also complete and utter tosh.

Because an arbitrary test based on a stupid bourgeois desire to standardise everyone totally has an impact on reproductive rates. Binet is rolling in his (*)(*)(*)(*)ing grave right now.

Europe and the US already had a demographic problem: birth rates were too low, and there were too many senior citizens and not enough people to provide for them. Immigration is easing this burden. In fact, immigration is the reason why people don’t really worry about it in Germany anymore.

Yeah, no. That’s not how cultural assimilation works.

How are Arabs “different types of life” from Europeans? Are people from the Far East another “type of life”?
Literally the whole of human history is based around humans moving from their original habitat and migrating to other parts of the world with different climates and ecosystems. If your argument is correct, humans would never have flourished outside of Africa.

The reason I repeated the word “phobic” in that instance was to show why your attitude - painting Muslims as some sort of cultural predator – is reminiscent of phobia.

It was a comfortable home until the last couple of centuries (and the SE Asian Muslim countries are still pretty comfortable). It isn’t as though destructive sectarian violence is exclusively Muslim: it existed between Catholics and Protestants across much of 17th century Europe, and more recently between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans.

Because that’s what your attitude makes us think of.

When did I say that?
If you want my family story, we emigrated to Uganda and Kenya from the northern regions of the subcontinent in the mid 20th century and were subsequently forced out by the resident dictators, who also expropriated our wealth. Some of us managed to get European passports. If we hadn’t, we would literally have been stateless.

But that’s irrelevant.

It’s not “my agenda”; I’m far from ideologically close to Enlightenment thought. But all this dross about “backward cultures” and “national sovereignty” stems from pre-Enlightenment nationalism which has now been sublated and discarded.

A symbolic teaching which teaches that every non-Christian is condemned to suffering and burning in Hell for all eternity, by a supposedly omnibenevolent God. Yeah, reeeally peaceful.
You know what the Qu’ran also says?
“There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Qu’ran 2:256)
Muslims are just as capable of cherry-picking the “nice” parts of the Qu’ran as Christians are capable of ignoring all the plunder, pillage and murder of non-Israelites in the OT despite Jesus affirming multiple times that all scripture is true and invoking the OT. And many Muslims have done so.

Such importation undeniably benefits the capitalist economy, and while I don’t particularly care, advocates of capitalism should.

Were Jesus and the disciplines innovative? The “original Muslims” aren’t the only Muslims ever to have existed.

Yawn, already addressed…

The arguments I’ve been making have nothing to do with my personal life, and it’s pretty intellectually dishonest of you to drag my situation into this and take every opportunity to imply that my entire argument is based on it. It would be a lot more productive if we could discuss without personal references.

Addressed. And once again, I am not a Muslim.