Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if the refugees aren't muslims?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by -Lauri- View Post

    Yes, that's the point. Groups that have more women are usually not genuine refugees.
    You make no sense, the groups with women are from Macedonia and Serbia- two countries where's no war at all, so naturally they won't get asylum. That should be clear.
    So it's mostly males, women are left in their countries. In the camps for genuine refugees in Lebanon there's more or less 50%-50% but to Europe mostly men go.
    74% vs 26% is a BIG difference in case of Syria (similar with Afganistan). Not to mention the number of Pakistani males...

    Besides that strange illogical theory of yours wouldn't work because Pakistanis have 93% males and not many get asylum.

    Comment


    • Even in Bautzen groups of 80 Neonazis don't just randomly hang around by chance.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Moreorless View Post
        You make no sense, the groups with women are from Macedonia and Serbia- two countries where's no war at all, so naturally they won't get asylum.
        Those aren't exceptions but the rule, as far as I can see there's not one single group with many women that is more often than not granted refugee status. The groups that are granted refugee status - Syrians, Iraqis, Eritreans - are all predominantly male. This is not to say that all men are refugees, I don't know where you got that idea, but that all genuine refugee groups are predominantly male.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post

          removal of rather meaningless "ism" rant. Poster trying to bluff here with technical jargon he himself doesn't understand which in any case is rather meaningless in the context.

          I dont interpret Quran and Hadiths however i want. I understand them however they're given to us. In the same way they are. I believe Quran and Hadiths dont need interpretation from anyone. That's one of the reasons why Islam has no religious leader today.
          "don't need interpretation".. that's true actually but tawriya on your part. The parts calling on Muslims to enslave, murder nonMuslims who "refute the invitation to Islam" or to beat a disobedient wife are very clearly written in the Quran.

          For that matter, highly homoerotic encounters between Muhammad and other men are clearly written about in much detail in the Hadiths. It doesn't need interpretation at all - they're all about two men doing very gay things, one of them each time happening to be Muhammad himself.

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          I didnt say majority of Islamic scholars are idiots, i've said i dont need interpretation of my religion from someone else, scholars, Islamophobes, fascists, ignorants. Quran is the answer.
          Quran is the answer - for someone with a criminal mentality who needs a text that can con people.

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          Nope, none of those things are inspired by Quran and Islamic practice. You're lying, or you dont know Quran at all. Choose one.
          So, where is the poster lying boy? You have a history of making accusations of lying without providing support for the accusation

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          Ataturk's wife herself wore it. It was banned in institutions. It has never been banned in public places like beach. (it has its own topic on News Channel go find it if you want to discuss Ataturk's practices)
          Not after Ataturk banned wearing it. Stop lying and deceiving. In any case she was only his wife for a very short time, After, they soon divorced and she became his ex-wife.

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          However, Islamophobia isnt only ''fear of Islam''. It's hostility towards muslims and Islam by its all definitions. Those bans were in 1900s, not in 21st century, on the other hand europe is getting backward on bringing such bans today.
          Now you are changing the English language

          Repeat after me boy "a phobia is an irrational fear of something"... say it again boy... "a phobia is an irrational fear of something".

          Stop abusing the English language like a little peasant boy.

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The term was coined in the context of Muslims in the UK in particular and Europe in general, and formulated based on the more common "xenophobia" framework.

          The report pointed to prevailing attitudes that incorporate the following beliefs:
          • Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
          • Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
          • Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
          • Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
          • Islam is a violent political ideology.
          http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/isla...g-islamophobia
          Going through one by one each of Berkeley's "definition" yet again...

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          there are signs: The report pointed to prevailing attitudes that incorporate the following beliefs:
          The report does not properly separate out bigotry against Muslims (which is actually a defined problem!) from the ideology and dogma of Islam. As such, it is intellectual trash.

          In this regard, it is the same as the Runnymeade Trust's definition. I went through it point by point here:

          http://forum.interpals.net/forum/int...91#post2777991

          The fact that they address Islam as a political ideology without any real reference to Muslims shows conclusively that all this "concern" about "a phobia towards Islam" is all about cynical political plays.

          In any case, for fun, lets go through each of Berkeley's definition points for "Islamophobia". Many of them essentially paraphrase what Runnymeade Trust wrote anyway. I'll use some of the text from the above post in my response:

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities.
          It mainly is - all Muslims are supposed to believe the dogma of the Quran and just about all Muslims are supposed to follows the Hadiths. There are no new revelations in Islam to fix up Muhammad's multitude of mistakes such as being a peadophile or offering cousin marriage as a good example.

          Islam has extreme difficulties adapting to new realities - its claim to being the final revealed truth makes it virtually impossible for something better to come along to fix up the multitude of Muhammad's mistakes.

          Of course Islamic apologists will try to twist and weave in order to deny things such as the Quran declaring the Earth to be flat - but that is not real adaptation, merely sweeping under the carpet the fact that Islam's dogmatic statements no longer hold true on the basis of new evidence which Muhammad did not know.

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          Islam does not share common values with other major faiths.
          Islam does not share one single vital value in common with all other major faiths - it does not adhere to the Golden rule.

          It does however share the attribute of preferential treatment of its membership to the exclusion of others like any other good cult. It also does like to exert itself on other groups. Also like many other faiths, it goes aggressively after new membership.

          That it shares so many attributes with other faiths and cults makes it indeed a legitimate target for criticism.

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
          If you consider an ideology that promotes the beating of women, cousin marriage, peadophilia, Female Genital Mutilation, rape, slavery and a host of other things as being inferior to the West, then the first part of that statement is incorrect.

          However, for the bulk of non-Islamic humanity, these are barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
          It is. Muhammad was a bandit and a warlord who used terrorism and violence to achieve his political and "economic" aims of conquering and looting.

          Musims are required to follow such an ideology where appropriate because, after all, Muhammad was "rasool" Muhammad - the perfect man and the Quran explicitly instructs Muslims to follow his sunnah (example).

          Thankfully most labeled "Muslim" don't follow everything that Muhammad did, either out of ignorance or because at their inner core they are moral people.

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          Islam is a violent political ideology.
          Let me repeat it: Muhammad was a bandit and a warlord who used terrorism and violence to achieve his political and "economic" aims of conquering and looting.

          Hence Muslims should be using such tactics as appropriate since this was Muhammad's sunnah. You need no further look than Syria to see it in action. ISIS, the Taliban and Al Qaeda apply it with no holds barred. Even "moderate" Islamic groups such as Muslim Brotherhood apply violent methods in order to achieve their aims - suicide bombings come immediately to mind.


          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          Islamophobia is prejudice towards or discrimination against Muslims due to their religion, or perceived religious, national, or ethnic identity associated with Islam.

          http://bridge.georgetown.edu/what-is-islamophobia/
          More bullshit inconsistent definition. So we go from Runnymeade Trust and Berkeley talking about "Islamophobia" exclusively regarding Islam then suddenly you are jumping to Muslims. What an excellent demonstration you have given that the term "Islamophobia" is such a load of shit!!!!

          I find it rather amusing in this light that you are equating Islam and Muslims especially when Islamic apologists whenever Muslims do things in the name of Islam such as blow up scores of civilians in suicide attacks moan and groan "Muslims are not Islam!".

          Islam really is a cult if members are offended by criticism of Islam.

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          All dictionaries define it such, you cannot change definitions of terms in dictionaries or Quran with your own interpretation, only terrorists do that as you know... They twist, change terms for their own way. Islamophobia is always defined as: Hatred of muslims, hostility towards muslims, discrimination against muslims, prejudice against muslims.
          All empty verbal masturbation with no evidence to back up your assertions as usual... seems you love postmodernism and its way of doing things. Why are you becoming like that? Love of Lauri?

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          Islamophobic vermins always pick stories of terrorists, who make only 1% or 2% of entire muslim population, to generalize ALL muslims that's 98-99%, who arent involved in terrorism.
          What can be said when a negligible few of those "98%" criticise those "2%" who are terrorists? Cultists protecting other cult members?

          Originally posted by BosphorusTaurus View Post
          Back to question... What if the refugees aren't muslims?
          I've already answered that before but you are not inclined to read posts so here it is again:



          Hint: there are far more women and children among nonMuslim refugees than among Muslim "refugees". Care to explain why?

          Comment


          • You were just proven that groups with many women and children applying for asylum in Europe are practically never genuine refugees.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Moreorless View Post

              You make no sense, the groups with women are from Macedonia and Serbia- two countries where's no war at all, so naturally they won't get asylum. That should be clear.
              So it's mostly males, women are left in their countries. In the camps for genuine refugees in Lebanon there's more or less 50%-50% but to Europe mostly men go.
              74% vs 26% is a BIG difference in case of Syria (similar with Afganistan). Not to mention the number of Pakistani males...

              Besides that strange illogical theory of yours wouldn't work because Pakistanis have 93% males and not many get asylum.
              Lauri does get confused.. claiming that "refugees because they are mainly male".

              What is even more interesting is looking at the proportions of males in different age groups seeking asylum. From the ages of 0-13 and 65 and older, you are getting roughly the proportion of males from each group as per a normal demographic sample. Now, for other groups it is almost 80% or even more than 80%!!!!!!



              http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...lum_statistics

              Comment


              • The statistics are not confusing at all, countries with the highest rates of recognition (%) in Europe and their demographic breakdown (ages 0-17, 18-34, 35+ male/female):

                99 Syria (18, 39, 14 / 12, 11, 6)
                94 Eritrea (18, 46, 6 / 8, 19, 2)
                73 Iraq (16, 47, 13 / 10, 10, 5)
                63 Somalia (22, 41, 5 / 10, 17, 4)
                57 Afghanistan (38, 38, 5 / 9, 7, 3)
                53 Iran (10, 50, 14 / 6, 13, 7)

                As you can see all genuine refugee groups are over 2/3 male, and the majority consists of men under 35 years old.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by -Lauri- View Post

                  Those aren't exceptions but the rule, as far as I can see there's not one single group with many women that is more often than not granted refugee status. The groups that are granted refugee status - Syrians, Iraqis, Eritreans - are all predominantly male. This is not to say that all men are refugees, I don't know where you got that idea, but that all genuine refugee groups are predominantly male.
                  You still don't get it, do you? Refugees coming to Europe are predominantly young men. They leave the women in their poor countries to seek better life in much wealthier and developed Europe themselves, they don't really care about their women...which is nothing strange in the islamic world. I'm not saying that men don't deserve to get help, but come on! 74% among Syrians (similar with Afgans) are men ! That's a significant difference!! While in the genuine camps near Syria there's 50%-50%... That alone should make you more suspicious, but still Europe should welcome everybody
                  Plus, like I already said your theory is shit because Pakistanis have more than 90% males and not many get asylum. You claimed that only countries with more women don't get it.

                  Comment


                  • What I said was that there are no significant groups of genuine refugees with many women and children arriving to Europe. As I also stated, this does not mean that all men would be refugees. That all large groups of genuine refugees consist mostly of young men has mostly to do with the adversity that they have to overcome to get to Europe.

                    Now, if you wish to suggest that the solution is to try to drag more children over the Mediterranean, then that's about as heartless as it gets. If you want proportionally more women and children then you will have to make coming to Europe significantly easier instead of making it harder, currently the hurdles are such that mostly just young, able men can make it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by -Lauri- View Post
                      The statistics are not confusing at all, countries with the highest rates of recognition (%) in Europe and their demographic breakdown (ages 0-17, 18-34, 35+ male/female):

                      99 Syria (18, 39, 14 / 12, 11, 6)
                      94 Eritrea (18, 46, 6 / 8, 19, 2)
                      73 Iraq (16, 47, 13 / 10, 10, 5)
                      63 Somalia (22, 41, 5 / 10, 17, 4)
                      57 Afghanistan (38, 38, 5 / 9, 7, 3)
                      53 Iran (10, 50, 14 / 6, 13, 7)

                      As you can see all genuine refugee groups are over 2/3 male, and the majority consists of men under 35 years old.
                      You're only talking about "granted refugee status" - that it is predominately young and male leaves me asking questions regarding what has happened to the truly most vulnerable - women and children.

                      That the young male flees while leaving behind vulnerable women and children seems to me to suggest that where those "refugees" happened to have fled from isn't as bad as they make out.

                      In short - "fleeing" young males are generally merely economic migrants, not refugees.

                      Perhaps those in Europe dealing with refugees should be using more common sense and less reliance on pseudo-intellectual theories about why things happen such as postmodernism and its bastard child postcolonialism.

                      Comment


                      • We're talking about people that have already been granted a refugee status after individual examination by European authorities. They're literally genuine refugees, legally recognized as such by the European governments.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by -Lauri- View Post
                          What I said was that there are no significant groups of genuine refugees with many women and children arriving to Europe. As I also stated, this does not mean that all men would be refugees. That all large groups of genuine refugees consist mostly of young men has mostly to do with the adversity that they have to overcome to get to Europe.
                          Bullshit. The really hard part of being a genuine refugee is extracting yourself from the situation where you are literally getting shot at and you can be captured, raped, beaten or shot and your body thrown in mass graves. The other stuff is relatively easy. The ones sitting in refugee camps in places like Lebanon and Jordan have most likely gone through that. Interesting how they tend to be substantially demographically representative of the general population.

                          For the ones after that, probably the most "dangerous" part is getting your fake or stolen Syrian passport accepted when you speak Arabic with an obvious Algerian accent.

                          Originally posted by -Lauri- View Post
                          Now, if you wish to suggest that the solution is to try to drag more children over the Mediterranean, then that's about as heartless as it gets. If you want proportionally more women and children then you will have to make coming to Europe significantly easier instead of making it harder, currently the hurdles are such that mostly just young, able men can make it.
                          Why invest a few thousand putting a woman or child on a boat when you can go there by yourself, get refugee status then go on welfare, save up then fly each one over for less than $1000. Makes better economic sense. A few thousand dollars is a few years earnings in many of these places.

                          But you have a point about it being relatively more dangerous for women and children to go across the Mediterranean I must admit. If the ship gets into trouble, the Muslim brothers on the boat are most likely to throw overboard firstly the non-Muslims. If the boat continues to sink, then over go the women and the children - for after all a man is worth two women in Islam.

                          Comment


                          • One can see that you're used to seeing children only as toys. No, crossing the Mediterranean in a raft and half a continent by foot is not something suitable for them.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by -Lauri- View Post
                              One can see that you're used to seeing children only as toys. No, crossing the Mediterranean in a raft and half a continent by foot is not something suitable for them.
                              Ummmm no, not toys. I'm not an islamist. I find it rather disturbing that children are left to rot in places like Aleppo and used as human shields by Islamists while young males head off to the green pastures of Germany

                              Not easy.. but if you are fleeing genuine persecution, you do what is needed.

                              The hundreds of km walks have already been done by Syrian women and children... The males who have made Turkey tend to take transport like buses and trains into Europe.

                              Comment


                              • If you will make it possible for refugees to come to Europe simply by taking a bus from Turkey then I can guarantee that you will get more women and children too. But that's a few million refugees more, some here seem to have a big problem with it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X